Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
If the fine is 2.5% of income or $695 after 2016, won't it be more cost effective to just pay the fine and then get insurance when you get sick since they can't deny you for preexisting conditions?
Or is reasonable health insurance going to really be less than $700 a year when everything goes into effect?
Or is reasonable health insurance going to really be less than $700 a year when everything goes into effect?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Spokker']If the fine is 2.5% of income or $695 after 2016[/QUOTE]
the lesser or greater of?
the lesser or greater of?
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Pliskin101']Yep it's a great day. Obama will NOT be re-elected.
Our government will spend millions of dollars and hours repealing this stupid ass shit. More wasted time and money. I am so happy
. The economy sucks and yet there are more taxes to pay and more political BS like this for our government to waste its time and money on fixing.
So woohoo Obama will lose the election but boo as it will take valuable time, effort and money to do away with the monumental stupidity and recklessness of Obama.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Obama will lose the election, but I think the slim chances of the Democrats regaining control of the House and a plurality in the Senate just went jumping out the window of a 30-story* building. You're right in that it rallies the Republican base as well as any anti-Obamacare mantra that's out there but would probably remain on the sidelines before this. This just means another 4 years of gridlock. Good thing it starts with a tax increase on January 1st
. That'll make things just peachy.
I don't like the ruling because it's clear judicial activism. Changing the bill from the bench is what was done here, and that's a serious problem. I'm sure liberals would feel the same way if something like this happened to them. But I fully expect a 'well it didn't, SNAR SNAR SNAR' reply now, but it will come back around to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
* - Sorry to ask this, but I always feel I get the spelling wrong here in this context. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Thanks.
Our government will spend millions of dollars and hours repealing this stupid ass shit. More wasted time and money. I am so happy
. The economy sucks and yet there are more taxes to pay and more political BS like this for our government to waste its time and money on fixing. So woohoo Obama will lose the election but boo as it will take valuable time, effort and money to do away with the monumental stupidity and recklessness of Obama.[/QUOTE]
I don't think Obama will lose the election, but I think the slim chances of the Democrats regaining control of the House and a plurality in the Senate just went jumping out the window of a 30-story* building. You're right in that it rallies the Republican base as well as any anti-Obamacare mantra that's out there but would probably remain on the sidelines before this. This just means another 4 years of gridlock. Good thing it starts with a tax increase on January 1st
tax cuts sun-setting is the equivalent to a tax cut, deal with it
I don't like the ruling because it's clear judicial activism. Changing the bill from the bench is what was done here, and that's a serious problem. I'm sure liberals would feel the same way if something like this happened to them. But I fully expect a 'well it didn't, SNAR SNAR SNAR' reply now, but it will come back around to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
* - Sorry to ask this, but I always feel I get the spelling wrong here in this context. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Thanks.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='KingBroly']I don't think Obama will lose the election, but I think the slim chances of the Democrats regaining control of the House and a plurality in the Senate just went jumping out the window of a 30-story* building. You're right in that it rallies the Republican base as well as any anti-Obamacare mantra that's out there but would probably remain on the sidelines before this. This just means another 4 years of gridlock. Good thing it starts with a tax increase on January 1st
. That'll make things just peachy.
I don't like the ruling because it's clear judicial activism. Changing the bill from the bench is what was done here, and that's a serious problem. I'm sure liberals would feel the same way if something like this happened to them. But I fully expect a 'well it didn't, SNAR SNAR SNAR' reply now, but it will come back around to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
* - Sorry to ask this, but I always feel I get the spelling wrong here in this context. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Well said. I hear you on the judicial activism. I see it as a major problem with this government along with campaign funding and or now super pacs. As far as government reform I see those as a couple biggies.
The gridlock will surely happen and many provisions set to expire will be postponed due to election season and then gridlocked and lost eventually. IE tax cuts unemployment extensions and more.
Fun times ahead.
tax cuts sun-setting is the equivalent to a tax cut, deal with it
I don't like the ruling because it's clear judicial activism. Changing the bill from the bench is what was done here, and that's a serious problem. I'm sure liberals would feel the same way if something like this happened to them. But I fully expect a 'well it didn't, SNAR SNAR SNAR' reply now, but it will come back around to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
* - Sorry to ask this, but I always feel I get the spelling wrong here in this context. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
Well said. I hear you on the judicial activism. I see it as a major problem with this government along with campaign funding and or now super pacs. As far as government reform I see those as a couple biggies.
The gridlock will surely happen and many provisions set to expire will be postponed due to election season and then gridlocked and lost eventually. IE tax cuts unemployment extensions and more.
Fun times ahead.
[quote name='Pliskin101']Yep it's a great day. Obama will NOT be re-elected.
Our government will spend millions of dollars and hours repealing this stupid ass shit. More wasted time and money. I am so happy. The economy sucks and yet there are more taxes to pay and more political BS like this for our government to waste its time and money on fixing.
So woohoo Obama will lose the election but boo as it will take valuable time, effort and money to do away with the monumental stupidity and recklessness of Obama.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about Obama losing the election. I think that it would have been much worse for his campaign if the Supreme Court had overturned the law.
Obama and the dems in the House and Senate were very clear about their goals to reform healthcare during the campaign, and the people voted for them. This wasn't some sort of stealth law that came out of nowhere.
Repealing the law is simply not a solution. The republicans need to do better than that if they expect to win elections based on healthcare.
Our government will spend millions of dollars and hours repealing this stupid ass shit. More wasted time and money. I am so happy
. The economy sucks and yet there are more taxes to pay and more political BS like this for our government to waste its time and money on fixing. So woohoo Obama will lose the election but boo as it will take valuable time, effort and money to do away with the monumental stupidity and recklessness of Obama.[/QUOTE]
I don't know about Obama losing the election. I think that it would have been much worse for his campaign if the Supreme Court had overturned the law.
Obama and the dems in the House and Senate were very clear about their goals to reform healthcare during the campaign, and the people voted for them. This wasn't some sort of stealth law that came out of nowhere.
Repealing the law is simply not a solution. The republicans need to do better than that if they expect to win elections based on healthcare.
