- 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
2
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:51 pm to Rex
quote:
All of Obama's appointments are scum
Well, at least you are finally coming around.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:53 pm to SSpaniel
How about this one Rex?
What if Obama's ringers vote with the original majority? Will that make you question the wisdom of the 4th Circuit?
What if Obama's ringers vote with the original majority? Will that make you question the wisdom of the 4th Circuit?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:56 pm to udtiger
BTW....4th Circuit panel:
Gregory - recess appointment by WJC (re-nominated by GWB)
Thacker - Obama
Davis - Obama
Gregory - recess appointment by WJC (re-nominated by GWB)
Thacker - Obama
Davis - Obama
Posted on 7/23/14 at 1:59 pm to udtiger
quote:
What if Obama's ringers vote with the original majority?
You mean with the two in DC? Well, I won't agree and I won't like it, and I'm sure there wii be many bumps of this thread, which would only make me laugh.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:03 pm to Rex
bullshite. Congressional intent was pretty clear. Here is what the Senate Finance Committee had to say with respect to Health Care Affordability Tax Credits.
That wasn't a drafting error. The language of the legislation is consistent with the intent expressed by the Senate Finance Committee.
quote:LINK The Senate Finance Committee did not use unqualified language such as "the exchanges" that would have included the federal exchange, nor did it use inclusive language such as "the state or federal exchanges". It used exclusive language.
Provides a refundable tax credit for eligible individuals and families who purchase health insurance through the state exchanges.
That wasn't a drafting error. The language of the legislation is consistent with the intent expressed by the Senate Finance Committee.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:21 pm to Rex
quote:It is quite clear to me from 5+ years of reading your posts that you have very little if any consideration for the personal qualities of your heros. All that matters to you is their ideology.
All of Obama's appointments are scum and I approve.
It is therefor obvious that any person, scum or otherwise, who agrees with your views (which are correct by definition), will be righteous; while those who disagree, be they pillars of integrity and honor, will be wicked and evil.
This is how someone, who raises them self and family from poverty against all odds and dedicates an entire life to the service of sick and dying children can come to be vilified by you while others born of privilege, who attempt to murder and kill innocent people can become your idol.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:21 pm to Poodlebrain
At the time of that draft the plan was for every state to have an exchange, thus all Americans would be eligible for subsidies. The actual crafted ACA allowed for the full substitution by a Federal exchange should a state not make that election. The intent has always been the same and is embodied in the law... affordable coverage for EVERY American, which necessarily means subsidies available to everyone.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:24 pm to LSUnKaty
quote:
This is how someone, who raises them self and family from poverty against all odds and dedicates an entire life to the service of sick and dying children can come to be vilified by you while others born of privilege, who attempt to murder and kill innocent people can become your idol.
WTF are you babbling about?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:27 pm to Rex
quote:
The intent has always been the same and is embodied in the law... affordable coverage for EVERY American, which necessarily means subsidies available to everyone.
How is it supposed to be deficit neutral if everyone gets a subsidy ??
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:28 pm to Poodlebrain
Here's the thing...
The "blackline" rule of statutory interpretation is that you first go to the actual statutory language.
If the language is clear, then that IS the intent of the legislature (Congress). You do not go beyond the words (i.e., if the language is clear, then that is the manifestation of Congressional intent and you do not look to what was (or wasn't) said in Committee, or on the floor).
The thing is, reading the law "as a whole," it is abundantly clear that there was a clear distinctions between the role of the Federal government, and the role of the States.
The "blackline" rule of statutory interpretation is that you first go to the actual statutory language.
If the language is clear, then that IS the intent of the legislature (Congress). You do not go beyond the words (i.e., if the language is clear, then that is the manifestation of Congressional intent and you do not look to what was (or wasn't) said in Committee, or on the floor).
The thing is, reading the law "as a whole," it is abundantly clear that there was a clear distinctions between the role of the Federal government, and the role of the States.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:28 pm to Rex
Honestly I dont understand the big deal with nominations. The president appoints judges. Traditionally congress approved these justices with little fanfare minus some major problem.
To me, to fight over ever single appointment is like crying wolf.
This goes both ways too. the winner gets the spoils. Obama will obviously decide to appoint liberal judges no big deal. Same with conservatives. 90% judges aren't dummies and will retire when (or go on senior status) a like minded individual is in office. At this point, not much is going to change unless one party rules the white house for years.
To me, to fight over ever single appointment is like crying wolf.
This goes both ways too. the winner gets the spoils. Obama will obviously decide to appoint liberal judges no big deal. Same with conservatives. 90% judges aren't dummies and will retire when (or go on senior status) a like minded individual is in office. At this point, not much is going to change unless one party rules the white house for years.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:28 pm to Rex
The Constitution is what the judges say it is. Obama ignores it on a regular basis.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:30 pm to fleaux
quote:
How is it supposed to be deficit neutral if everyone gets a subsidy ??
generally the tax payer is paying for that shite anyways.. People with no health insurance and no way to pay generally get healthcare through emergency services
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:48 pm to Rex
quote:
The intent has always been the same and is embodied in the law... affordable coverage for EVERY American, which necessarily means subsidies available to everyone.
Then maybe they should have read the f*cking bill before they passed it.
And, it is very possible that drafters of IRC sec. 36B were attempting to coerce the states into setting up an exchange and that is why they only allowed for credits/subsidies to those in State exchanges ESTABLISHED UNDER SEC. 1311 of ACA, and not Federal Exchanges established under sec. 1321 of ACA.
The drafters not only said that to obtain the credit/subsidy an eligible individual had to be "enrolled in through an Exchange established by the State," they went a step further and said "UNDER SECTION 1311" of ACA.
What could be more clear?
A judge is not allowed to substitute his opinion of what he thinks the law should be, or what he thinks the overall "purpose" of the law is. When the wording is clear and unambiguous -- AS IT IS HERE - the analysis is OVER.
Any politicized scumbag judge can come up with his own ideas of what a law should be. He/she is not allowed to substitute that "opinion" for what is clearly and unambiguously stated (twice for effect in this case) in the statute.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 2:50 pm to Rex
Chicken needs to institute a mercy rule on voting.
Once any post has a 45-downvote margin, voting stops.
Seriously, 72-6 downvote?
Once any post has a 45-downvote margin, voting stops.
Seriously, 72-6 downvote?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:10 pm to Rex
quote:
At the time of that draft the plan was for every state to have an exchange, thus all Americans would be eligible for subsidies. The actual crafted ACA allowed for the full substitution by a Federal exchange should a state not make that election. The intent has always been the same and is embodied in the law... affordable coverage for EVERY American, which necessarily means subsidies available to everyone.
Is the fact that the bill makes no such inclusion the only thing holding you back from linking actual language in the bill that states what you claim? Or is it also that you have not read a single line from the bill not quoted in a hack blog or article?
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:12 pm to Rex
2005 on the nuclear option
I would like to think that this is something that we could sort out,” then-Sen. Obama said. “And I think that the way to sort it out would be for this administration to do what every administration previous to this one has done; which is to say, ‘Here are a set of nominees. Let's run them by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, figure out which of these judges generate the most heat, are considered most out of the extreme, and then let's work out what the list is of judges who in fact can gain some bipartisan support.’ I mean, that's what every president has done up until this point.”
He continued: “And what we have now is a president who has decided, you know, ‘I've gotten 95 percent of my appointees, but there are these 10 that I want just because I want them.’ Hasn't gotten his way. And that is now prompting, you know, a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever.”
Mr. Obama recalled being in the minority in the Illinois state senate when the Republican leader adopted tough rules.
“I remember what it was like the first several years that I was in the minority,” he said. “You couldn't attach an amendment. You could not get a thing done. If you were in the minority, you might as well not have even showed up. And then there was redistricting, and a few years later, the Democrats are in charge, and now the Republicans cannot get a thing done. And the Democrats don't have to pay them any attention whatsoever.
“And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended,” Obama said.
I would like to think that this is something that we could sort out,” then-Sen. Obama said. “And I think that the way to sort it out would be for this administration to do what every administration previous to this one has done; which is to say, ‘Here are a set of nominees. Let's run them by members of Congress on both sides of the aisle, figure out which of these judges generate the most heat, are considered most out of the extreme, and then let's work out what the list is of judges who in fact can gain some bipartisan support.’ I mean, that's what every president has done up until this point.”
He continued: “And what we have now is a president who has decided, you know, ‘I've gotten 95 percent of my appointees, but there are these 10 that I want just because I want them.’ Hasn't gotten his way. And that is now prompting, you know, a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever.”
Mr. Obama recalled being in the minority in the Illinois state senate when the Republican leader adopted tough rules.
“I remember what it was like the first several years that I was in the minority,” he said. “You couldn't attach an amendment. You could not get a thing done. If you were in the minority, you might as well not have even showed up. And then there was redistricting, and a few years later, the Democrats are in charge, and now the Republicans cannot get a thing done. And the Democrats don't have to pay them any attention whatsoever.
“And what I worry about would be you essentially have still two chambers — the House and the Senate — but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that's just not what the founders intended,” Obama said.
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:19 pm to Rex
From 2006
quote:
But Democrats contend that the Republicans are essentially breaking the rules to change the rules. "If there were ever an example of an abuse of power, this is it," said Senate Minority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.). "The filibuster is the last check we have against the abuse of power in Washington."
Posted on 7/23/14 at 3:23 pm to the808bass
Y'all do know that the so called nuclear option does NOT apply to SCOTUS appointees, right? For Obama or any President to get one (SC Justice) approved, in case of a filibuster, 60 votes are still needed.
Page 4 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News