[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
From the audio I heard, it sounding like the federal government was completely unprepared. It sounded like they were trying to come up with answers to questions they should have had answers for 6 months ago.[/quote]
Yes, this blows my mind. The arguments have been batted around in lower appellate courts - how the government showed so unprepared to answer important questions that they should have known were coming is baffling.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
What happens to Barry if the law is struck down ?
Does it affect his 2012 reelection ?[/quote]
I wish, but I doubt it. I think it would actually be a boon for him. A huge propaganda tool. “Look they are taking your right to health care away. Vote for me to get it back.” Mix this with a weak republican pool, and super friendly media, and a little dash of “It’s still Bush’s fault” and a huge dash of, “I got Bin Laden”…
[/quote]
This is actually what brought me looking for this thread lol
I’ve seen some people saying how if it gets struck down it could guarantee his victory, which to me seems ridiculous. Obama’s key piece of legislation destroyed and it helps him win??
But when explained like you did, I can see it…shit…[/quote]
67% of the populace is against this travesty called Obamacare. If it gets crushed at the SC level that will NOT help Obama win a second term. This is one more lie planted by the main stream liberal media in order to help their chosen one win a second term.
Take health care away from Obama and what exactly did he accomplish in his first term?
Other can killing a few terrorist leaders and alienating Israel.[/quote]
I agree with most of what you said, which is why it was hard for me to wrap head around seeing that on message boards and what not…but I do worry about how Obama and the media will try to spin it…just going off by a lot of what I hear/see on a daily basis…most people may end up buying it…
at the same time, if the economy and gas prices stay shitty, I do see that having a much more major impact, because of the day to day effect on most people, than the Obamacare decision, whatever it may be.
Reporting from Washington–
The Supreme Court’s conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law’s controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down…
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
“One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto,” said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an “extreme proposition” to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down…[/quote]
If this comes to pass, it is emblematic of the faults of ObamaCare - in such haste to pass that thing, they forgot to include a severability clause. Of course, that isn’t terribly surprising when you insist that a 2,700 page bill chocked full of random parts (like a Frankenstein’ monster) be passed before anyone can read it.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
From the audio I heard, it sounding like the federal government was completely unprepared. It sounded like they were trying to come up with answers to questions they should have had answers for 6 months ago.[/quote]
Yes, this blows my mind. The arguments have been batted around in lower appellate courts - how the government showed so unprepared to answer important questions that they should have known were coming is baffling.[/quote]
Good point, but I think that the Feds in this case have had much less experience with real questions. The media has carried their water. Now in the courtroom, they are alone, so the feds must then rely on themselves only for the argument. The same applies to Obama and his election. If the media were not in the bag, his performance in campaigning would look like that of the Lawyer trying to argue for Obamacare.
PS:
SLOTH…your avatar is very disturbing.
My understanding is whether or not government can CREATE commerce. If so, will there be any limit to this.
Can the government force someone into partaking in commerce not otherwise being involved in ?
The mandate is the key funding mechanism of the law.
I’m unclear as to why there is some thought that the PPAA could survive if the individual mandate is struck down, especially the most “popular” provisions among Americans (which include, but are not limited to):
Extending coverage to the millions of “working poor” uninsured.
No denial of insurance because of pre-existing conditions.
The ability of children to remain on their parents insurance until age 26.
No “Lifetime Limits” on coverage and
Portability.
These (and many other provisions in the Law) HAVE to go away if the individual mandate is struck down.
Mufasa
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My understanding is whether or not government can CREATE commerce. If so, will there be any limit to this.
Can the government force someone into partaking in commerce not otherwise being involved in ?[/quote]
This is exactly one of the questions the fed was unprepared to answer.
They were essentially arguing that lack of participation in a market was participation, so they have the right to “regulate” non-participation. Which would essentially mean that the government has the right to compel ANYONE to do ANYTHING.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
My understanding is whether or not government can CREATE commerce. If so, will there be any limit to this.
Can the government force someone into partaking in commerce not otherwise being involved in ?[/quote]
This is exactly one of the questions the fed was unprepared to answer.
They were essentially arguing that lack of participation in a market was participation, so they have the right to “regulate” non-participation. Which would essentially mean that the government has the right to compel ANYONE to do ANYTHING.[/quote]
Yep. There’s just no getting around this point. And Obama’s supporters might reconsider giving that kind of power to future Republican administrations, if it helps clear up the issue for them.
… And THIS ^^^ is what SCOTUS is probably looking at in the future.
What other bullshit (good or bad) will future governments (regardless of whom is in power) will people be forced to purchase, in the name of “the Commerce Clause.”
Perhaps SCOTUS hopes to nip this in the bud, right here and right now, to prevent this very issue.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
… And THIS ^^^ is what SCOTUS is probably looking at in the future.
What other bullshit (good or bad) will future governments (regardless of whom is in power) will people be forced to purchase, in the name of “the Commerce Clause.”
Perhaps SCOTUS hopes to nip this in the bud, right here and right now, to prevent this very issue. [/quote]
Should have done that in 38.
[quote]benos4752 wrote:
LMAO. So I posted this question on fb, I was a little more wordy there, but basically, “If contracts are null and void if entered into under duress, how can the federal government force someone to buy health insurance? If your options are to either buy it or be fined, than you are entering into the contract under duress; being forced into it.”
Liberal I know posted this; “Your contract was written and signed for when a doctor delivered you and when you started paying taxes. If you can pay taxes you can pay into healthcare. Think about it before you elect to get into a debate.”
My reply, “I think you need to learn to follow your own advice. Explain to me how your contract was written and signed when you’re born. And how the issue of buying healthcare and paying for it out of my own pocket, or receiving a fine, which is the issue of the individual mandate, has anything to do with taxes.”
And finally, proving that he has no idea what he is talking about, he replied, “Take a moment, educate yourself on healthcare. You pay taxes, I pay taxes and the majority of unpaid bills are paid for by our taxes. You have already paid into the healthcare system when your parents paid taxes and had you. If you have a job, pay taxes you already own the social healthcare system.”
This is what we’re up against…it would be funny if people like him weren’t out the voting.[/quote]
O_O
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…Of course, that isn’t terribly surprising when you insist that a 2,700 page bill chocked full of random parts (like a Frankenstein’ monster) be passed before anyone can read it.[/quote]
Heh, speaking of it’s monstrous bulk…
[i]Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to–to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?[/i]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…Of course, that isn’t terribly surprising when you insist that a 2,700 page bill chocked full of random parts (like a Frankenstein’ monster) be passed before anyone can read it.[/quote]
Heh, speaking of it’s monstrous bulk…
[i]Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to–to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?[/i]
http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/[/quote]
Fuck it, no one else read the law, why should they ?
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Fuck it, no one else read the law, why should they ?[/quote]
Heh, exactly.
Although maybe that cuts the other way - by gum, someone ought to read the damn thing and figure out what it says.
Here is a good point re: the government lawyer’s performance:
Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn’t that he’s a bad lawyer, it’s that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn’tâ??not because he didn’t know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.
Based on what I’ve read, he still could have done a better job, as he at least should have been prepared to nuance some of these points. At the end of the day, however, he had a crappy position that he can’t defend, and that ain’t his fault.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Here is a good point re: the government lawyer’s performance:
Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn’t that he’s a bad lawyer, it’s that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn’tâ??not because he didn’t know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.
Based on what I’ve read, he still could have done a better job, as he at least should have been prepared to nuance some of these points. At the end of the day, however, he had a crappy position that he can’t defend, and that ain’t his fault.
[/quote]
All completely true, however there was never a need for him to sound like a stammering fool. One would think that by now he’d have had enough time to rehearse how to answer the inevitable questions.
Am I complete asshole for saying “If you get hurt and don’t have insurance, too fucking bad”?
I pay my premiums, I’ve served in combat, I’ve worked since I was 11, and I made the choice to succeed in life. Why should I support those who contribute nothing by choice?
[quote]njrusmc wrote:
Am I complete asshole for saying “If you get hurt and don’t have insurance, too fucking bad”?
I pay my premiums, I’ve served in combat, I’ve worked since I was 11, and I made the choice to succeed in life. Why should I support those who contribute nothing by choice?[/quote]
Altruism.
People in need need it more than you.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
…Of course, that isn’t terribly surprising when you insist that a 2,700 page bill chocked full of random parts (like a Frankenstein’ monster) be passed before anyone can read it.[/quote]
Heh, speaking of it’s monstrous bulk…
[i]Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to–to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?[/i]
http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/[/quote]
Fuck it, no one else read the law, why should they ?
[/quote]
If they hand down a verdict along the lines “fuck this, I am not reading this, its probably unconstitutional” I would go gay for Scalia.
No reason for the judiciary to actually read laws.
Fuck that!
Nobody else does.