Dr Mario Kart
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 6 (100%)
Mixed.
Its clearly constitutional - Its just bad policy. Marginally better than what we had before, sure. But at the end of the day it was bad when Republicans first came up with it 30 years ago and its still bad when the Democrats stole the idea.
It may further entrench us with a clearly broken and unsustainable system.
On yet another hand, we have a few states that will get single payer by 2014 or 2017, and put an end to the entire private, for-profit industry. ACA may be moot.
Its clearly constitutional - Its just bad policy. Marginally better than what we had before, sure. But at the end of the day it was bad when Republicans first came up with it 30 years ago and its still bad when the Democrats stole the idea.
It may further entrench us with a clearly broken and unsustainable system.
On yet another hand, we have a few states that will get single payer by 2014 or 2017, and put an end to the entire private, for-profit industry. ACA may be moot.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='chiwii']I don't know about Obama losing the election. I think that it would have been much worse for his campaign if the Supreme Court had overturned the law.
Obama and the dems in the House and Senate were very clear about their goals to reform healthcare during the campaign, and the people voted for them. This wasn't some sort of stealth law that came out of nowhere.
Repealing the law is simply not a solution. The republicans need to do better than that if they expect to win elections based on healthcare.[/QUOTE]
It was a fraud or if you like a bait and switch. Just in the last week or two I have seen replays multiple interviews and stump speeches from Obama saying this is not a tax and taxes will not be increased. While he argued just the opposite to the activist court.
This is a tax and raises taxes in many different areas. It is a monumental act of stupidity on the court and the obama administration. While yes if it was shot down by the court it might have had a greater outcome on swing votes but at the same time this too has a huge effect on voting as people are smart enough to see that the supreme court ruling is nothing more the activism and partisanship and that this plan is nothing but a lie and causes and will cause more harm than good to the bulk of American People, the economy and the quality and premiums of health care...just to mention a few. The problems are staggering. The mistakes monumental.
Obama and the dems in the House and Senate were very clear about their goals to reform healthcare during the campaign, and the people voted for them. This wasn't some sort of stealth law that came out of nowhere.
Repealing the law is simply not a solution. The republicans need to do better than that if they expect to win elections based on healthcare.[/QUOTE]
It was a fraud or if you like a bait and switch. Just in the last week or two I have seen replays multiple interviews and stump speeches from Obama saying this is not a tax and taxes will not be increased. While he argued just the opposite to the activist court.
This is a tax and raises taxes in many different areas. It is a monumental act of stupidity on the court and the obama administration. While yes if it was shot down by the court it might have had a greater outcome on swing votes but at the same time this too has a huge effect on voting as people are smart enough to see that the supreme court ruling is nothing more the activism and partisanship and that this plan is nothing but a lie and causes and will cause more harm than good to the bulk of American People, the economy and the quality and premiums of health care...just to mention a few. The problems are staggering. The mistakes monumental.
Last edited by a moderator:
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='Pliskin101']It was a fraud or if you like a bait and switch. Just in the last week or two I have seen replays multiple interviews and stump speeches from Obama saying this is not a tax and taxes will not be increased. While he argued just the opposite to the activist court.
This is a tax and raises taxes in many different areas. It is a monumental act of stupidity on the court and the obama administration. While yes if it was shot down by the court it might have had a greater outcome on swing votes but at the same time this too has a huge effect on voting as people are smart enough to see that the supreme court ruling is nothing more the activism and partisanship and that this plan is nothing but a lie and causes and will cause more harm than good to the bulk of American People, the economy and the quality and premiums of health care...just to mention a few. The problems are staggering. The mistakes monumental.[/QUOTE]
Funny, lefty activism in a conservative court. Why is it whenever the court makes a decision that conservatives don't like they scream and cry judicial activism, yet a conservative ruling like the Hossana Tabor makes them weak in the knees and sing the praises that they did the right thing?
This is a tax and raises taxes in many different areas. It is a monumental act of stupidity on the court and the obama administration. While yes if it was shot down by the court it might have had a greater outcome on swing votes but at the same time this too has a huge effect on voting as people are smart enough to see that the supreme court ruling is nothing more the activism and partisanship and that this plan is nothing but a lie and causes and will cause more harm than good to the bulk of American People, the economy and the quality and premiums of health care...just to mention a few. The problems are staggering. The mistakes monumental.[/QUOTE]
Funny, lefty activism in a conservative court. Why is it whenever the court makes a decision that conservatives don't like they scream and cry judicial activism, yet a conservative ruling like the Hossana Tabor makes them weak in the knees and sing the praises that they did the right thing?
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
Dohdough, come on man, no need to double post. Especially within minutes of each other. Poor form.
[quote name='cindersphere']Funny, lefty activism in a conservative court. Why is it whenever the court makes a decision that conservatives don't like they scream and cry judicial activism, yet a conservative ruling like the Hossana Tabor makes them weak in the knees and sing the praises that they did the right thing?[/QUOTE]
Activism is still activism, no matter how you slice it.
And as for people bitching about court decisions they didn't like, Bush v. Gore, 2000. You're still bitching about that one.
Well...maybe not anymore.
[quote name='cindersphere']Funny, lefty activism in a conservative court. Why is it whenever the court makes a decision that conservatives don't like they scream and cry judicial activism, yet a conservative ruling like the Hossana Tabor makes them weak in the knees and sing the praises that they did the right thing?[/QUOTE]
Activism is still activism, no matter how you slice it.
And as for people bitching about court decisions they didn't like, Bush v. Gore, 2000. You're still bitching about that one.
Well...maybe not anymore.
[quote name='KingBroly']Dohdough, come on man, no need to double post. Especially within minutes of each other. Poor form.[/quote]
If you can get past the forum restriction of 1 embedded video per post and show me how, I'll gladly delete one and edit the other one into the post that I originally wanted make. TIA!
Care to lecture bigdaddybruce on telling me to go kill myself as well? Or is that not "poor form" enough to you?
If you can get past the forum restriction of 1 embedded video per post and show me how, I'll gladly delete one and edit the other one into the post that I originally wanted make. TIA!
