Obamacare now to be called SCOTUScare

[lupinus]

Pretty much.


Given the last two SCOTUS rulings, I'm wondering whether I can vote for a Republican at all - even Rand or Cruz. They will have some work to do, to get my vote in the general.

And no, I'm absolutely not going to vote for the Libertarian Party. This country really needs a viable Not Left Wing party.  

If they can't earn my vote Im considering not wasting my time trying to select a candidate I can live with. I'll put my time into something more productive. Like selecting a nice island in the South Pacific with white sandy beaches, off the hurricane routes, and a population of cute topless indigenous women I can sink a confederate battle flag into and claim as my own. Between me and a few recruits I'm pretty sure we'd have the firepower to make ourselves at home.

Or voting for Trump, cause he won't *expletive deleted*ck the place up more than Bush and would at least be entertaining so would be of some use.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[RocketMan]

Sinking a flag into a cute topless indigenous woman usually results in shrieks of pain and red stuff leaking out of said cute topless indigenous woman.
But I understand your point and I am right there with you.

[lupinus]

Sinking a flag into a cute topless indigenous woman usually results in shrieks of pain and red stuff leaking out of said cute topless indigenous woman.
But I understand your point and I am right there with you.

We'll reserve such for the onry sorts who don't take well to their new overlords and flag.

And one recruit is good. Need more. More recruits mean a bigger island. And a bigger island yields more potential for the number of indigenous females. Hell we get a big enough one we might even be able to find a Goat to keep Jamis warm at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tallpine]

We'll reserve such for the onry sorts who don't take well to their new overlords and flag.

And one recruit is good. Need more. More recruits mean a bigger island. And a bigger island yields more potential for the number of indigenous females. Hell we get a big enough one we might even be able to find a Goat to keep Jamis warm at night.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Animal abuse 

[lupinus]

Animal abuse 

Hey it's no business of ours what a happy couple does in their private tiki hut


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

Fistful didn't really read the opinion.  It's about why interpretation needs to consider what congress was attempting to do, rather than for example what a court wants the legislation to do.  If wording is ambiguous, then you consider what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes.

Which of course is the opposite of judicial activism.

I never said I read the majority's absurd decision. I base my opinion on the facts of the case, as I understand them. I believe it was Roberts who said in regards to his first decision on Obamacare that the Court's job is not to save the voters from the stupid laws their representatives pass. He has changed his mind, apparently. The law was intended, and so written, to work in a certain way, and not in another. The Court has ruled that it will work in the "another" it specifically ruled out. The Court rewrote the law. Whether or not the law itself was unconstitutional, this decision was.

[De Selby]

I never said I read the majority's absurd decision. I base my opinion on the facts of the case, as I understand them. I believe it was Roberts who said in regards to his first decision on Obamacare that the Court's job is not to save the voters from the stupid laws their representatives pass. He has changed his mind, apparently. The law was intended, and so written, to work in a certain way, and not in another. The Court has ruled that it will work in the "another" it specifically ruled out. The Court rewrote the law. Whether or not the law itself was unconstitutional, this decision was.

That's why it's important to read the decision - what congress intended is considered at length. 

[SADShooter]

Then how do you explain/justify the supplementary evidence, Gruber, Pelosi, et al.? If context matters, then context matters. Unless it doesn't match your objective, in which case you cherry-pick the appropriate information.

[De Selby]

Then how do you explain/justify the supplementary evidence, Gruber, Pelosi, et al.? If context matters, then context matters. Unless it doesn't match your objective, in which case you cherry-pick the appropriate information.

You should actually read the decision.  Again, this is covered.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

Really? I read it and you see something I missed. Could you be specific?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ron]

The court knows what the Democrats wanted to accomplish.

It doesn't really matter what the words say it is all about the good intentions.

[Tallpine]

You should actually read the decision.  Again, this is covered.

Congress should have actually read the fokking law that they voted to pass 

[Hawkmoon]

Fistful didn't really read the opinion.  It's about why interpretation needs to consider what congress was attempting to do, rather than for example what a court wants the legislation to do. If wording is ambiguous, then you consider what congress attempted to do and interpret so as to avoid perverse/frustrating outcomes.

Which of course is the opposite of judicial activism.

However, the wording is NOT ambiguous. The wording is, in fact, very clear and straightforward. The tax exemption is for health insurance exchanges established by the states What could be less ambiguous than that? Read the dissents -- this point is made in the dissenting opinions, and VERY pointedly stated in one of them.

It used to be a fundamental premise that the courts and enforcement authorities could not "interpret" a law to mean something other than what it says. Yet in this case, the decision does exactly that -- and admits up front that it is doing so. Which means that, from this day forward, people in the United States can no longer act on the assumption that any law means what it says. The Supreme Court has now declared open season on the concept that words have meanings.

[MillCreek]

I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises.  When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.

[TommyGunn]

I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises.  When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.

Are you suggesting we should praise them when they F**K up and criticize them when they do right? 

[Perd Hapley]

I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises.  When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.

So when the Court makes a good decision, we congratulate them; when they screw up, we criticize them. Yeah, that's fascinating.

[Ron]

I do think it is interesting that when the Court makes a favorable 2A decision, this board is singing their praises.  When the Court makes other decisions, this board is condemning them to the lowest depths.

It amazes me that liberty is being lost almost all across the board except in this one area.

It will be interesting to see how the government eventually disarms the population.

No doubt it will be a case in which Roberts disappoints once again and after reading the decision DeSelby will grudgingly agree that the constitution in fact calls for the disarming of the population    




 

[MillCreek]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

[Tallpine]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

The intent of clear language   

 

[Ron]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

The intent behind the 2nd is pretty easy to ascertain through reading materials from that era by those involved in the drafting of the constitution, as well as their contemporaries. The wording while clunky to us is not really that unclear either, if you are remotely familiar with the rules of grammar.

In this case we have the primary paid consultant on video expressing an opposite opinion of what the court ruled.

Early on there were warnings that if a state didn't set up an exchange their citizens weren't going to get tax credits.

The words are very exact and precise as one should expect in a law.

The court basically decided to change the legislation by fiat due to the unintended consequences.

It wasn't the intent of the words (the law) they interpreted, it was the intent of the outcome they interpreted.  

 

[Ben]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

But aren't the 2nd Amendment cases based on telling the government what it can't do and can't enforce, while the ACA stuff is about what the government CAN enforce?

[Tallpine]

The court could have always ruled that the law meant what it said, and then issued a stay to allow Congress a chance to correct its error, if indeed it was an error.

[SADShooter]

It is fascinating, especially when you consider how many of the 2A cases hinge upon the Court deriving the intent of the authors of the Constitution and using that intent to interpret the 2A.  So yes, I find it interesting that deriving intent is OK when it supports your worldview or political beliefs, but not so much when it does not.

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take one ConLaw class and have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. It seems to me your critique is valid when predicated on the assertion that SCOTUS applies consistent reasoning and principles of judicial review. I don't see evidence in this case to support that notion. I assume you do?

[MillCreek]

^^^Ha!  I have always thought that one of the perks of being the SCOTUS is you and nobody else gets to decide when stare decisis is important and when it is not.  It is a hoot to read some of the decisions over the years and see the analysis as to why the Court did or did not follow stare decisis in making the current decision.

[roo_ster]

I'm not a lawyer, but I did take one ConLaw class and have stayed in a Holiday Inn Express. It seems to me your critique is valid when predicated on the assertion that SCOTUS applies consistent reasoning and principles of judicial review. I don't see evidence in this case to support that notion. I assume you do?

Note that in the SCOTUScare ruling that the SCOTUS took it upon themselves to derive the intent of the legislators who wrote the law.  A day previous, SCOTUS struck down the Texas law and upheld the doctrine of disparate impact...because SCOTUS wrote that they should not derive the intent of the legislators who wrote the law.

Consistency, constitutionality, and the law has nothing to do with gov't nowadays, except as a club to beat the the unconnected.