- 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 Appeal --- Jonathan Gruber doing more work
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:37 am to GumboPot
Posted on 11/16/14 at 11:37 am to GumboPot
quote:The Supreme court doesn't use or need rules to justify anything; the only thing they use "rules" for is to hide behind them.
I posed this question in another thread and the answer was "SCOTUS" has the liberty to include whatever they want if they feel that information is material to the case being adjudicated. Nice backup.
1
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:34 pm to arcalades
The Supremes watch the news. I'm sure John Roberts already has his mind made up about the case.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:40 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Did you even read what I typed? I never said they wouldn't consider it, I only pointed out that the rules of evidence don't allow them to.
Did you even read what I typed? The rules of evidence clearly allows them to.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:49 pm to MMauler
I haven't watched the videos, but I'd highly suggest you look into jurisprudence discussing the reasonably in dispute prong.
A video (whether anonymous or official) of the self proclaimed architect of Obamacare discussing what he believes Congress meant and what he intended does not meet that evidentiary standard.
A video (whether anonymous or official) of the self proclaimed architect of Obamacare discussing what he believes Congress meant and what he intended does not meet that evidentiary standard.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 1:58 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
A video (whether anonymous or official) of the self proclaimed architect of Obamacare discussing what he believes Congress meant and what he intended does not meet that evidentiary standard.
There's only one rule of evidence that speaks to the issue.
And, according to that rule, the "standard" is there can be no reasonable dispute as to the fact, where the fact is "capable of accurate and ready determination by resort to sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
THAT'S IT.
Clearly, there can be no reasonable dispute as to this video's authenticity -- especially when it is being presented as rebuttal evidence to the CLEAR LIES that the Odumbf*ck administration will be offering.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:00 pm to MMauler
Well, relevance comes into play too, but i still haven't seen the videos. We talking Fox News footage or handheld cell phone posted to youtube? You have less problems with the former, but myriad problems with the latter. A judge would never be able to take judicial notice of the latter.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:02 pm to MMauler
And what fact is being proven? Sounds like hearsay to me, right?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:09 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Well, relevance comes into play too, but i still haven't seen the videos.
I do find it absolutely incredible that you haven't seen the video. Are you purposefully avoiding it?
And, yet, despite the fact that you claim you haven't seen it, you question its relevance and have summarily decided that it doesn't meet the "standard" of the rules of evidence?
Well, Here's the video ....
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:15 pm to MMauler
I don't need to see the video, I've been told what it says on here enough.
I'm amazed that you have concluded that the video is absolutely admissible as a judicial fact by summarily concluding that it meets your understanding of the rules of evidence. You read any jurisprudence to support that notion?
ETA: watched the video. So what's the point of considering his opinion on what the federal government was trying to do? He never states anything as a fact.
I'm amazed that you have concluded that the video is absolutely admissible as a judicial fact by summarily concluding that it meets your understanding of the rules of evidence. You read any jurisprudence to support that notion?
ETA: watched the video. So what's the point of considering his opinion on what the federal government was trying to do? He never states anything as a fact.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 2:19 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:23 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
of the self proclaimed architect of Obamacare
"Self-proclaimed" is probably a tad understated.
Gruber has been paid several million dollars by the government for his "self-proclaimed" work.
Gruber spent hours in the Oval Office, personally counselling/interfacing with the President for his "self-proclaimed" work.
Gruber's name and work is cited by economic experts some 20 times in a 29 page amicus brief for his "self-proclaimed" work.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:25 pm to FalseProphet
quote:Then you've not seen the video.
He never states anything as a fact.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:27 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
I'm amazed that you have concluded that the video is absolutely admissible as a judicial fact by summarily concluding that it meets your understanding of the rules of evidence. You read any jurisprudence to support that notion?
Have I read any cases on judicial notice at the appellate level?
No.
Have you?
I cited you an article discussing it though. The article isn't about Halbig, but merely about judicial notice at the appellate level. The article from the National Law Journal cites you the cases if you want to read them. From the article, it's clear that the Supremes are on firm ground in using Judicial Notice to use this video as rebuttal evidence.
You make the absurd statement --
quote:
You may be right in the sense that no one can call them on their bullshite if they too judicial notice of something
And, yet, you apparently refuse to watch the short video that has been provided to you here. You also apparently refuse to read a law journal article that was written years before Obamacare was ever thought of so it's not written with any agenda with respect to the Halbig case.
So, the real question here is why are you and your ilk so afraid of the true facts?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:28 pm to NC_Tigah
You're probably right then. I know little about Shriner other than what I've read on here. I'm not terribly interested in the politics of all of this.
Someone asked whether the USSC could consider the video and somebody started spouting that they could take judicial notice of it. I can't say whether they will consider it or not, but I can say I think that person is wrong as to the judicial notice aspect.
That same person said you couldn't take the 5th in a civil trial.
Someone asked whether the USSC could consider the video and somebody started spouting that they could take judicial notice of it. I can't say whether they will consider it or not, but I can say I think that person is wrong as to the judicial notice aspect.
That same person said you couldn't take the 5th in a civil trial.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:31 pm to MMauler
First, I watched the video before your rant and noted such above.
Second, you (and unlike you, I refuse to lump anyone else into your opinions) lose all credibility when you leap to the conclusion that I refuse to recognize the true facts. Although you don't state it, I presume you are trying to imply that I have some political agenda - likely in line with the Democratic Party.
You're just flat out wrong.
Second, you (and unlike you, I refuse to lump anyone else into your opinions) lose all credibility when you leap to the conclusion that I refuse to recognize the true facts. Although you don't state it, I presume you are trying to imply that I have some political agenda - likely in line with the Democratic Party.
You're just flat out wrong.
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:34 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
ETA: watched the video. So what's the point of considering his opinion on what the federal government was trying to do? He never states anything as a fact.
What Gruber states in the video goes to the heart of the Odumbf*ck Administration LIE that the law never intended for Federal exchange enrollees to not be eligible for subsidies. Further, although the law, as written, CLEARLY calls for such a result, ACCORDING TO THE ODUMBF*CK ADMINISTRATION, the only POSSIBLE reading of the statute calls for the courts to claim that the law, as written, MUST contain a "typo".
That's a blatant LIE. It was written purposefully to excluded federal enrollees to be excluded from the "tax" subsidy. There was no "typo".
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:42 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
That same person said you couldn't take the 5th in a civil trial.
As I said, anyone can "take the Fifth".
But, at any trial such as the one that would have taken place in Halbig, what would Gruber have been taken the Fifth on???
I can see it now --
Attorney: "Mr. Gruber, as one of the principal architects of Odumbf*ckCare, you now claim that there was just a typo in the law. You've gone on several far left whackjob MSNBC shows to state that. But, here you are in 2012 -- before this was ever a judicial matter -- claiming that this portion of the law was written with a purpose to force states to set up exchanges? So, which is it?"
Gruber: I take the Fifth!
RIGHT!
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:46 pm to MMauler
I don't know why people would or wouldn't plead the fifth. But, he could do it just because he felt like it with no other motive at all.
And, what judicial fact would they take notice of exactly in this case? The fact that there is a video where the purported architect of Obamacare says what he thinks the federal governments motive was?
What is the dispositive fact there?
And, what judicial fact would they take notice of exactly in this case? The fact that there is a video where the purported architect of Obamacare says what he thinks the federal governments motive was?
What is the dispositive fact there?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:48 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
Although you don't state it, I presume you are trying to imply that I have some political agenda - likely in line with the Democratic Party.
Anyone who has read any of your crap on here before knows that you have a political agenda in line with the Democrat party.
And, you are the worst sort of far leftist -- you claim (and, I think you've actually convinced yourself), that you are some sort of "above-it-all" independent thinking centrist.
Why is it that these self-proclaimed "independents" are the most far left of the far left whackjobs?
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:50 pm to MMauler
Well that's utter bullshite. I'm a registered republican who has voted for exactly one Democrat in my life, and that's because I was presented with only D candidates.
I honestly worry about people like you who automatically bash someone who doesn't agree with them.
ETA: and for the record, I hoped the ACA would get struck down two years ago, and I hope it gets gutted now. But, I hope the legal reasoning is sound and not based on some YouTube video by a guy who only states what he thinks the government was doing.
I honestly worry about people like you who automatically bash someone who doesn't agree with them.
ETA: and for the record, I hoped the ACA would get struck down two years ago, and I hope it gets gutted now. But, I hope the legal reasoning is sound and not based on some YouTube video by a guy who only states what he thinks the government was doing.
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 2:52 pm
Posted on 11/16/14 at 2:56 pm to FalseProphet
quote:
What is the dispositive fact there?
That not only is there another possible reading other than that this provision merely contained a "typo" (the Odumbf*ck Administration LIE), but that the provision was PURPOSEFULLY written that way with an agenda -- as clearly spelled out by the Odumbf*ckCare architect in the video.
Do you really think that anyone believes that you and the other far leftist are arguing so hard to exclude this video strictly for pedagogical reason? REALLY?
I guess you also believe that it was merely a "typo"!
This post was edited on 11/16/14 at 3:00 pm
Page 2 of 4
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News