Care to lecture bigdaddybruce on telling me to go kill myself as well? Or is that not "poor form" enough to you?
ORLY? Wouldn't that mean that anything and everything that goes to the Supremes as being activist?
Blaster man
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 12 (100%)
[quote name='Clak']And from a conservative judge no less, Roberts was the deciding vote here.[/QUOTE]
There's nothing liberal about upholding the Constitution. Congress has the authority to tax and Roberts is upholding it.
The odd thing is that one day Republican's complain about activists judges then when Roberts says this is Constitutional, Republican's complain about not enough judicial activism. The Republican's had a chance to negotiate with the Democrats and instead stonewalled. Now all they have sour grapes.
There's nothing liberal about upholding the Constitution. Congress has the authority to tax and Roberts is upholding it.
The odd thing is that one day Republican's complain about activists judges then when Roberts says this is Constitutional, Republican's complain about not enough judicial activism. The Republican's had a chance to negotiate with the Democrats and instead stonewalled. Now all they have sour grapes.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']If you can get past the forum restriction of 1 embedded video per post and show me how, I'll gladly delete one and edit the other one into the post that I originally wanted make. TIA![/quote]
Well I'm sorry for that then. I was unaware you could only do 1 video embed per post. I thought you could do more than that.
I must've missed that. Telling people to off themselves isn't a good idea for many reasons. It makes you worse as a person not only here, but in the real world as well. Particularly if it was actually taken up on, then you're considered an instigator if they found out. Not only that, it will weigh on your soul forever that you did that. Airing on the side of caution is always a good idea.
I think you're asking the question wrong or I'm misunderstanding you. Just because the Supreme Court hears a case, it doesn't mean they have to rule on it (just like there was today). They hear what they want to hear. That's not considered being activist. Then again, you probably view judicial activism differently from me.
[/quote]Well I'm sorry for that then. I was unaware you could only do 1 video embed per post. I thought you could do more than that.
I must've missed that. Telling people to off themselves isn't a good idea for many reasons. It makes you worse as a person not only here, but in the real world as well. Particularly if it was actually taken up on, then you're considered an instigator if they found out. Not only that, it will weigh on your soul forever that you did that. Airing on the side of caution is always a good idea.
I think you're asking the question wrong or I'm misunderstanding you. Just because the Supreme Court hears a case, it doesn't mean they have to rule on it (just like there was today). They hear what they want to hear. That's not considered being activist. Then again, you probably view judicial activism differently from me.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='cindersphere']Funny, lefty activism in a conservative court. Why is it whenever the court makes a decision that conservatives don't like they scream and cry judicial activism, yet a conservative ruling like the Hossana Tabor makes them weak in the knees and sing the praises that they did the right thing?[/QUOTE]
I am not familiar with that case. Was it judicial activism? If so do two wrongs make it right?
As I said before I see the supreme court and judicial activism along with campaign reform being two of the biggies that need to be addressed and reformed.
[quote name='KingBroly']Well I'm sorry for that then. I was unaware you could only do 1 video embed per post. I thought you could do more than that.
[/QUOTE]
You can easily..
Just copy and paste the links....in one post. No brainer. *note I will edit it out after a bit. No need for it to stay.
It is quite obnoxious though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7juCtIGp8&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHBDW6tNcvo&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
I am not familiar with that case. Was it judicial activism? If so do two wrongs make it right?
As I said before I see the supreme court and judicial activism along with campaign reform being two of the biggies that need to be addressed and reformed.
[quote name='KingBroly']Well I'm sorry for that then. I was unaware you could only do 1 video embed per post. I thought you could do more than that.
[/QUOTE]
You can easily..
Just copy and paste the links....in one post. No brainer. *note I will edit it out after a bit. No need for it to stay.
It is quite obnoxious though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7juCtIGp8&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHBDW6tNcvo&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
Last edited:
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='KingBroly']Well I'm sorry for that then. I was unaware you could only do 1 video embed per post. I thought you could do more than that.
[/QUOTE]
You can easily..
Just copy and paste the links....in one post. No brainer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7juCtIGp8&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHBDW6tNcvo&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
[/QUOTE]
You can easily..
Just copy and paste the links....in one post. No brainer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh7juCtIGp8&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHBDW6tNcvo&feature=g-sptl&cid=inp-hs-noc
[quote name='Blaster man']There's nothing liberal about upholding the Constitution. Congress has the authority to tax and Roberts is upholding it.
The odd thing is that one day Republican's complain about activists judges then when Roberts says this is Constitutional, Republican's complain about not enough judicial activism. The Republican's had a chance to negotiate with the Democrats and instead stonewalled. Now all they have sour grapes.[/QUOTE]
That was a reply to cindi, don't know what kind of point you're trying to make, but ok. My point was that conservatives are bitching about this, yet one of their own was the deciding member of the court. It's not like they can rabble rabble about liberal activisit judges on this, no, not this time. I'm sure more than a few cons are feeling betrayed right about now.
The odd thing is that one day Republican's complain about activists judges then when Roberts says this is Constitutional, Republican's complain about not enough judicial activism. The Republican's had a chance to negotiate with the Democrats and instead stonewalled. Now all they have sour grapes.[/QUOTE]
That was a reply to cindi, don't know what kind of point you're trying to make, but ok. My point was that conservatives are bitching about this, yet one of their own was the deciding member of the court. It's not like they can rabble rabble about liberal activisit judges on this, no, not this time. I'm sure more than a few cons are feeling betrayed right about now.
[quote name='KingBroly']Well I'm sorry for that then. I was unaware you could only do 1 video embed per post. I thought you could do more than that.[/QUOTE]
I tried posting different links and in different browsers, but I couldn't get it to work. Weird that Pliskin was able to do it. I'll try it again.
edit: Holy shit it worked! Weird as hell that it didn't work the first time.
I tried posting different links and in different browsers, but I couldn't get it to work. Weird that Pliskin was able to do it. I'll try it again.
edit: Holy shit it worked! Weird as hell that it didn't work the first time.
