HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Justice Sonia Sotomayor C...

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:01 PM

Justice Sonia Sotomayor Corrects Justice John Roberts on Obamacare, "That’s a falsehood.”

'During oral arguments this ((last)) week in Zubik v. Burwell — a set of seven challenges to Obamacare’s contraceptive-coverage mandate on behalf of religious nonprofits — Chief Justice John Roberts and his colleagues on the court’s conservative wing gave the impression that they don’t really grasp what the ACA’s health insurance exchanges do, or indeed how the market for health insurance itself even functions.

During a back-and-forth in the courtroom about women whose employers don’t cover contraception, and the subsequent lengths they must go to get it, Roberts suggested that it’s not actually a big deal if women in such situations have to get their birth control covered some other way. Justices Anthony Kennedy and Samuel Alito appeared to share the same belief.

“They’re on the exchanges, right?” Roberts said, implying that women without access to contraception from their religious employers can just sign up to receive it through the federal insurance exchanges instead.

For Justice Sonia Sotomayor, this seemed to be the last straw.

“They’re not on the exchanges,” she said. “That’s a falsehood.”

Sotomayor went on to explain to Roberts — and anyone else who needed to hear it — how exactly the exchanges work.

“The exchanges require full-­service health insurance policies with minimum coverages that are set forth that are very comprehensive,” she said.'

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/03/25/1505944/-Justice-Sonia-Sotomayor-Corrects-Justice-John-Roberts-on-Obamacare-That-s-a-falsehood?

46 replies, 6128 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 46 replies Author Time Post
Reply Justice Sonia Sotomayor Corrects Justice John Roberts on Obamacare, "That’s a falsehood.” (Original post)
elleng Mar 2016 OP
saturnsring Mar 2016 #1
KamaAina Mar 2016 #2
gratuitous Mar 2016 #3
elleng Mar 2016 #5
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #26
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2016 #23
PatrynXX Mar 2016 #42
procon Mar 2016 #4
elleng Mar 2016 #6
SharonAnn Mar 2016 #19
dmr Mar 2016 #9
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Mar 2016 #17
Jackie Wilson Said Mar 2016 #27
Spitfire of ATJ Mar 2016 #24
Lordquinton Mar 2016 #35
eShirl Mar 2016 #7
elleng Mar 2016 #8
Jitter65 Mar 2016 #11
Divernan Mar 2016 #13
StevieM Mar 2016 #10
greymouse Mar 2016 #15
StevieM Mar 2016 #22
lastone Mar 2016 #12
mahannah Mar 2016 #45
mountain grammy Mar 2016 #14
TryLogic Mar 2016 #16
FailureToCommunicate Mar 2016 #33
Kensan Mar 2016 #39
annabanana Mar 2016 #46
LiberalArkie Mar 2016 #18
LittleGirl Mar 2016 #43
bettyellen Mar 2016 #20
Dont call me Shirley Mar 2016 #21
benld74 Mar 2016 #25
zentrum Mar 2016 #28
lpbk2713 Mar 2016 #29
zentrum Mar 2016 #30
FighttheFuture Mar 2016 #31
kristopher Mar 2016 #32
SHRED Mar 2016 #34
jwirr Mar 2016 #36
TeamPooka Mar 2016 #37
Proud Liberal Dem Mar 2016 #38
Mc Mike Mar 2016 #40
closeupready Mar 2016 #41
MrMickeysMom Mar 2016 #44

Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:06 PM

1. highly-educated idiot

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:07 PM

2. Loves me some Sonia!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:25 PM

3. And these guys are going to rule on the case

Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Alito all appear to have missed this crucial point in Zubik: Women can't just go out and buy riders or supplements to their health insurance for ladyparts because those riders don't exist.

It's a good thing Justice Sotomayor pointed this out, because I could just see another snappy Supreme Court opinion based on a patent falsehood such as racism is no longer an issue in the United States, or money has no corrupting influence on our political process.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:28 PM

5. I suspect/hope her words will encourage them all to learn about the program

before they decide, especially now that his/their ignorance has been aired.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #5)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:27 PM

26. Uh



Yeah, that would require them giving a shit about women, or the poor, or anybody for that matter.

But I suspect that was your point, anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #3)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:24 PM

23. Conservatives believe people can decide to not work and go to the "Welfare Office" for free money...

 

So of course these women can get free stuff if they just swallow their pride and go stand in line for an hour to get a form that's 30 pages long and then take a number and fill out the form while they wait for another three hours for their number to be called.

They also believe there is no such thing as hungry children or homeless vets.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gratuitous (Reply #3)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:14 PM

42. and thats why we have more than one person on a court

to point things out . Agree or disagree with her Thats a good Justice there

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:27 PM

4. Another good reason to have more women on the court.

Why are women's issues, in as much as they are also matters of equal rights, civil rights, and human rights, unimportant to male justices?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:29 PM

6. They're not unimportant,

and this discussion will shed more light on such issues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #6)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:33 PM

19. They are often unimportant "to male justices".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:34 PM

9. I agree. Diversity has a high and strong value.

The more diverse we are, the more we learn, and all the more happier we can be.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:22 PM

17. They are unimportant to conservative male justices

I doubt Stephen Breyer is going to get this wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ProudToBeBlueInRhody (Reply #17)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:28 PM

27. Thank you for making the argument that NO MATTER WHAT #VoteBlueNoMatterWho applies

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:25 PM

24. They're terrified that their money is going to pay for poor people's fucking.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to procon (Reply #4)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:00 PM

35. I agree with Ginsberg

9 seems like a good number of women on the court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:31 PM

7. FFS, they need to start doing their homework

how much are they getting paid per year?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eShirl (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:32 PM

8. They will, I'm sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to eShirl (Reply #7)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:52 PM

11. They have clerks. No excuse for them not knowing. They just don't give a damn and are mostly

 

insensitive to women's issues...they and their clerks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jitter65 (Reply #11)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:09 PM

13. I clerked for a 3rd Circuit judge.

Last edited Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:24 PM - Edit history (1)

He knew which way he wanted to rule and did not take it kindly when I included in a draft I wrote for him, precedents which went against his POV.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 05:49 PM

10. Sonia Sotomayer is IMO the best appointment to the Supreme Court in the last 60 years,

since William Brennan was placed on the court.

