- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Obamacare, not so fast
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:50 am to Truckasaurus
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:50 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
So you guys are cheering on the potential of millions of people losing their help to pay for insurance on the chance that it would make Congress repeal it?
That's a very emotionally-charged way of phrasing it (kind of like how ACA got passed in the first place), but yes.
This isn't about taking away healthcare from millions of people. This is about adhering to the law as it is written and voted upon.
You know that "law of the land" thing that liberals trumpeted upon ACA's passing the SC?
Yeah, this is about protecting a vital aspect of having "laws of the land."
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 9:52 am
0
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:50 am to GumboPot
thats pretty tough 
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:51 am to KeyserSoze999
God, how embarrassing.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:51 am to GumboPot
quote:
If the legislation is just stupid, it’s not up to the court to save it.”
ruh roh....that sounds racist.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:52 am to CamdenTiger
Hellfricken' YES, I am cheering -- bunch of freeloaders!
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:53 am to FalseProphet
quote:
I like the ruling, but it'll stand for all of a month
Sadly, This.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:53 am to KeyserSoze999
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:55 am to FalseProphet
quote:
This'll go en banc and get reversed. The nuclear option changed the entire makeup of the DC Circuit.
I like the ruling, but it'll stand for all of a month.
It will ultimately end up in the SCOTUS, right?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:56 am to GumboPot
quote:
Judge speaking to the defense:
quote:
Countering the administration’s argument that the challengers’ logic would lead to absurd conclusions within the law, Randolph shrugged and said, “There is an absurdity principle, but not a stupidity principle. If the legislation is just stupid, it’s not up to the court to save it.”
From one of the other judges. I like these guys.
quote:
at the same time, he said the administration had a “special burden” to show that Congress intended federally-run exchanges to offer subsidies, given the “plain language” to the contrary in the line under dispute.
I doubt they would be able to produce anything like this, especially since I would wager that nary a single democratic congressman actually read the ACA and knew what was in it.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:56 am to GumboPot
All of you people cheering apparently have no clue how the current D.C. Circuit is composed.
When this case got docketed, there was a clear majority of Republicans both active and senior. Now, after the nuclear option, there is an active majority of liberal (and largely Obama block) judges.
Only the active judges can participate in en banc hearings, and only the active judges can vote to grant en banc.
Does anyone want to tell me what they think is about to happen when the government petitions for en banc review?
When this case got docketed, there was a clear majority of Republicans both active and senior. Now, after the nuclear option, there is an active majority of liberal (and largely Obama block) judges.
Only the active judges can participate in en banc hearings, and only the active judges can vote to grant en banc.
Does anyone want to tell me what they think is about to happen when the government petitions for en banc review?
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:57 am to Truckasaurus
quote:
How do you know that the pressure won't convince congress to fix the law here and allow for the subsidies
When is the last time the Government has fixed somethingt?
Open the borders, we will give you free healthcare, free food, free cellphones, we will print money or borrow it to pay for these things.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:57 am to GumboPot
quote:
It will ultimately end up in the SCOTUS, right?
Oh sure. A petition for cert will be filed eventually. I'm almost certain it will come after the en banc court reverses this decision.
There is never a guarantee that the SCOTUS will take a case, but this would seem like a good one to reign in Chevron deference.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 9:59 am to FalseProphet
If you like your subsidy, you can keep it.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:00 am to FalseProphet
quote:
Now, after the nuclear option, there is an active majority of liberal (and largely Obama block) judges.
awesome....a political bench. I'm glad you enjoy such things.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:00 am to FalseProphet
I don't know the legalese but the law will continue to operate as it did yesterday. This will go to the SCOTUS.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:00 am to UGATiger26
quote:
I doubt they would be able to produce anything like this, especially since I would wager that nary a single democratic congressman actually read the ACA and knew what was in it.
Maybe I misremembered, but I thought this was actually intentional by the drafters thinking it would incentivize the states to develop their own exchange versus relying on a federally developed one.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:01 am to CptBengal
I don't. I'm pointing out the obvious.
And, if you want to cheer the ruling on, the two judges who formed the majority in this case were Republican appointees. The dissenter was a Democrat appointee.
ETA: And who the hell are you to presume what I like about the federal judiciary? You're a complete hack who can't discern an intelligent opinion due to your blinders.
And, if you want to cheer the ruling on, the two judges who formed the majority in this case were Republican appointees. The dissenter was a Democrat appointee.
ETA: And who the hell are you to presume what I like about the federal judiciary? You're a complete hack who can't discern an intelligent opinion due to your blinders.
This post was edited on 7/22/14 at 10:04 am
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:02 am to FalseProphet
quote:
There is never a guarantee that the SCOTUS will take a case, but this would seem like a good one to reign in Chevron deference.
Heard dat.
<---had to google Chevron deference.
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:02 am to FalseProphet
so a democratic appointee can't rule in favor of anything but Obama? sounds about right
Posted on 7/22/14 at 10:05 am to KeyserSoze999
quote:
so a democratic appointee can't rule in favor of anything but Obama? sounds about right
Not the case at all. But, conservative and liberal judges are appointed because they share the like-minded views of those appointing them.
You think Obama would appoint a right-wing conservative judge?
Page 2 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News