I don't have any mental issues, so he can say whatever he wants; I've been called worse. I just don't like it when people try to claim some moral high ground as a rhetorical point when they don't say anything to people that punch way below the belt.
So if they rule on it, it's activist, but if they kick it down to the lower courts, it isn't? Is this how you're defining judicial activism?
[quote name='Pliskin101']It was a fraud or if you like a bait and switch. Just in the last week or two I have seen replays multiple interviews and stump speeches from Obama saying this is not a tax and taxes will not be increased. While he argued just the opposite to the activist court.
This is a tax and raises taxes in many different areas. It is a monumental act of stupidity on the court and the obama administration. While yes if it was shot down by the court it might have had a greater outcome on swing votes but at the same time this too has a huge effect on voting as people are smart enough to see that the supreme court ruling is nothing more the activism and partisanship and that this plan is nothing but a lie and causes and will cause more harm than good to the bulk of American People, the economy and the quality and premiums of health care...just to mention a few. The problems are staggering. The mistakes monumental.[/QUOTE]
So, is it a tax or not, in your opinion? If you agree that it is then how is the decision a "monumental act of stupidity" by the court?
The majority of the Supreme Court justices are conservative. This may be a partisan court, but I don't think this was a partisan decision.
I think the American people are smart enough to see that the current system is broken. This law isn't perfect, in fact I don't even think it is a good law, but it's better than what we had in the past. Based on what I know about the law, it focuses on access to health insurance. Everyone, regardless of income or health status, will have access to health insurance. Of course, because of the way insurance works, this requires that everyone buy health insurance when the mandate goes into effect, before they get sick, have an accident, whatever. It doesn't make sense to ensure access for everyone, but not require everyone to buy insurance. Most wouldn't buy insurance until they need care.
It would be nice if Congress and the President could move on to fixing other problems in the healthcare industry, but instead everyone had to sit around and wait while the lawyers fight it out in court. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see any attempts at further reform for a long time thanks to the republicans.
This is a tax and raises taxes in many different areas. It is a monumental act of stupidity on the court and the obama administration. While yes if it was shot down by the court it might have had a greater outcome on swing votes but at the same time this too has a huge effect on voting as people are smart enough to see that the supreme court ruling is nothing more the activism and partisanship and that this plan is nothing but a lie and causes and will cause more harm than good to the bulk of American People, the economy and the quality and premiums of health care...just to mention a few. The problems are staggering. The mistakes monumental.[/QUOTE]
So, is it a tax or not, in your opinion? If you agree that it is then how is the decision a "monumental act of stupidity" by the court?
The majority of the Supreme Court justices are conservative. This may be a partisan court, but I don't think this was a partisan decision.
I think the American people are smart enough to see that the current system is broken. This law isn't perfect, in fact I don't even think it is a good law, but it's better than what we had in the past. Based on what I know about the law, it focuses on access to health insurance. Everyone, regardless of income or health status, will have access to health insurance. Of course, because of the way insurance works, this requires that everyone buy health insurance when the mandate goes into effect, before they get sick, have an accident, whatever. It doesn't make sense to ensure access for everyone, but not require everyone to buy insurance. Most wouldn't buy insurance until they need care.
It would be nice if Congress and the President could move on to fixing other problems in the healthcare industry, but instead everyone had to sit around and wait while the lawyers fight it out in court. Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see any attempts at further reform for a long time thanks to the republicans.
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='KingBroly']
I think you're asking the question wrong or I'm misunderstanding you. Just because the Supreme Court hears a case, it doesn't mean they have to rule on it (just like there was today). They hear what they want to hear. That's not considered being activist. Then again, you probably view judicial activism differently from me.[/QUOTE]
They don't have to grant a writ of certiorari, but once it is granted they do need to rule on a case. Secondly, judicial activism is not simply making a contested decision, as you seem to imply. It is making decisions based more upon personal feelings than upon established law, which really didn't happen here all that much.
Here are the opinions btw if anybody want to read them, interesting read to say the least. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf
[quote name='KingBroly']
Activism is still activism, no matter how you slice it.
And as for people bitching about court decisions they didn't like, Bush v. Gore, 2000. You're still bitching about that one.
Well...maybe not anymore.[/QUOTE]
Never bitched about the decision, mainly because I was too young at the time and I don't feel like going back and reading all about it.
But more to the point, saying something is judicial activism doesn't make it so. One has to actually display it was activism, and that is the one thing that those against the law as it was decided can't do, at best they have been attacking a false version of the decision. But if you think you can, I invite you to explain why it was judicial activism.
I think you're asking the question wrong or I'm misunderstanding you. Just because the Supreme Court hears a case, it doesn't mean they have to rule on it (just like there was today). They hear what they want to hear. That's not considered being activist. Then again, you probably view judicial activism differently from me.[/QUOTE]
They don't have to grant a writ of certiorari, but once it is granted they do need to rule on a case. Secondly, judicial activism is not simply making a contested decision, as you seem to imply. It is making decisions based more upon personal feelings than upon established law, which really didn't happen here all that much.
Here are the opinions btw if anybody want to read them, interesting read to say the least. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/msnbc/Sections/NEWS/scotus_opinion_on_ACA_from_msnbc.com.pdf
[quote name='KingBroly']
Activism is still activism, no matter how you slice it.
And as for people bitching about court decisions they didn't like, Bush v. Gore, 2000. You're still bitching about that one.
Well...maybe not anymore.[/QUOTE]
Never bitched about the decision, mainly because I was too young at the time and I don't feel like going back and reading all about it.
But more to the point, saying something is judicial activism doesn't make it so. One has to actually display it was activism, and that is the one thing that those against the law as it was decided can't do, at best they have been attacking a false version of the decision. But if you think you can, I invite you to explain why it was judicial activism.
Last edited by a moderator:
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='chiwii'] Unfortunately, I don't think we'll see any attempts at further reform for a long time thanks to the republicans.[/QUOTE]
That is exactly what you will see THANKS to the republicans. Especially so when Romney is elected.