Obama absolutely hit it out of the park when he nominated her.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to StevieM (Reply #10)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:18 PM

15. excuse me, RBG?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greymouse (Reply #15)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:51 PM

22. I said "IMO." It's just my opinion. I agree that Ruth Bader Ginsberg is a great Justice.

But we all have our own favorites, for whatever the reason.

I like a whole lot about Sotomayer. I especially love the way she stood up for the Indian Child Welfare Act.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:05 PM

12. how on earth can these fking idiots not know this?

 

I'll tell you, they live in the same bubble other very wealthy people live in. If it doesn't PERSONALLY affect them they have no use for knowing anything about it, of course these people are PAID FOR LIFE to know these things but... so frustrating to know the caliber of the supremes...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastone (Reply #12)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:29 PM

45. They know, they just don't give a shit.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:10 PM

14. They have no fucking clue, those 4 morons..

hooray for Justice Sotomayor! Learn something, Roberts, you creep!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:22 PM

16. Scalia must have been intimidating because the non-conservative justices seem to be more

more outspoken with him not there to intimidate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TryLogic (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:46 PM

33. "them"

Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TryLogic (Reply #16)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 10:31 PM

39. It wasn't so much intimidation...

Scalia reveled in being the asshole. Similar to someone's point above, the conservative Justices already knew how they would vote on a particular case. Scalia had a knack for being able to come up with the written opinions to justify their pre-conceived verdicts. He could be the authority figure that allowed the others to hide behind his robe. He loved the attention, and took delight in pissing off people who held opposing political/social viewpoints.

Now that Scalia's not there, it appears no one wants to be the public face for "assholery." Thank heaven there will soon be a sea-change on the USSC. We are in desperate need of a more modern and compassionate Court for at least a generation or two. No more bull feces about original textualists.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to TryLogic (Reply #16)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:59 PM

46. Scalia was of the "I don't have to convince them if I can shut them up" school . . . .n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:28 PM

18. They have never been in a position of not having medical insurance and trying to afford it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LiberalArkie (Reply #18)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 01:55 PM

43. Bingo eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:37 PM

20. Go Sonia!

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 06:40 PM

21. So we've got some uneducmacated Supreme Justices! Ladies let's educate them, flood them

with letters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:26 PM

25. SOTUS males don't read what they don't use

Nor don't care about.

Kick em to the curb Justice SS!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:30 PM

28. Why don't the plebeians

…just eat cake and stop bothering us, is what he meant.

On the other hand Sotomayer's phrase: "…policies with minimum coverages that are set forth that are very comprehensive", is hard to understand.

How can something "minimum" be at the same time "very comprehensive"?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:32 PM

29. "Mister Chief Justice, you're full of shit."




... if they weren't in court and on record.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:36 PM

30. Will never forget….

That glassy, frozen stare of his——always struck me as sociopathic

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:37 PM

31. Why aren't the Defending lawyers pointing this out?! I am glad Sotomayor did, but really?

 

Maybe it was not a place for a lawyer to do that at that point. SC Justices can be quite intimidating and no lawyer wants to piss off or lecture a judge, regardless of the venue.

Does anyone know better?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:43 PM

32. The HuffPo reference at KOS doesn't say what is alleged.

Nowhere in the article linked in DKos:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/supreme-court-contraceptive-nuns_us_56f287e7e4b0c3ef52173cee

I wonder if they deleted it?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 07:49 PM

34. Male Chauvinist Pigs

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:02 PM

36. What really upsets me is that these people do not know how

the system works. They should have to get off the case is that is the problem. Ignorance is not an excuse for the law - and that includes the ignorance of the SCOTUS.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:18 PM

37. #schooled nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Mon Mar 28, 2016, 08:32 PM

38. We *really* dodged a bullet with Roberts and the ACA!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 09:18 AM

40. The accomodation that Zubik is attacking now was actually USED to justify the 5-4 Hobby Lobby

decision by the 5 member conservative majority.

"The debate was important because it cut to the heart of what the conservative majority promised in their 2014 Hobby Lobby decision, the last Supreme Court challenge concerning Obamacare’s contraceptive regulations. The 5-4 decision saying certain for-profits didn't have to cover birth control pointed to the very accommodation for religious nonprofits that the nonprofits are objecting to now.

“The effect of the HHS-created accommodation on the women employed by Hobby Lobby and the other companies involved in these cases would be precisely zero,” Alito wrote then."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/scotus-zubik-healthcare


Now the same rightwing court members (minus Scalia) are lining up to mad-dog that accomodation with unknowledgeable pot shots. So they used it as an excuse for their abysmal Hobby Lobby decision, saying 'see, our ruling won't hurt anything, because there's this HHS accomodation'. Now that they rammed Hobby Lobby through with those specious arguments, they suddenly don't know why the accomodation should even exist. Apparently, in their mind, it existed only to justify their Hobby Lobby ruling.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 12:36 PM

41. I just LOVE her. K&R

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Original post)

Tue Mar 29, 2016, 02:27 PM

44. Erase that micro-brained Roberts' penis and replace it with a vagina, and he'll understand...

... What an embarrassment of the SC he is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread