- 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
Supreme Court votes 7-2 to KEEP Obamacare!
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:00 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:00 am
LINK
quote:
Former President Donald Trump's three appointees to the Supreme Court - Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh - split their votes
Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the majority, while Gorsuch was in dissent
6
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:01 am to Seldom Seen
Disappointed in the result but the logic behind the decision is sound IMO.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:01 am to Seldom Seen
I mean, I guess fk the constitution, or sanity? 
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:02 am to Seldom Seen
This is why I laughed at everyone who thought these appointees were some kind of win for the right
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:04 am to m2pro
quote:
I mean, I guess fk the constitution, or sanity?
m2pro, should I trust your opinion or 9 Supreme Court justices on what is or isn’t constitutional?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:05 am to m2pro
as stated in the other thread on this decision...
they didn't rule on the merits of the law
just said the states didn't have standing to bring the case
really need to find a person who has legit standing to bring the case up the judicial circuit
they didn't rule on the merits of the law
just said the states didn't have standing to bring the case
really need to find a person who has legit standing to bring the case up the judicial circuit
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:06 am to rt3
quote:
really need to find a person who has legit standing to bring the case up the judicial circuit
I’m not sure standing is possible to challenge the law based on the unconstitutional mandate. In effect, that’s what this decision does.
Neither the states nor individuals have a redressable injury according to SCOTUS, because there is no enforcement of the mandate currently.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:07 am to upgrayedd
quote:
This is why I laughed at everyone who thought these appointees were some kind of win for the right
What reality do you live in? They were obviously victories for the right.
You sound like the type of person who probably thinks Scalia wasn’t a conservative bc of his ruling on flag burning.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 1:14 pm
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:08 am to CovingtonTigre
quote:
What reality do you live in? They were obviously victories for the right.
You sound like the type of idiot who probably thinks Scalia wasn’t a conservative bc of his ruling on flag burning.
I live in the reality where these justices will side with the swamp almost all the time.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:09 am to Seldom Seen
If people want to have the govt in charge of their healthcare then I say let em. As long as I get to keep my private private insurance idc if Obamacare stays or not.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 11:10 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:09 am to upgrayedd
quote:The Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation are two members of the Deep State you all complain about. Trump just elevated their status times 1000. Congrats.
This is why I laughed at everyone who thought these appointees were some kind of win for the right
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:11 am to upgrayedd
quote:
I live in the reality where these justices will side with the swamp almost all the time.
Disagreeing isn’t siding with the swamp.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:19 am to jbird7
quote:
If people want to have the govt in charge of their healthcare then I say let em.
In this scenario, who's paying for the govt to provide these services?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:20 am to Seldom Seen
It may be wrong, but no one has STANDING!
Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:20 am to Seldom Seen
quote:
Kavanaugh and Barrett joined the majority
Still can't believe we have so many out there that are brainwashed to all the conservative RINO bullshite.
I will say it over and over and over. Don't listen to what someone says, watch what they do.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:21 am to wareaglepete
quote:
Still can't believe we have so many out there that are brainwashed to all the conservative RINO bullshite.
They weren’t technically wrong on this one.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:24 am to rt3
Can someone explain to me very simply what “standing” means in these cases?
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:25 am to tiger91
Speaking very generally, espcially with SCOTUS, standing requires (i) injury, (ii) causation, and (iii) redressability.
SCOTUS found issues with the latter 2 elements, particularly the lack of a redressable injury. Without the mandate being enforced, a court opinion striking the law wouldn’t do anything to address the plaintiffs injury.
The court doesn’t issue advisory opinions, I.e just stating that something is bad, thus no standing.
SCOTUS found issues with the latter 2 elements, particularly the lack of a redressable injury. Without the mandate being enforced, a court opinion striking the law wouldn’t do anything to address the plaintiffs injury.
The court doesn’t issue advisory opinions, I.e just stating that something is bad, thus no standing.
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 11:27 am
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:25 am to imjustafatkid
I’ll say this: the original Obamacare decisions was absolutely BS. The court set out a 3 part test to determine if it was a tax or a penalty and the penalty failed 2/3 prongs of the test but the court just ignored that.
That being said, this is opinion is correct. Allowing this would set a precedent for advisory opinions which isn’t the purpose of the SCOTUS.
That being said, this is opinion is correct. Allowing this would set a precedent for advisory opinions which isn’t the purpose of the SCOTUS.
Posted on 6/17/21 at 11:26 am to Indefatigable
Thanks — so only someone who was directly “injured” by this can ask to sue?
Oh and going to find def of redressabity
Oh and going to find def of redressabity
This post was edited on 6/17/21 at 11:28 am
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News