That is exactly what you will see THANKS to the republicans. Especially so when Romney is elected.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Pliskin101']It was a fraud or if you like a bait and switch. Just in the last week or two I have seen replays multiple interviews and stump speeches from Obama saying this is not a tax and taxes will not be increased. While he argued just the opposite to the activist court.[/quote]
That's some weak faux naive sauce right there, dude.
*******************NEWSFLASH*************
POLITICIANS WILL SOMETIMES CALL TAXES "FEES". THIS IS A LIE AND BAIT AND SWITCH AND FRAUD AND YOU ARE ALL SHEEPLE FOR NOT THROWING OFF YOUR SHACKLES.
There isn't. Even conservatives thought the day would be won on partisanship. A very tasty quote on the efficacy of the "argument" being put forth by the anti-ACA:
Whoops.
That's some weak faux naive sauce right there, dude.
*******************NEWSFLASH*************
POLITICIANS WILL SOMETIMES CALL TAXES "FEES". THIS IS A LIE AND BAIT AND SWITCH AND FRAUD AND YOU ARE ALL SHEEPLE FOR NOT THROWING OFF YOUR SHACKLES.
Wow. I see all the buzzwords: partisanship, activism, economy. I'm not seeing anything in the way of support for your argument.
There isn't. Even conservatives thought the day would be won on partisanship. A very tasty quote on the efficacy of the "argument" being put forth by the anti-ACA:
That was the solicitor general for Reagan saying that.
Whoops.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='dohdough']So if they rule on it, it's activist, but if they kick it down to the lower courts, it isn't? Is this how you're defining judicial activism?[/QUOTE]
Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.
Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='speedracer']That's some weak faux naive sauce right there, dude.
*******************NEWSFLASH*************
POLITICIANS WILL SOMETIMES CALL TAXES "FEES". THIS IS A LIE AND BAIT AND SWITCH AND FRAUD AND YOU ARE ALL SHEEPLE FOR NOT THROWING OFF YOUR SHACKLES.
Wow. I see all the buzzwords: partisanship, activism, economy. I'm not seeing anything in the way of support for your argument.
There isn't. Even conservatives thought the day would be won on partisanship. A very tasty quote on the efficacy of the "argument" being put forth by the anti-ACA:
That was the solicitor general for Reagan saying that.
Whoops.[/QUOTE]
LMAO!!
I have now changed my mind thanks to your meaty post on the subject. All air and no substance. All I see are your talking points and lack of argument. You have thoroughly convinced me with your enlightened post on the matter. Thank you sir for your expertise...I am now a true believer.
edit: BTW it is a tax or have you not heard or read the decision. BTW Obama said over and over and over it was NOT a TAX.
If that is just a talking point with no substance then you might want to flip through some channels and websites today as it is ALL about it being a TAX. Some people. Further more it was partisan from the get go. BTW it was activism and BTW it does involve the economy and negatively so.
LMAO....some people
*******************NEWSFLASH*************
POLITICIANS WILL SOMETIMES CALL TAXES "FEES". THIS IS A LIE AND BAIT AND SWITCH AND FRAUD AND YOU ARE ALL SHEEPLE FOR NOT THROWING OFF YOUR SHACKLES.
Wow. I see all the buzzwords: partisanship, activism, economy. I'm not seeing anything in the way of support for your argument.
There isn't. Even conservatives thought the day would be won on partisanship. A very tasty quote on the efficacy of the "argument" being put forth by the anti-ACA:
That was the solicitor general for Reagan saying that.
Whoops.[/QUOTE]
LMAO!!
I have now changed my mind thanks to your meaty post on the subject. All air and no substance. All I see are your talking points and lack of argument. You have thoroughly convinced me with your enlightened post on the matter. Thank you sir for your expertise...I am now a true believer.
edit: BTW it is a tax or have you not heard or read the decision. BTW Obama said over and over and over it was NOT a TAX.
If that is just a talking point with no substance then you might want to flip through some channels and websites today as it is ALL about it being a TAX. Some people. Further more it was partisan from the get go. BTW it was activism and BTW it does involve the economy and negatively so.
LMAO....some people
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='KingBroly']Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]
Very well said sir very well said. Bravo
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]
Very well said sir very well said. Bravo
cindersphere
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
[quote name='KingBroly']Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you quite understand what exactly is going on. The original case brought against the bill argued that congress didn't have power over health insurance because it violated the commerce clause. Roberts agreed. However where it seems people are getting hung up about is the fact that the law was not pushed as a tax, which is partially true. Congress was trying to save face by steering reporters and people away from thinking it was a tax, however it never affirmed it, and instead affirmed that it was a tax (baucus did this, if I remember the oral arguments correctly). However Roberts reading of the law and his decision were justifiable, and the case for judicial activism is slim at best (you'd have an easier time arguing judicial activism when a judge decides to give a light sentence to an offender). Again read the opinions and the previously released oral arguments, they were quite good.
As for it was written as a tax speak, it was written as a tax. It was however called a penalty by political jockeys to rile up their bases. Not the fault of the law, but merely the fault of pundits. Beyond that the original bill didn't even mention the commerce clause, but it did mention taxes a whole lot.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]
I don't think you quite understand what exactly is going on. The original case brought against the bill argued that congress didn't have power over health insurance because it violated the commerce clause. Roberts agreed. However where it seems people are getting hung up about is the fact that the law was not pushed as a tax, which is partially true. Congress was trying to save face by steering reporters and people away from thinking it was a tax, however it never affirmed it, and instead affirmed that it was a tax (baucus did this, if I remember the oral arguments correctly). However Roberts reading of the law and his decision were justifiable, and the case for judicial activism is slim at best (you'd have an easier time arguing judicial activism when a judge decides to give a light sentence to an offender). Again read the opinions and the previously released oral arguments, they were quite good.
As for it was written as a tax speak, it was written as a tax. It was however called a penalty by political jockeys to rile up their bases. Not the fault of the law, but merely the fault of pundits. Beyond that the original bill didn't even mention the commerce clause, but it did mention taxes a whole lot.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Pliskin101']edit: BTW it is a tax or have you not heard or read the decision. BTW Obama said over and over and over it was NOT a TAX.[/quote]
So who do we blame, the fool, or the fool who listens?
