|
|
could you explain how the different member of the supreme court get the same supporting evidence for "Obamacare" and half find it constitutional and the other half don't? They are all very well educated and see things differently. Law, is only as clear as people want to make it out to be.Originally Posted by Sinatra
I'm not sure where your level of hostility and sarcasm is coming from, but it is unbecoming. Sarcasm is for fools, and I don't think you are a fool, so leave that for someone else. As for your "request," I already have in a preceding post. I am in the healthcare business, notably the business aspect of it. I work for a consortium of hospital chains and have neen charged with adapting us to the new changes which have and will occur, and I also work closely with a couple of our lawyers who take on the legal aspects of the bill, which is neither here nor there. My background has nothing to do with my opinion of the bill and is not a legal background, and only noted as a response to your "different reality" zinger, as if somehow I wasn't aware the ACA isn't law. My problem with the passage and ****uaging such an opinion is not part of my job nor is it ever mentioned. My beef with the pseudo passage of the bill was not Constitutional legality, although as an aside I don't agree with Roberts and the majority opinion.
The Constitutional legality of the mandate and the Medicaid expansion/requirements is debatable for many and many law minds will differ and seems to essentially come down to ones interpretation of the tax and spend clause. (Edited after Sinatra noted the typo, originally stated Commerce Clause) But again, that's not my issue. My issue is how it was passed. It was way too important of a bill with way too large a scope to be considered for reconciliation. Reconciliation has been stretched way past its intent by Congress by both parties. I think I'm entitled to that opinion and my mental capacity or reality doesn't need to be put into question by you. In addition, I would have thought preceding posts would have revealed my issue, so perhaps if you weren't so quick to breathlessly get into rant mode, you would have acquired this information and saved yourself the effort.
Last edited by playmakr; 01-05-2013 at 04:54 AM.
3 users like playmakr's post: KCRuf/Nek, oucub23, ThievingMagpie
If 'Pubs cave on guns my guess is that a state or multiple states will begin to seriously discuss secession...just a thought...
You mean the usual conservative states who routinely talk of succession when they don't get their way?
The following users like this post: Yatahaze
When did we get our way?
If governor Bush can't make you happy no one can.
Careful guys, green sooner will threaten you if you his Messiah
Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2
Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm." Maybe if I had replied with something along the lines of the following, you would not have been offended and felt that it is not unbecoming:
Now on to your observation about the Court's opinion:
Not sure why you think the constitutionality of the ACA "comes down to one's interpretation of the commerce clause" when the majority held that the ACA is constitutional under the taxing clause of the Constitution.
When you make statements indicating that the ACA "didn't actually p****", do you expect to be taken seriously?
The following users like this post: Yatahaze
I keep forgetting Democrats have held the House, Senate and White House since the bygone radical republican days of reconstruction. I apologize.
Alleged sarcasm? That's rich.Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm."
First of all, that's a statement of fact, I'm not sure it's meant to be or any way appears offensive. I imagine you have forgotten more about your professional specialty than I'll ever know. Secondly, as has already been noted, you are the one who came with the reality comments before that post. Lastly, I wasn't offended. C'mon, get real here, you're anonymous. How could you offend?Apologies for all of my alleged "hostility and sarcasm." Maybe if I had replied with something along the lines of the following, you would not have been offended and felt that it is not unbecoming:
Originally Posted by playmakr
I've forgotten more than you will ever know about the bill and its effect on the Heathcare industry, particularly for hospitals.
Thanks for clarifying the momentary loss of brain function. Indeed, the tax and spend clause. Edit: interpretation of tax and spend clause in the bill's contextNot sure why you think the constitutionality of the ACA "comes down to one's interpretation of the commerce clause" when the majority held that the ACA is constitutional under the taxing clause of the Constitution.
Wait, you're not suggesting since the SCOTUS ruled, all debate/discussion is over are you? Damn, why the hell are all those people still trying to ban handguns? Didn't they read the Heller ruling?
Why do we even have minority opinions written?
But again, you're still getting away from the actual passage of the bill. The SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising or as egregious as the passage.
A bill of this magnitude was never intended for reconciliation. They tried to p**** it using traditional rules. It didn't. Not the first Congress to do it, won't be the last. I'm serious as a heart attack.When you make statements indicating that the ACA "didn't actually p****", do you expect to be taken seriously?
The following users like this post: soonercoop1
There is a difference between a conservative and most of the 'Pubs in office (especially in the Senate)...when did conservatives get their way?
Hey! That's sarcastic!
You must not have paid any attention whatsoever to the oral argument at the Court or all of the press coverage afterwards. Before oral argument, the conventional wisdom was that the ACA would be held to be constitutional based on the interstate commerce clause and some analysis at the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals level in the opinion authored by Senior Judge Lawrence Silberman, a staunch and highly-respected conservative judge who sits on the "junior" Supreme Court. After oral argument, however, most experts who cover the Court expressed significant surprise, did a 180 and predicted that the ACA would be found to be unconstitutional based on the commerce clause. What then took so many by surprise once the Court issued its opinion were the facts that (i) the majority held that the ACA is constitutional in the first place (for any reason); (ii) the majority found the ACA to be constitutional by relying upon the "taxing authority" provision and (iii) Justice Roberts sided with the majority. To say that the "SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising", as you did above, is factually incorrect.
