Page 6 of 12 FirstFirst ... 2345678910 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 176

Thread: Oral Arguments

  1. Re: Oral Arguments



    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    Indeed..

    There's stuff involved with that bill that I agree with and think should be addressed, but not at the cost of the entire thing.

    That's the problem in my eyes.

    They should be addressing the issues presented by the healthcare system and health insurance providers that seem to be the biggest problems of concern.
    Not the whole fucking thing!!

    So now we potentially are back to square one with the same issues and no resolution because the powers that be thought to fix the problems that exist, they needed to screw with everything about the system which a large majority of the population didn't want.
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  2. #77
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,496

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    Indeed..

    There's stuff involved with that bill that I agree with and think should be addressed, but not at the cost of the entire thing.

    That's the problem in my eyes.

    They should be addressing the issues presented by the healthcare system and health insurance providers that seem to be the biggest problems of concern.
    Not the whole fucking thing!!

    So now we potentially are back to square one with the same issues and no resolution because the powers that be thought to fix the problems that exist, they needed to screw with everything about the system which a large majority of the population didn't want.
    I agree there needs to be changes. We do need some major fixing to the health care system in general.

    But are you saying the court should be making those changes?

    I want changes made as well. But not at the expense of the Constitution and certainly not by an unelected court.
    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.




  3. Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I agree there needs to be changes. We do need some major fixing to the health care system in general.

    But are you saying the court should be making those changes?

    I want changes made as well. But not at the expense of the Constitution and certainly not by an unelected court.
    Quite frankly, I'm not sure who or how the changes that most of us think need to be looked at should be made.

    I'm pretty damn sure the insurance companys themselves aren't going to voluntarily do it and cost themselves more money in expenses if they can get by the way they have and still profit knowing that joe american is going to buy insurance if he can afford it because some insurance is better then no insurance.

    I think the government has to get involved in some way to regulate what they can and cannot do similar to everything else.

    Doesn't mean I think the government should have the power to force a specific plan down my throat though.

    The government wouldn't be doing its job if it didn't look into things to make sure it's in our best interest which is why they are elected to begin with which you're fully aware of.

    With that being said....

    Just because they're elected doesn't mean I have to agree with what they think or believe is right for me, particularly if these decisions are being made for me by people I didn't vote in.
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  4. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by ActualSpamBot View Post
    Then he should have used an example that is actually comparable. He drew a direct equivalency between health insurance and a bible when there is none. Is there some actual service that people could use that isn't mandatory. Car insurance? Nope. Renter's insurance? Nope. I'm being honest, I can't think of many vital services we get to opt out of like health insurance.

    Sorry for the delay. While I was typing this I got attacked by my dead beat brother in law. I'm off to the emergency room. Glad I have health insurance. <- Not a joke. Seriously just got my eye gouged by a deadbeat relative. Now I know how BC's wallet feels around his sister in law.
    You can grab a free Bible while you're in the hospital
    Spammy. You'll need one.





  5. #80
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,739

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Day 3:
    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...rgument=11-393

    If we go off the line of questioning (Which we know can be misleading) as a gauge of which way they will vote
    .
    Kagan may vote against the mandate but will not vote against the whole law.
    Bryer same as Kagan
    Ginsburg is for both.
    Sotomayor who knows, she has actually asked good questions of both sides.
    Scalia against both.
    Roberts on the fence about both
    Alito against the mandate, on the fence about the whole thing
    Kennedy, same as Sotomayor.
    Thomas, against both




  6. #81
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,496

    Re: Oral Arguments

    CNN's Toobin seems to think the entire law is doomed:

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vid...istration.html

    Well, it's hard to imagine how things could be going much worse for the Obama Administration, but now they're going to be dealing with the Medicaid portion, and they may decide to get rid of that as well.
    I think it's safe to say the conservative justices and at least two of the liberal justices will toss our the mandate. The debate now seems to hinge if that can be severed from the law itself.

    From a historical standpoint, the court has pretty much always ruled that if they reject a portion of the bill, the rest of the bill is also dead. Since this was an all-in-one piece of legislation, if they reject the mandate, history suggest the whole bill is tossed out as well. They can either declare it unconstitutional and the debate is over or send it back to Congress, neither of which is good for the President in an election year.
    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.




  7. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    27,496

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Alito against the mandate, on the fence about the whole thing
    From everything I have read, he's on board with shit canning the whole law.
    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. #83
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,739

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    From everything I have read, he's on board with shit canning the whole law.
    Very possible, I think he's on the fence definitely leaning that way but I just haven't heard him come out and say (of course I can't tell whose voice is whose all the time) something that gives me that impression like Scalia has said.