Where is the fault in Roberts's opinion? Exactly where does his argument fail?
Sour grapes are sour, huh guy?
So who do we blame, the fool, or the fool who listens?
WELL LAWDY IF THE CHANNELS AND TUBES SEZ IT.
Where is the fault in Roberts's opinion? Exactly where does his argument fail?
That Roberts, always conspiring with liberals to flip and support them on this issue because of activism and partisanship. Yea, everything about that makes no sense at all.
Sour grapes are sour, huh guy?
[quote name='KingBroly']I don't think Obama will lose the election, but I think the slim chances of the Democrats regaining control of the House and a plurality in the Senate just went jumping out the window of a 30-story* building. You're right in that it rallies the Republican base as well as any anti-Obamacare mantra that's out there but would probably remain on the sidelines before this. This just means another 4 years of gridlock. Good thing it starts with a tax increase on January 1st
. That'll make things just peachy.
I don't like the ruling because it's clear judicial activism. Changing the bill from the bench is what was done here, and that's a serious problem. I'm sure liberals would feel the same way if something like this happened to them. But I fully expect a 'well it didn't, SNAR SNAR SNAR' reply now, but it will come back around to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
* - Sorry to ask this, but I always feel I get the spelling wrong here in this context. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
They didn't change the bill from the bench. The Feds chief argument was the commerce clause but Scotus said come up with several arguments in case we find 1 unconstitutional. The one found constitutional was the taxation argument. The bill wasn't changed, it wasn't judicial activism.
tax cuts sun-setting is the equivalent to a tax cut, deal with it
I don't like the ruling because it's clear judicial activism. Changing the bill from the bench is what was done here, and that's a serious problem. I'm sure liberals would feel the same way if something like this happened to them. But I fully expect a 'well it didn't, SNAR SNAR SNAR' reply now, but it will come back around to bite you in the ass sooner or later.
* - Sorry to ask this, but I always feel I get the spelling wrong here in this context. Someone correct me if I'm wrong please. Thanks.[/QUOTE]
They didn't change the bill from the bench. The Feds chief argument was the commerce clause but Scotus said come up with several arguments in case we find 1 unconstitutional. The one found constitutional was the taxation argument. The bill wasn't changed, it wasn't judicial activism.
[quote name='KingBroly']Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]
Well, cindersphere and IRHari pretty much answered everything. I still find it weird as hell that you somehow think they re-wrote the law when the only thing that the Supremes are allowed to do is determine if any legislation constitutional or not. I'm literally dumbfounded.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]
Well, cindersphere and IRHari pretty much answered everything. I still find it weird as hell that you somehow think they re-wrote the law when the only thing that the Supremes are allowed to do is determine if any legislation constitutional or not. I'm literally dumbfounded.
speedracer
Banned
My preferred backstory:
I think we're being trolled by Roberts. I think he saw the writing on the wall where the ROBERTS court was about to overturn a signature policy of a president's entire term on shaky at best ground and realized he was about to release the four horsemen of the
ing apocalypse if he let that happen on naked party lines.
Roberts saw that he was going to make a state (Montana) bend the knee to the throne of federalism in the name of conservatism and then four days later he was going to make federalism bend the knee to the throne of state rights... in the name of conservatism. It's prolly pretty easy for pliskin101 to contort enough in a blog post to make himself think that makes sense, but the Chief Justice whose name will forever be burnt into the decision probably stopped and thought about it a little.
And then they take the straw poll and Kennedy comes out 100% for repeal and Roberts shits himself. Taxes. That's it. Yea. What the ever.
I think we're being trolled by Roberts. I think he saw the writing on the wall where the ROBERTS court was about to overturn a signature policy of a president's entire term on shaky at best ground and realized he was about to release the four horsemen of the
ing apocalypse if he let that happen on naked party lines. Roberts saw that he was going to make a state (Montana) bend the knee to the throne of federalism in the name of conservatism and then four days later he was going to make federalism bend the knee to the throne of state rights... in the name of conservatism. It's prolly pretty easy for pliskin101 to contort enough in a blog post to make himself think that makes sense, but the Chief Justice whose name will forever be burnt into the decision probably stopped and thought about it a little.
And then they take the straw poll and Kennedy comes out 100% for repeal and Roberts shits himself. Taxes. That's it. Yea. What the
ever.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='speedracer']So who do we blame, the fool, or the fool who listens?
WELL LAWDY IF THE CHANNELS AND TUBES SEZ IT.
Where is the fault in Roberts's opinion? Exactly where does his argument fail?
That Roberts, always conspiring with liberals to flip and support them on this issue because of activism and partisanship. Yea, everything about that makes no sense at all.
Sour grapes are sour, huh guy?[/QUOTE]
I blame both those who listened to the LIAR and the LIAR. For clarification I NEVER supported it at all. Those who did and still do are complete morons.
For Robert's read the other posts about it.
Are you telling me that the obamacare plan was not partisan from the get go>? Alrighttty then. We must be living in different parts of the the multiverse.
I am glad you find it all so fun...that the Country is getting screwed and flushed down the toilet. If anyone is the sheeple it is YOU.
The bright side is Romney is promising to repeal it and he will get elected. Yes the lesser of two evils but hey it's what we are stuck with. I will take Romney any day of the week and twice on Tuesday if my only other choce is King Obama.
WELL LAWDY IF THE CHANNELS AND TUBES SEZ IT.
Where is the fault in Roberts's opinion? Exactly where does his argument fail?
That Roberts, always conspiring with liberals to flip and support them on this issue because of activism and partisanship. Yea, everything about that makes no sense at all.
Sour grapes are sour, huh guy?[/QUOTE]
I blame both those who listened to the LIAR and the LIAR. For clarification I NEVER supported it at all. Those who did and still do are complete morons.
For Robert's read the other posts about it.
Are you telling me that the obamacare plan was not partisan from the get go>? Alrighttty then. We must be living in different parts of the the multiverse.
I am glad you find it all so fun...that the Country is getting screwed and flushed down the toilet. If anyone is the sheeple it is YOU.
