Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 176

Thread: Oral Arguments

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments



    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I could see it go that way. But I could also see it go 4 -5 that the rest of the law is constitutional
    I posted a long time ago that they could just strike out the penalty part and leave the rest in but the question Kennedy asked about the commerce clause attacks the entire law. Kennedy even said it creates a new relationship between the gov't and the citizen, ie, too much illegal gov't which is what
    we've been saying.

    On the surface, Roberts and Kennedy just dont like it but again, you
    never know.

    LOL - Galen won't like that vid especially the part he says their lawyer
    being so bad. Definitely a doctored tape he'll say.

    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-27-2012 at 06:01 PM.




  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,738

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by AirFlacco View Post
    I posted a long time ago that they could just strike out the penalty part and leave the rest in but the question Kennedy asked about the commerce clause attacks the entire law. Kennedy even said it creates a new relationship between the gov't and the citizen, ie, too much illegal gov't which is what
    we've been saying.

    On the surface, Roberts and Kennedy just dont like it but again, you
    never know.

    LOL - Galen won't like that vid especially the part he says their lawyer
    being so bad. Definitely a doctored tape he'll say.

    And I bet this is the brief he got it from.

    http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads...tion_FILED.pdf




  3. #33
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    The Supreme Court disaster. If it upholds the law it will be in spite of the SG's performance. Ginsberg had to bail him out and interrupted him explaining why Americans won't be forced to buy brocolli to which Verili gratefully, said, yes that's it. He had to explain to the court that passing the law won't leave the gov't with unlimited powers which he couldn't do so Ginsberg did it for him.

    ______________________________________
    "I thought what was unique about this is it's not my choice whether I want to buy a product to keep me healthy, but the cost that I am forcing on other people if I don't buy the product sooner rather than later," said Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Verrilli responded gratefully: "That is—and that is definitely a difference that distinguishes this market and justifies this as a regulation."
    ________________________________________


    Justice Samuel Alito asked the same question later. "Could you just—before you move on, could you express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can?" Verrilli turned to precedent again. "It's very much like Wickard in that respect, it's very much like Raich in that respect," Verrilli said, pointing to two previous Supreme Court opinions liberals have held up to defend the individual mandate. Where the lawyers challenging the mandate invoked the Federalist Papers and the framers of the Constitution, Verrilli offered jargon and political talking points. If the law is upheld, it will be in spite of Verrilli's performance, not because of it.
    ____________________________________________


    This is worse than Galen laughing at Sara Palin confusing Africa as a continent. This is a more educated lawyer who appeared before
    the SC 17 times although he lost most recently when he tried to argue that lethal injection of gas into two death row inmates was
    cruel and inhumane tortue. Hopefully, his losing streak continues.

    Anyone who thought Scalia would vote for it better think again. The first two days have been a train wreck for OBY CARE.


    http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/...court-disaster
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 12:46 AM.




  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    On the flip side, Roberts and Kennedy grilled the opposing attys as well. These justices are by far the most liberal of the GOP justices appointed by Reagan and Bush. We got stuck with Kennedy when Congress rejected Borke's appointment by Reagan by a 9-5 vote. DEMs confirmed Kennedy knowing he wasn't as conservative. Note Reagan's remark in link. Many senators of various political persuasion seem to like Judge Kennedy.
    Translated: he's a f*cking liberal.

    http://www.nytimes.com/1987/11/12/us...ted=all&src=pm

    The liberal Bush appointed the liberal Roberts to the bench. Liberals should
    be kissing W's feet right now or we wouldn't be discussing this.


    __________________________________________

    Roberts and Kennedy were also piercing in their questions to the two lawyers challenging the individual mandate about the government's contention that Congress is validly regulating people who already are in the market because virtually everyone is going to need healthcare at some point.

    "That's my concern in the case," Kennedy said, noting that young, uninsured people affect the overall market by not paying into it and ultimately receiving care over the long term.

    In a similar vein, Roberts said at one point that the healthcare market could be viewed as different from that for cars or other products because everybody is in it.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 01:24 AM.




  5. #35
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    oops.

    double post.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 08:31 AM.




  6. #36
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    The left is freaking out especially CNN and politico.com, OBYs own website.
    Even Rush is shocked and says he was wrong. See comments about old Wolfie freaking out on CNN.


    http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/20...t_developments

    To be fair. From OBYs politico:

    http://www.politico.com/

    From cnn.

    Individual Mandate Divides Court.

    http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/27/justic...are/index.html


    IT IS NOT YOUR FREE CHOICE TO STAY OUT OF THE MARKET FOR LIFE.

    JUSTICE GINSBURG.



    GINSBURG AND TODAY'S LIBERALS ARE THE COMMIES OF 1916.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 01:55 AM.




  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,494
    Again, far too early to read into the questioning by the Justices.

    They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

    So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,738

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Again, far too early to read into the questioning by the Justices.

    They are deciding legal questions, not policy questions. Four legal questions in fact.

    So when someone says that Obamacare will be struck down / upheld, the next question should be "which part?".
    I was surprised by the media (even though I shouldn't be) rushing to the cameras to say, "it's going to be struck down". They grilled the opposing side too, albeit not as hard, or as many justices but they still did.




  9. Re: Oral Arguments

    Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

    I personally don't get it.

    How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

    And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

    Am I missing something here?
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,738

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

    I personally don't get it.

    How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

    And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

    Am I missing something here?
    They say the penalty is to encourage people to buy health insurance. If you don't have the money you get a waiver (so to speak).

    The funny thing is they act like someone who isn't going to get insurance is more likely to pay a $695 penalty than they are a $3,000 policy....




  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    Somebody please explain to me how the government intends on "making" people buy health insurance.

    I personally don't get it.

    How the hell do you make somebody buy something they can't afford if that's their economic difficulty in todays economic environment?

    And how the hell do you make them pay a fine for not buying health insurance if they don't have the money to pay the fine?

    Am I missing something here?
    Government subsidies.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk








  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,738

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Government subsidies.

    Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
    AKA - The Taxpayer.




  13. Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    They say the penalty is to encourage people to buy health insurance. If you don't have the money you get a waiver (so to speak).

    The funny thing is they act like someone who isn't going to get insurance is more likely to pay a $695 penalty than they are a $3,000 policy....
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Government subsidies.
    So therefore, as somebody that pays his taxes and buys health insurance I'm still footing the bill for those that don't anyway, right?

    These people are still getting healthcare if needed at the cost of the tax payer and/or people that buy healthcare insurance because the services provided have to be payed for by somebody.

    Why in the hell would the company I work for provide me health insurance at their cost (partially) if they know I can get insurance another way where they don't have to foot the bill?
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,738

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    Why in the hell would the company I work for provide me health insurance at their cost (partially) if they know I can get insurance another way where they don't have to foot the bill?
    And now you know why the bill was crafted the way it was.




  15. #45
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    The penalty as I understand it is 2% of your gross salary.

    So if Rush Limbaugh refuses to buy it, IRS will collect 2% of his total salary.
    He gets about $100M pr yr from his radio show plus his speaking engagements, endorsements and books.

    So $100M x 2% = ouch.

    If you make $50,000 pr yr it's still ouch.

    Another thing someone mentioned on TV. If he is re-eleted he will completely do away with private insurance industry much like he is trying to destroy
    the coal industry and the gov't will be the only provider.

    That's the way I thought it would be when I first heard about it.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland