- 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
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:31 am to lsuroadie
REXY=OBAMA FLUFFER!!
Someone get a napkin, so he can wipe his lips!!
Someone get a napkin, so he can wipe his lips!!
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:40 am to Tony Tiger89
Funny...this may have some legs, because the Obama "knights" have been very quiet (and what arguments have been made [Rex] have been really weak).
Posted on 7/25/14 at 11:48 am to FightinTigersDammit
quote:
Congress didn't even know what their intent was. They had to pass the bill to find out what was in it.
That's essentially what the two judges on the DC court said in favor of Halbig. They couldn't find what the congressional intent of the law was so they ruled on what congress passed.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 12:48 pm to GumboPot
quote:
They couldn't find what the congressional intent of the law was so they ruled on what congress passed.
No.
What they held was that the language of the statute was unambiguous and, therefore, is the reflection of the Congress' intent (applying the rules of statutory construction/interpretation).
Also, there was a reference earlier as to multiple Congresscritters filing amicus briefs about their intent. That's not how it works. To the extent that legislative intent matters, it is what is reflected in the contemporaneous Record during the time the legislation is being considered and voted on (committee minutes/transcripts, floor speeches, etc.). I suspect that if there was a discussion of this record by the majority in Halbig, it was likely that there was no discussion of this issue in the actual Congressional Record.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:06 pm to udtiger
quote:
No.
What they held was that the language of the statute was unambiguous and, therefore, is the reflection of the Congress' intent (applying the rules of statutory construction/interpretation).
Also, there was a reference earlier as to multiple Congresscritters filing amicus briefs about their intent. That's not how it works. To the extent that legislative intent matters, it is what is reflected in the contemporaneous Record during the time the legislation is being considered and voted on (committee minutes/transcripts, floor speeches, etc.). I suspect that if there was a discussion of this record by the majority in Halbig, it was likely that there was no discussion of this issue in the actual Congressional Record.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:10 pm to udtiger
quote:
OUR ENTIRE COUNTRY IS frickED UP.
FIFY
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:15 pm to udtiger
Well there goes the Original intent arguement
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:27 pm to CamdenTiger
quote:
Well there goes the Original intent arguement
The attempt will be to mold original intent to fit whatever the circumstance is. The bottom line they don't want to admit is that they thought this plan would be whole-heartedly embraced by the state legislators (whether by choice or coercive attempts), if not the voting masses. Their view of reality couldn't encompass a view where most of the states would not create their own exchanges, and any states that did refuse would eventually be strong-armed into falling into line thus it was never conceived that the federal government would have to be the one shelling out the majority of subsidies.
That shortsightedness is biting them in the arse but they don't want to admit it and will use every excuse in the book to avoid doing so.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:29 pm to teke184
I wonder if the defense is going to continue with the "drafting error" excuse?
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:29 pm to GumboPot
quote:
teke184
quote:
GumboPot
I expect a Pelosi quote soon. I feel one coming on like a Jedi sensing a disturbance in The Force.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:32 pm to Rex
quote:
There is no evidence that Congress intended to treat citizens in different states differently, and much evidence within the statutes, themselves, that subsidies would be available to everyone
bullshite, every single reference to premium assistance in the ACA includes the stipulation that it be done through a State exchange. Further, there is not one single reference to availability of premium assistance through the federal exchange.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:43 pm to Bard
quote:
I expect a Pelosi quote soon. I feel one coming on like a Jedi sensing a disturbance in The Force.
First you predict Rex's response, now Pelosi.
I think I'll start referring to you as Capt. Obvious.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:47 pm to Bard
quote:
The attempt will be to mold original intent to fit whatever the circumstance is. The bottom line they don't want to admit is that they thought this plan would be whole-heartedly embraced by the state legislators (whether by choice or coercive attempts), if not the voting masses. Their view of reality couldn't encompass a view where most of the states would not create their own exchanges, and any states that did refuse would eventually be strong-armed into falling into line thus it was never conceived that the federal government would have to be the one shelling out the majority of subsidies. That shortsightedness is biting them in the arse but they don't want to admit it and will use every excuse in the book to avoid doing so.
Remember...these frickers consciously chose to NOT have a severability clause in the law (if one part is found unconstitutional, the law still survives). Their calculus was that judges would be too concerned that they'd have to scuttle the whole law if they found any one significant part unconstitutional. This is one of the reasons John Roberts pulled the "tax" shite out of his arse...to "save" the statute.
It is not at all far-fetched that they would do it this way to coerce the states, knowing the judges would not want to frick them later.
Posted on 7/25/14 at 1:57 pm to udtiger
quote:
It is not at all far-fetched that they would do it this way to coerce the states, assuming the judges would not want to frick them later.
fify because it may well happen.
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News