Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[Danzig]

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

[Pants II]

This is a great week for tyranny.

"I'm scared, lol repubs cry harder."

We're all gonna be crying sooner or later. Especially the plebs who trust their government and defend it to the max.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

oh, here we go...worrying about people posting often.
yeah, when time is slow at times i can get on here. and i love to visit the site when something has gone on that rankles some. hehe. it's hilarious.
anyway, you and pants and rudeboy can have your little conspiracy fan club and whine about me and GR.
i'll sit back and enjoy more people having equality. in the land of the free, where all are supposed to be equal, but still have to fight for it.

now this, this is fantastic:

No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies
the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice,
and family. In forming a marital union, two people become
something greater than once they were. As some of
the petitioners in these cases demonstrate, marriage
embodies a love that may endure even past death. It
would misunderstand these men and women to say they
disrespect the idea of marriage. Their plea is that they do
respect it, respect it so deeply that they seek to find its
fulfillment for themselves. Their hope is not to be condemned
to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s
oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the
eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.
Justice Kennedy

[Danzig]

You know, in 1836, a gag order was instituted in the House, barring all discussion of slavery. Wonder why those against getting health care to those without didn't try to pass a rule like that?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I don't live here as do you, and just so you know, I may not be online again for days.

The ACA would have been unconstitutional had not the majority reinterpreted/rewritten the states' requirement. Is that really so difficult to grasp? Of course it was rewritten, first turning the individual mandate into a tax, then reworking the Medicaid expansion, and now finding that "established by the state" means "established by the federal government," because had they not ruled in such a manner (as you just said) it would have been unconstitutional. Never mind that Gruber said that it specifically was written that way intending to force states into supporting scotuscare.

This is incorrect. Nothing was rewritten. They didn't 'force' it on the states, the law was written and voted on by the states reps in congress. It can be repealed by them if they so choose.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

oh, here we go...worrying about people posting often.
yeah, when time is slow at times i can get on here.

Okay, but perhaps you can understand how setting arbitrary time limits for responses is unrealistic for some of us:

Originally Posted by Danzig

well? it's been four hours, surely you could have explained by now what makes the aca unconstitutional? or at least the subsidies that the scotus upheld. because if they had looked at it as 'forcing' states to give them, THAT would have been unconstitutional. good thing that didn't happen.

By that standard, you've had 10 days to tell us which Republicans in the huffpo article "tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims," as the article put it. No matter. That was then. This is now. I read your article. Here's one for you.

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Okay, but perhaps you can understand how setting arbitrary time limits for responses is unrealistic for some of us:



By that standard, you've had 10 days to tell us which Republicans in the huffpo article "tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims," as the article put it. No matter. That was then. This is now. I read your article. Here's one for you.

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

jindal and huckster definitely have turned this into a religious thing...as has the texas AG, cruz, etc.

as for the aca, it can be repealed. and an opinion piece is just that, the writers opinion. congrats, it matches your opinion. i'll spare you links to articles that don't hold that opinion.
not an ardent supporter, i think now and have always thought the aca isa convoluted mess. but it brought coverage to a lot more people, and is all they thought they could do for now. i'll keep waiting and hoping for universal health care.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

jindal and huckster definitely have turned this into a religious thing...as has the texas AG, cruz, etc.

I haven't seen Senator Cruz do that. Link?

Originally Posted by Danzig

as for the aca, it can be repealed. and an opinion piece is just that, the writers opinion. congrats, it matches your opinion.

As yours did for you, yes?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I haven't seen Senator Cruz do that. Link?




As yours did for you, yes?

i think the one slate article i posted gave the legal reasoning for them doing what they did....not sure it's an opinion piece. maybe it is.
i've disagreed with other rulings, unlike cruz, huck, jindal, etc. but unlike them, i don't see a reason to blow up the scotus.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the one slate article i posted gave the legal reasoning for them doing what they did....not sure it's an opinion piece. maybe it is.

Yes, it is.

[Danzig]

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57647

here's this, regarding cruz


and something else he said:

"The court's views are radically out of step with public opinion," said Cruz. "The Supreme Court follows the opinions of Manhattan and Washington D.C., but it doesn't follow the opinions of America."

ted, same sex marriage was already legal in 37 states in this country. the majority of americans and the majority of states agree there should be same sex marriage. unlike you, ted, they understand what 'equal' means.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-...and-lesbians-0

what these folks need to understand is their religious right isn't a greater right than another persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

so, gay people wanting to be married are to be made to deal with religious oppression?! amazing thought process, ted.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

The problem with this OpEd piece is pretty well summed up in comments left after it. I'll just quote them:

"What's NOT mentioned in the opinion piece is that David Rifkin was hired by House Republicans less than a year ago (August 25, 2014), to provide the House with legal representation to sue President Obama over the Affordable Care Act. I wonder if he is billing the U.S. taxpayers for his time spent writing this article . . . ?"

And:
"What undermines the authors argument, is that in this case we know the intent of the legislators, who for the most part are alive and available. This intent is not an unknown or an issue for historical speculation."

The intent of the legislation is quite clear; the three Justices who dissented are just shouting Moops.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The problem with this OpEd piece is pretty well summed up in comments left after it. I'll just quote them:

"What's NOT mentioned in the opinion piece is that David Rifkin was hired by House Republicans less than a year ago (August 25, 2014), to provide the House with legal representation to sue President Obama over the Affordable Care Act. I wonder if he is billing the U.S. taxpayers for his time spent writing this article . . . ?"

And:
"What undermines the authors argument, is that in this case we know the intent of the legislators, who for the most part are alive and available. This intent is not an unknown or an issue for historical speculation."

The intent of the legislation is quite clear; the three Justices who dissented are just shouting Moops.

Well, USA Today is no Slate, that's true.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Well, USA Today is no Slate, that's true.

It was actually comments posted on the LATimes- or whatever the direct link you posted was from. (See? I really do read links people post. With the possible exception of TownHall and RedState because you gotta draw a line somewhere).