The bright side is Romney is promising to repeal it and he will get elected. Yes the lesser of two evils but hey it's what we are stuck with. I will take Romney any day of the week and twice on Tuesday if my only other choce is King Obama.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='IRHari']They didn't change the bill from the bench. The Feds chief argument was the commerce clause but Scotus said come up with several arguments in case we find 1 unconstitutional. The one found constitutional was the taxation argument. The bill wasn't changed, it wasn't judicial activism.[/QUOTE]
Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.
Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='speedracer']My preferred backstory:
I think we're being trolled by Roberts. I think he saw the writing on the wall where the ROBERTS court was about to overturn a signature policy of a president's entire term on shaky at best ground and realized he was about to release the four horsemen of theing apocalypse if he let that happen on naked party lines.
Roberts saw that he was going to make a state (Montana) bend the knee to the throne of federalism in the name of conservatism and then four days later he was going to make federalism bend the knee to the throne of state rights... in the name of conservatism. It's prolly pretty easy for pliskin101 to contort enough in a blog post to make himself think that makes sense, but the Chief Justice whose name will forever be burnt into the decision probably stopped and thought about it a little.
And then they take the straw poll and Kennedy comes out 100% for repeal and Roberts shits himself. Taxes. That's it. Yea. What the ever.[/QUOTE]
The way I said it was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better, but the Dean of Columbia Law School just wrote this on SCOTUSblog and totally agrees with me.
[quote name='KingBroly']Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.[/QUOTE]
And that's called a Texas Two Step.
I think we're being trolled by Roberts. I think he saw the writing on the wall where the ROBERTS court was about to overturn a signature policy of a president's entire term on shaky at best ground and realized he was about to release the four horsemen of the
ing apocalypse if he let that happen on naked party lines. Roberts saw that he was going to make a state (Montana) bend the knee to the throne of federalism in the name of conservatism and then four days later he was going to make federalism bend the knee to the throne of state rights... in the name of conservatism. It's prolly pretty easy for pliskin101 to contort enough in a blog post to make himself think that makes sense, but the Chief Justice whose name will forever be burnt into the decision probably stopped and thought about it a little.
And then they take the straw poll and Kennedy comes out 100% for repeal and Roberts shits himself. Taxes. That's it. Yea. What the
ever.[/QUOTE]The way I said it was waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better, but the Dean of Columbia Law School just wrote this on SCOTUSblog and totally agrees with me.
With the eloquence and shit.
[quote name='KingBroly']Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.[/QUOTE]
And that's called a Texas Two Step.
crystalklear64
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 7 (100%)
i heard taxes are bad is this true thx guys
[quote name='KingBroly']Except that it's not written as a tax. It is written as a penalty/fine, which is not a tax, under the Commerce Clause.[/QUOTE]
And the penalty for not buying insurance was interpreted by the SCOTUS as a tax.
'Cruel and unusual punishment' was the way the 8th Amendment was written, but the SCOTUS has interpreted that as also meaning life without parole for juveniles.
The SCOTUS interprets the law.
And the penalty for not buying insurance was interpreted by the SCOTUS as a tax.
'Cruel and unusual punishment' was the way the 8th Amendment was written, but the SCOTUS has interpreted that as also meaning life without parole for juveniles.
The SCOTUS interprets the law.
[quote name='KingBroly']Uh...no. That's not how I interpret judicial activism. And I'm curious what gave you that opinion.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]It's funny you or anyone calls it a tax. As I understand it, it's a "tax" on anyone who refuses to get insurance. Well, the majority of the folks in the country have insurance as it is already, those who can't get it for whatever reason will be able to soon, so the number of people who outright refuse to buy insurance is likely to be pretty small, which means that the number of people actually paying this "tax" is likely to be pretty small as well. So you call it a "tax" on the middle class, and that just isn't true.
I consider judicial activism to be "legislating from the bench" in simple terms. If a judge re-writes a law, I consider that to be an activist judge. A judge isn't supposed to write laws from the bench, that is the job of the legislature, not the judiciary. In this case, Roberts, in addition to saying the mandate is Unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause (which is how the bill is written), is Constitutional as a tax, and lives on hence forth there as. The bill DOES NOT mention that it's a tax, and this is where I consider Roberts' ruling to be activism, since he is explicitly changing the law. He didn't say 'hey Congress, if you pass this as a tax it's good to go, kthxbye.' That would have been fine with me. He took it upon himself to change the law and bypass the legislative process. That is the problem I see in this.
If the bill was written AS A TAX and not under the Commerce Clause, this bill goes through 7-2 most likely (I'd guess Thomas and Alito would dissent, but I didn't read their opinions), even though the challenge would be much different, and much tougher to prove its' Unconstitutionality, that being if Congress can do direct taxes or not.
But why wasn't it written as a tax you ask? Because of political reasons, plain and simple. Obama has said through and through he didn't want to raise taxes on the middle class (which is what this is). Time and time again you heard 'it's not a tax, it's not a tax, it's not a tax.' You heard it from him, other Democrats, his lawyers, even the Supreme Court brought it up during oral arguments of whether or not it was a tax. The message, by and large stayed the same: "It's not a tax." But it is no court's place to take a bill and rewrite it, which was done here.[/QUOTE]It's funny you or anyone calls it a tax. As I understand it, it's a "tax" on anyone who refuses to get insurance. Well, the majority of the folks in the country have insurance as it is already, those who can't get it for whatever reason will be able to soon, so the number of people who outright refuse to buy insurance is likely to be pretty small, which means that the number of people actually paying this "tax" is likely to be pretty small as well. So you call it a "tax" on the middle class, and that just isn't true.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
Well for all those who voted Obama for hope and change that is exactly what you will have left if Obama continues his reckless reign.... Hope and Change.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']It's funny you or anyone calls it a tax. As I understand it, it's a tax on anyone who refuses to get insurance. Well, the majority of the folks in the country have insurance as it is already, those who can't get it for whatever reason will be able to soon, so the number of people who outright refuse to buy insurance is likely to be pretty small, which means that the number of people actually paying this "tax" is likely to be pretty small as well. So you call it a tax on the middle class, and that just isn't true.[/QUOTE]
Roberts called it a tax. Read the ruling.