Can you provide some proof of that? A link to legislative intent of any statute, perhaps? A preamble to a proposed, temporary or final regulation? Anything of an authoritative legal nature at all?
I take it you didn't vote for romney, mccain, president bush, etc? You didn't vote for any of the current all gop Senators/Rep's from Oklahoma? Losing sides always seem to have this mantra. I remember for a time during the Bush years how Democrats ran from being called liberal's, so it is funny to see staunch GOP voters run from being ****ociated with their voting histories.
Allegedly.Hey! That's sarcastic!
False.You must not have paid any attention whatsoever to the oral argument at the Court or all of the press coverage afterwards.
I don't consider expectations and surprise as being the same thing. Surprise is an emotion. After Verrilli got grilled in the arguments by Kennedy and Roberts, I expected the mandate to be struck down. But I wasn't surprised Roberts found a way to side with the more liberal judges to rule it constitutional, while also including restrictions for the future. Roberts has always struck me as a guy very interested in his legacy as Chief. So again, I expected it to be ruled down, but wasn't surprised it was upheld. Just like I expected OU's defense to perform well last night, but wasn't surprised when they got humiliated.What then took so many by surprise once the Court issued its opinion were the facts that (i) the majority held that the ACA is constitutional in the first place (for any reason); (ii) the majority found the ACA to be constitutional by relying upon the "taxing authority" provision and (iii) Justice Roberts sided with the majority. To say that the "SCOTUS ruling wasn't surprising", as you did above, is factually incorrect.
The Byrd Rule.Can you provide some proof of that? A link to legislative intent of any statute, perhaps? A preamble to a proposed, temporary or final regulation? Anything of an authoritative legal nature at all?
You have to ask yourself why if Obama had a big majority in the House, 60/59 Democrats/caucusing Independents in the Senate, could they not p**** a final bill with a majority in the House and a supermajority (avoiding filibuster) in the Senate. Maybe more debate should have been had?
Who was the voting alternative to Romney, for staunch GOP voters?
Well they could always write in or sit out. I mean are these conservative's Republican's or independents who will only vote for GOP people who are strict conservative's? If they vote GOP regardless then what makes them different from the other people who vote GOP regardless whom they seem to despise?
And they did, and it allowed Obama to win. Is Obama better for them then Romney?
They can more easily make themselves heard in a primary election. In an election pitting a "RINO" and a liberal Democrat, what choice do they have?If they vote GOP regardless then what makes them different from the other people who vote GOP regardless whom they seem to despise?
Ah, poor victims.
Please translate/explain this post for me.
Really just playing dumb now huh? Nice new trick.
Maybe you are just a lot smarter than I am and I can't keep up? Your one line posts are so brilliantly worded, sometimes it's difficult to figure them out for someone with as much cognitive dissonance as myself. If you could for no other reason expand on your responses to help me, I would appreciate it.
I'm wondering who the victims are in this scenario? I simply said it's easier to make your voice heard in a primary than it is an actual election, because the primary way to make your voice heard in say a national election is to not vote, which can end up with the consequence of someone far away from your political beliefs winning. That's true of liberals, conservatives, libertarians, constitutionalists, whoever. I remember in 2004 a lot of my friends were very anti-bush but weren't happy with Kerry as a choice, lamenting the fact they didn't exercise their right to vote in the primary to keep the nominee from being Kerry. I guess you could mean they are the victims of the political system? I don't know. I don't know what victims you are pointing out or even what the point of your response is. Thusly, I asked you to expand on your response.
In addition, did you mean aww instead of, ah?
I think your problem, well one of them, is you see every post as being radically partisan and formulate a rapid response on that basis. But I could be off base.
2 users like playmakr's post: nolesooner, ThievingMagpie
So you're saying they are just like the majority of voters. Principles don't matter as long as you try to beat the other team's guy? For all the dislike of RINO's I see on this board and other conservative leaning boards it's interesting to see how shallow the dislike is.
I understand what you're saying, I'm just not sure what one is supposed to do when it comes down to an election. What do Goldwater conservatives do when it's Romney vs. Obama? What do Sanders socialists do when it's Obama vs. Romney? What do Kucinich liberals do when it's Obama vs. Romney? These are questions I really don't have an answer for, but I can't agree in saying if they (let's say Goldwater conservatives vote for Romney) vote a certain way, even if they don't have high opinions of either candidate, they can't then be critical of the candidate they voted for. You are saying they can write in or sit out, that's good and all, but by sitting out they end up with a politician even worse politically then the person they were originally boycotting/protesting against. I haven't ever thought that way, personally.
Can an Obama voter be upset he hasn't closed GITMO? Has Janet N working in his administration, shredding liberties? I know many that are and grew up with them in Obama's hometown. Who did they vote for in November?
Until there is a viable third party candidate in a national election, you're A) essentially voting for the status quo and B) cringing while you select your candidate
The following users like this post: nolesooner
well....that was a good idea...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...s-on-the-rich/
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote