The Fine Print

The Supreme Court upheld two different cases, but with reasoning that most pundits missed. The rulings are telling within the intended purpose of the Supreme Court, but also in the conservative, partisan justices that dissented in both the Obamacare case and the gerrymandering case in Arizona. The spirit of the law is the constitutionally accepted course for official legislation. Currently, republicans and conservatives that cannot accept laws that were officially passed by legislatures at both the state and federal level are attempting to thwart these laws by utilizing small grammatical errors in very small portions of the written laws to effectively strike them down based on technicalities. The dissenting justices have all written briefs and opinions exalting the constitutionality involved in the spirit of the law concept.

This prevents grammatical and spelling errors from circumventing the legislative process by considering what the writers intended instead of what grammatical errors may make it seem. As Mann knows well, the entire Supreme Court respects the spirit of the law, and it is also why all legal minds were stunned when the Supreme Court took the extraordinary step to circumvent lower court rulings and hear the Obamacare case based on four words within the entire law which is thousands of pages long. The Arizona case was also based on a very small group of words within thousands of pages. Had the frivolity prevailed, 7 million people would have lost their healthcare, and millions would have lost their voting rights.

United States: Supreme Court Divided On The Fate Of Health Insurance For All

For the second time in three years, the United States Supreme Court was divided on the survival of health insurance for all; one of the most important laws since the civil rights for blacks, President Obama wants to leave a legacy. In this highly politicized debate, the nine judges are logically divided according to their partisan preferences, as in 2012; the Conservative chairman of the High Court John Roberts should make a difference. In this “saga that never ends,” as noted by Justice Elena Kagan, the actors are the same: the Democrat government, defended by its lawyer Donald Verrilli, facing four complainants to the Republican state of Virginia represented by the charismatic Michael Carvin.

The stakes are high, as the highest court in the country is likely to shoot down one of the pillars of the law known as “Obamacare”, which would inevitably lead to see the whole edifice collapse. Jaime Garcia Dias ( has learned that, since the spring of 2012, the four progressive judges showed a strong support for the landmark legislation of the Democratic president. Experts say, Justice Anthony Kennedy could vote on it for one side or the other.
Since the entry into force of the law in January 2014, the Americans can take out their private health cover in their State. But the 50 states, 34 in Republican majority, refused to adopt a “clearing exchanges” that put the insurance companies in competition.