Roberts called it a tax. Read the ruling.
KingBroly
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Clak']And you called it "a tax on the middle class". I ask you to please explain that.[/QUOTE]
Because it is. Even before today people who knew what it was basically knew that it was basically a middle class tax hike. They're the ones who are "penalized" by the ruling, since they are really the ones ripe for fines here, given all of the exclusions and such. You won't find many poor people paying the fine since they can't afford coverage, and are therefore exempt. You won't find many rich people paying the fine since they can afford coverage already. That just leaves the Government screwing over the middle class.
If it was written as a tax in the first place, and not pushed to the Commerce Clause, it wouldn't have passed.
And I'm sure "tax increases" in the future won't be done this way either, no sir.
Because it is. Even before today people who knew what it was basically knew that it was basically a middle class tax hike. They're the ones who are "penalized" by the ruling, since they are really the ones ripe for fines here, given all of the exclusions and such. You won't find many poor people paying the fine since they can't afford coverage, and are therefore exempt. You won't find many rich people paying the fine since they can afford coverage already. That just leaves the Government screwing over the middle class.
If it was written as a tax in the first place, and not pushed to the Commerce Clause, it wouldn't have passed.
And I'm sure "tax increases" in the future won't be done this way either, no sir.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='Clak']And you called it "a tax on the middle class". I ask you to please explain that.[/QUOTE]
Holy crap!! Not surprising that you have no idea the major negatives of this plan... or even just the basics of obamacare. You just blindly supported it and support it without having a clue of the ramifications of it.
That is the future people clak and the like.
Now you ask people to explain it to you after you already blindly held it up high? What are you "high"? What a sad sad thing. Not surprising though from you. Baby boomers post and all the others. It's never your responsibility AND you just blindly follow like the good puppy you are. Hear your masters calling you....Good boy good boy not get back on your leash.... and quit trying to run with the big dogs when you are still pissing like a puppy.
Holy crap!! Not surprising that you have no idea the major negatives of this plan... or even just the basics of obamacare. You just blindly supported it and support it without having a clue of the ramifications of it.
That is the future people clak and the like.
Now you ask people to explain it to you after you already blindly held it up high? What are you "high"? What a sad sad thing. Not surprising though from you. Baby boomers post and all the others. It's never your responsibility AND you just blindly follow like the good puppy you are. Hear your masters calling you....Good boy good boy not get back on your leash.... and quit trying to run with the big dogs when you are still pissing like a puppy.
Last edited:
speedracer
Banned
[quote name='Pliskin101']Well for all those who voted Obama for hope and change that is exactly what you will have left if Obama continues his reckless reign.... Hope and Change. [/QUOTE]
I voted and donated for health care reform. This president delivers.
Doesn't matter. Got my health care bill.
[/QUOTE]I voted and donated for health care reform. This president delivers.
Doesn't matter. Got my health care bill.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='KingBroly']Pliskin, you really don't have to treat them like that. It's a bit petty and can be interpreted as racist.[/QUOTE]
No I don't but he deserves it. He is constantly making attacks on me in a worse manner. Constantly..... and many others. Then all he ever offers besides that is childish... bordering on mental retarded... posts. If he can't take it then maybe he should one quit sucking dd's ass on every post and every debate two grow up three don't dish it out constantly four think for himself for once five stop his constant BS. The list goes on but bottom line is he deserves it and does worse all the damn time.
The guy is a frickin idiot at best.
Racist? Why because I said master? I said it about a dog and dogs have masters. If that is racist then Okay then we have now added a new category of people who qualify to be racist. Dog owners, those who are masters over animals, their domain, of themselves , etc etc etc. on and on and on.
edit: I have corrected the problem. I have put dohdough on the wonderful feature of cag known as the ignore list and now I am adding the the others members of that little love nest known to me as the cag wbbc....clak, camoor, and msut77. Problem solved.
No I don't but he deserves it. He is constantly making attacks on me in a worse manner. Constantly..... and many others. Then all he ever offers besides that is childish... bordering on mental retarded... posts. If he can't take it then maybe he should one quit sucking dd's ass on every post and every debate two grow up three don't dish it out constantly four think for himself for once five stop his constant BS. The list goes on but bottom line is he deserves it and does worse all the damn time.
The guy is a frickin idiot at best.
Racist? Why because I said master? I said it about a dog and dogs have masters. If that is racist then Okay then we have now added a new category of people who qualify to be racist. Dog owners, those who are masters over animals, their domain, of themselves , etc etc etc. on and on and on.
edit: I have corrected the problem. I have put dohdough on the wonderful feature of cag known as the ignore list and now I am adding the the others members of that little love nest known to me as the cag wbbc....clak, camoor, and msut77. Problem solved.
Last edited:
usickenme
CAGiversary!
[quote name='KingBroly']Roberts called it a tax. Read the ruling.[/QUOTE]
did you? Roberts explains his reasoning. Basically he says that congress cannot pass clearly unconstitutional laws by playing with the wording.
Also he made it clear that this was a different kind of "tax". One of the reasons the case was heard at all was Anti-Injunction Act did not apply. This law protects the government from challenges to taxes that have yet to be assessed. So if this was a tax from the get go. They wouldn't have heard the case.
Final point just because one Judge (and only one judge) said it may reasonably be characterized as a tax doesn't meant "TeH Obama Lied to Us". I am quite sure they still see it as it was intended. A penalty to motivate people to buy insurance.
did you? Roberts explains his reasoning. Basically he says that congress cannot pass clearly unconstitutional laws by playing with the wording.
Also he made it clear that this was a different kind of "tax". One of the reasons the case was heard at all was Anti-Injunction Act did not apply. This law protects the government from challenges to taxes that have yet to be assessed. So if this was a tax from the get go. They wouldn't have heard the case.
Final point just because one Judge (and only one judge) said it may reasonably be characterized as a tax doesn't meant "TeH Obama Lied to Us". I am quite sure they still see it as it was intended. A penalty to motivate people to buy insurance.
bread's done