    Scalia "You want us to go through 2,700 pages and determine what can and cannot be severed"

    I would have liked to heard that from them all.




  9. Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Scalia "You want us to go through 2,700 pages and determine what can and cannot be severed"

    I would have liked to heard that from them all.
    I'm thinking they're all thinking the same thing though which essentially is what needs to be done if the core is canned.
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




  10. #85
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,739

    Re: Oral Arguments

    WOW.

    Go to about 38:20 on the audio. How much Kagan is helping the defense is out of control. If she was not a committed ideologue she would have recused herself.




  11. #86
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,739

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fanatic View Post
    I'm thinking they're all thinking the same thing though which essentially is what needs to be done if the core is canned.
    I agree more or less.

    If you listen to the audio, Kennedy was asking, "what should we do". Bryer was too, but he was also defending certain portions that were good (and I agree some are), leading me to believe he won't severe.
    Last edited by NCRAVEN; 03-28-2012 at 03:50 PM. Reason: clarification




  12. #87
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    This is why Kagan should recuse herself but won't because radicals don't do what's
    right. She assisted in the building of the defense for OBUMMER CARE which is highly
    unusual enough for her to RECUSE it. Here's the law in black and white. Why isn't anyone enforcing it.

    NOTE THE LAST SENTENCE: JUDGES MUST RECUSE THEMSELVES IF THEY HAVE PREVIOUSLY TAKEN A PART, ALBEIT SMALL
    IN THE INVESTIGATION, PREPARATION OR PROSECUTION OF A CASE.


    ________________________________________________
    According to Section 455(b)(3) of Title 28 of the U.S. Code, justices must disqualify themselves in cases where they have “served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser, or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case or controversy.” In United States v. Gipson, the Tenth Circuit held that judges must recuse themselves if they have “previously taken a part, albeit small, in the investigation, preparation, or prosecution of a case.”
    _________________________________________


    She'll vote for all of it.

    Here's some justices that did recuse including one lib - Breyer. From Wiki:

    _________________________________________
    In the Supreme Court of the United States, the Justices typically voluntarily recuse themselves from participating in cases in which they have a financial interest. For example, Justice Sandra Day O'Connor generally did not participate in cases involving telecommunications firms because she owned stock in such firms, while Justice Stephen Breyer has disqualified himself in some cases involving insurance companies because of his participation in a Lloyd's of London syndicate. Justices also have declined to participate in cases in which close relatives, such as their children, are lawyers for one of the parties. On occasion, recusal takes place under more unusual circumstances; for example, in two cases, Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist stepped down from the bench when cases were argued by Arizona attorney James Brosnahan, who had testified against Rehnquist at his confirmation hearing in 1986. Whatever the reason for recusal, the United States Reports will record that the named Justice "took no part in the consideration or decision of this case."
    _____________________________________________

    http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-...-jeff-sessions
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 04:40 PM.




  13. #88
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Looks like their minds are made up. Entire law to be struck down - ALL OF IT.

    OBY is prepared to accept some of it but Kennedy and Scalia say it's a package
    deal, all or none if it should be struck down.

    Hell, they didn't even want to read the 2,700 pages.


    ______________________________

    Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

    JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

    (Laughter.)

    JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?

    Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?

    -


    ____________________________________
    "One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.

    Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.

    ___________________________

    Damn, and he was the one I was worried about.


    http://www.latimes.com/news/politics...,2058481.story
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-28-2012 at 07:49 PM.




  14. #89
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,908

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Anyone see the typical liberal ad homenim slant James Carville put on a potential overturn?

    "I think that [an overturn] will be the best thing that ever happened to the Democratic party because health care costs are gonna escalate unbelievably. I really believe that, this is not spin."

    You know what the Democrats are going to say -- and it is completely justified: 'We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority. The public has these guys figured out. Our polls show that half think this whole thing is political."

    “They overturned an election. And just as a professional Democrat, there’s nothing better for me than they overturn this thing 5-4. And then the Republican Party will own this health care system for the foreseeable future. … Go see Scalia when you want health care.”

    http://loyalopposition.blogs.nytimes...the-democrats/

    Curse the establishment!
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  15. #90
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    13,453
    Blog Entries
    5

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Go see O bummer, Pelosi and Reid when you want communism.

    American liberals already have.




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