Jump to content

SCOTUS to rule on Obamacare sometime this week

/dev/null
 Share

Will SCOTUS uphold or strike down Obamacare  

26 members have voted

  1. 1. Will SCOTUS uphold or strikedown Obamacare

    • Uphold in entirety
      6
    • Uphold individual mandate but strike down other provisions
      4
    • Strike down Indivdual Mandate but uphold remainder
      7
    • Strike down Individual Mandate and other provisions
      6
    • Strike down in entirety
      3

Recommended Posts

Joe Miner Veteran

Joe Miner

Posted
Posted

Typical.

 

What you're really saying is: You're not ready to hang with the wolves. You'll flirt, but you can't go 12 rounds with Ali. You're not intellectually ready at this point to entertain a conversation of this particular moment cogently and with the level of detail and sophistication that it deserves. You're watching and learning, getting your "sea legs." You admire me, but don't know how to say it. You print my posts off and use them to inspire sonnets that you one day hope to publish in some esoteric journal, only distributed in Pacific Northwestern states, enjoyed by a readership of less than 20,000, in a varying-demo market; subject matter: decidedly neo-Freudian.

 

You're afraid of the apes. They make you uneasy. You'll view from a distance.

 

Don't be scared. I'll let you study under my guidance.

 

I conquer.

 

Who are you? OC?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 366
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Juror#8 Veteran

Juror#8

Posted
Posted

I'll go 12 rounds with Ali---now.

 

:beer:

 

Some people you argue with, some you have spirited debate with.

 

You, Rob (mainly cause we wolvesq have to stick together), Taro, Tom, and a few others I just don't argue with. I'd rather enthusiastically debate and stay cordial. You can't burn all your bridges.

 

I almost went there with Tom but I felt myself losing my footing so I changed course. He just seems like he doesn't give a schit. That sucks cause I get satisfaction from the frustration that I've convinced myself that my words can introduce into someone else's existence.

 

That's why I went back into practicing. I'm just good at winning with words.

 

Have a good weekend bro and a good 4th. :beer:

 

Who are you? OC?

 

Lol. Some say that. We both speak French, in Japanese and we're both slightly wordy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Juror#8 Veteran

Juror#8

Posted
Posted

Actually, this writer says Roberts' decision cut the Commerce Clause right across the hips.

 

American Thinker: The Chief Justice Done Good by Dov Fischer, adjunct professor of law at Loyola Law School

 

 

 

One can argue that the hundred-year era of citing Wicker and slipping things in under Commerce is now largely over, and that these measures will have to be called what they are --- TAXES. Let's see how many pols touch that third rail.

 

WRT the second quoted graph, no matter how many Democrats stay away from the DNC in North Carolina, anyone running for Congress with a D behind their name is irrevocably tied to Obama, Obamacare and the 'I'm only going to eat the rich!' promise that every tax-and-spender soon breaks.

 

That's the funny thing that has been lost in this whole schitstorm.

 

Roberts' language portends a very limited notion of federal government power. SHOCKER!!!

 

Wickard allowed the feddy guvs to do damn near anything during the first 3/4 of last century. It ended up impaling segregation in many commercial establishments. It resolved labor disputes. It gave the Congress the authority to enter into scenarios and contexts that were un[der]regulated otherwise.

 

Frankly, I'm a fan of the aggregate affects theory of things and I think that I83 has some emanations allowing it to touch on subject matters that may not have been contemplated by the old smart dudes. So I'll disagree with Rob there. I think Wickard was good law then and should be considered in the context of it's ruling. In 75 years it's been distinguished, but never decided as "bad law."

 

In a tempermental discipline that relies on progeny and stare decisis, that is saying something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

I'm no prude, but c'mon, from the official Obama campaign store? It shows badly on the president.

 

Between that and the wedding registry, someone in his campaign office is off-kilter.

 

Which may be the plan. For all I know, it appeals to his base.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DC Tom Hall of Famer

DC Tom

Posted
Posted

:beer:

 

Some people you argue with, some you have spirited debate with.

 

You, Rob (mainly cause we wolvesq have to stick together), Taro, Tom, and a few others I just don't argue with. I'd rather enthusiastically debate and stay cordial. You can't burn all your bridges.

 

I almost went there with Tom but I felt myself losing my footing so I changed course. He just seems like he doesn't give a schit. That sucks cause I get satisfaction from the frustration that I've convinced myself that my words can introduce into someone else's existence.

 

That's why I went back into practicing. I'm just good at winning with words.

 

Have a good weekend bro and a good 4th. :beer:

 

 

We had a good discussion once. Once.

 

The problem for the most part, though, is that you have a strong tendency to be doctrinaire. You less debate the issues than you do debate your philosophy using the issues as examples. Quite frankly, that isn't worth my time (calling you an idiot, THAT'S worth my time. But don't overestimate the time it takes to type "You're an idiot.") I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about an issue than play "My political bias is better than your political bias!" Same reason I do little more than abuse 3rdnlng - to mix a metaphor, you two are cut from different sides of the same cloth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
3rdnlng Hall of Famer

3rdnlng

Posted
Posted

We had a good discussion once. Once.

 

The problem for the most part, though, is that you have a strong tendency to be doctrinaire. You less debate the issues than you do debate your philosophy using the issues as examples. Quite frankly, that isn't worth my time (calling you an idiot, THAT'S worth my time. But don't overestimate the time it takes to type "You're an idiot.") I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about an issue than play "My political bias is better than your political bias!" Same reason I do little more than abuse 3rdnlng - to mix a metaphor, you two are cut from different sides of the same cloth.

 

LOL. Tom, the self proclaimed balcony sniper, who resides above the fray.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Koko78 All Pro

Koko78

Posted
Posted (edited)

 

 

Pelosi looks joyful; Boehner looks like a child who has had his toys taken away from him.

 

Personally I think they both look like they'd rather be somewhere else and in better company. Pelosi's fake smile is almost a grimace, and Boehner looks like he needs to take a crap.

Edited by Koko78
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Juror#8 Veteran

Juror#8

Posted
Posted

We had a good discussion once. Once.

 

The problem for the most part, though, is that you have a strong tendency to be doctrinaire. You less debate the issues than you do debate your philosophy using the issues as examples. Quite frankly, that isn't worth my time (calling you an idiot, THAT'S worth my time. But don't overestimate the time it takes to type "You're an idiot.") I'd rather have an intelligent discussion about an issue than play "My political bias is better than your political bias!" Same reason I do little more than abuse 3rdnlng - to mix a metaphor, you two are cut from different sides of the same cloth.

 

I think that a lot of folks here demagogue the !@#$ out of this place. At times, people seem to have their positions and they stand firm on them (including you and me).

 

I will say though that I have been VERY open to different opinions and perspectives - even going as far as being called soft for compromising on certain points. You made a point on the tort reform discussion that made me reevaluate a belief and an argument that I was advancing. I mentioned as much in that thread. I compromised on a Taro T discussion and was basically called soft by NewBills.

 

On some things I'm definitely passionate about. But don't confuse that passion for demagoguery. I've shown, even recently, a capcity to be flexible and amenable to different opinions and perspectives.

 

And I think that we've had a good convo more than once. But I realize that it is a matter of personal opinion and taste. I'll keep that in mind going forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
John Adams All Pro

John Adams

Posted
Posted

The it's a tax that's not a tax stuff from the Republicans is a political amusement. Romney has always been weak on the health care/Obamacare issue and if the Supreme Court had struck it down, Romney could have safely avoided the issue. Now he's got a hot topic that his party wants to beat hard and that Mitt has to tread lightly on. For the election, the SC ruling is a huge win for Obama. Mitt can't with a straight carry the banner on this...but the party needs to fight hard for this in their home districts, setting up a bomb.

 

Mitt will try to toe some line on health care reform ("It's a tax that's not a tax but is" or some such thing) but he will struggle with this all election long unless he and the party can come up with some sort of reasonable talking points that they both can campaign on.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rob's House All Pro

Rob's House

Posted
Posted

The it's a tax that's not a tax stuff from the Republicans is a political amusement. Romney has always been weak on the health care/Obamacare issue and if the Supreme Court had struck it down, Romney could have safely avoided the issue. Now he's got a hot topic that his party wants to beat hard and that Mitt has to tread lightly on. For the election, the SC ruling is a huge win for Obama. Mitt can't with a straight carry the banner on this...but the party needs to fight hard for this in their home districts, setting up a bomb.

 

Mitt will try to toe some line on health care reform ("It's a tax that's not a tax but is" or some such thing) but he will struggle with this all election long unless he and the party can come up with some sort of reasonable talking points that they both can campaign on.

I don't see what's so hard about distinguishing between state & federal. I have policies that work great in my house that shouldn't be imposed on the neighborhood.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...