What happens if the Supreme Court strikes down 'Obamacare'? - Page 5

kokonut · 03-28-2012, 10:22 AM

Review & Outlook: A Constitutional Awakening - WSJ.com

Looks bad...or good...depending on what you're talking about.

**TXgolfer** · 03-28-2012, 11:03 AM

Today's questioning leaves me less optimistic. Depends on which line of thought Kennedy was following when he expressed concern for insurance companies if the mandate were struck down.

kokonut · 03-28-2012, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Today's questioning leaves me less optimistic. Depends on which line of thought Kennedy was following when he expressed concern for insurance companies if the mandate were struck down.

Well....

Toobin: Hard To Imagine How Things Could Be Going Worse For Obama Administration | RealClearPolitics

It's looking to be a train wreck and an airplane crash now.

kokonut · 03-28-2012, 01:23 PM

A good article -
Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy | RedState

Grayma · 03-30-2012, 12:21 AM

jWhatever the court decides, and I have no guesses which direction they will go, the liberal reaction to the Court's questions is astonishing.
Morning Jay: Why Were Liberals So Surprised By the Supreme Court? | The Weekly Standard

Quote:

The problem for the left is that they do not have a lot of interaction with conservatives, whose intellects are often disparaged, ideas are openly mocked, and intentions regularly questioned. Conservative ideas rarely make it onto the pages of most middle- and high-brow publications of news and opinion the left frequents. So, liberals regularly find themselves surprised when their ideas face pushback.
I think that is exactly what happened with Obamacare. The attitude of President Obama (a former con law lecturer at the University of Chicago, no less!), Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid was very much that they are doing big, important things to help the American people, why wouldn’t that be constitutional? No less an important Democratic leader as the chairman of the House Judiciary Committee cited the (nonexistent) “good and welfare clause” to justify the mandate.
Having no intellectual sympathy for the conservative criticism of this view, they rarely encountered it on the news programs they watch, the newspapers they read every day, or the journals they peruse over the weekends. Instead, they encountered a steady drumbeat of fellow liberals echoing Kagan’s attitude: it’s a boatload of money, what the heck is the problem?
Then, insofar as they encountered conservative pushback, they mostly ignored it.

The echo-chamber is not a good place for the media to live. It makes them look stupid and unprepared:

Quote:

Yesterday, after another two hours of argument, he [Toobin] suggested it might even be a “plane wreck.”
That was the general consensus across the board. It held that the two lawyers arguing against ObamaCare — Paul Clement and Michael Carvin — were dazzlingly effective, while the administration’s solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, put in a mediocre performance.
True enough. But here’s the thing: There was nothing new in what Clement and Carvin said.
Their arguments were featured in briefs already submitted to the court and available for general inspection. And they’d already been given weight by the two judicial opinions against the constitutionality of ObamaCare issued by federal district court judges — one by Henry Hudson in Virginia in December 2010, the other by Roger Vinson in Florida in January 2011.
The briefs exist. The decisions exist. You can Google them. They are strong, fluent, well-reasoned and legitimate. They take ObamaCare seriously, and they argue against it at the highest possible level.
Thus, the strength of the conservative arguments only came as a surprise to Toobin, Greenhouse and others because they evidently spent two years putting their fingers in their ears and singing, “La la la, I’m not listening” whenever the conservative argument was being advanced.

Read more: Supreme Court shocks liberals—John Podhoretz - NYPOST.com

Chris Matthews says he hasn't heard anybody talk about the possibility the Supreme Court might overturn Obama care, so he was taken totally by surprise. Whether you like Obama care or not, the fact that Mathews had no clue that there were any possible problems with the bill ought to make anybody wary of ever trusting his journalism again.
http://ace.mu.nu/archives/327947.php:

Quote:

If liberals not in the media choose to live in The Cocoon, that's their right. But shouldn't media-types who are supposed to inform the public have a passing acquaintance with the arguments of the right?
How can you keep your audience informed if you yourself are deliberately misinformed, by voluntary personal choice?
John Podhoretz writes about the psychic shock when The Cocoon falls apart.

They’re so convinced of their own correctness — and so determined to believe conservatives are either a) corrupt, b) stupid or c) deluded — that they find themselves repeatedly astonished to discover conservatives are in fact capable of a) advancing and defending their own powerful arguments, b) effectively countering weak liberal arguments and c) exposing the soft underbelly of liberal self-satisfaction as they do so.
That’s what happened this week. There appears to be no question in the mind of anyone who read the transcripts or listened to the oral arguments that the conservative lawyers and justices made mincemeat out of the Obama administration’s advocates and the liberal members of the court.
This came as a startling shock to the liberals who write about the court.

Jeffrey Toobin's job is not, supposedly, to offer his own opinions. It's to offer analysis of the court's actual jurisprudence (not just the Jurisprudence of the Left-- that is, Constitutional law in which only liberal opinions are recognized or considered law) and grounded speculation/prediction about the behavior of the court.
For the former, you need to read conservative legal opinions, and not just ignore them as Uncouth. For the latter, you also need to read these opinions, plus briefs in an upcoming case, and make unbiased judgments about what the court will do.
Not what you, as a Man of the Left, wish it to do. But what it probably will do.

rolling7 · 03-30-2012, 08:37 AM

Who is Chris Matthews? I never heard of him. (wink)(wink)

**Jiro** · 03-30-2012, 11:27 AM

**Foxrac** · 03-30-2012, 11:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Do you think that individual mandate will be strike down since rest of other health care reform will still survive?

**Jiro** · 03-30-2012, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

Do you think that individual mandate will be strike down since rest of other health care reform will still survive?

well - if individual mandate is struck down, then rest of other health care reform is pointless since it depends on individual mandates

kokonut · 03-31-2012, 11:53 AM

Quote:

In oral arguments in the Supreme Court on Wednesday, Justice Stephen Breyer “promised” he had not read the entirety of the 2,700-page health-care legislation the court was examining.

He also suggested it would be unreasonable for the lawyers arguing over the constitutionality of the law to expect the justices to “spend a year reading all this” to determine which parts of it should be allowed to stand if the court decides to strike down as unconstitutional the law’s mandate that individuals must buy health insurance.

Justice Breyer on Obamacare: 'I Haven

Obamacare was a bill voted in favor of by Democrats (and no Republicans), a bill that Nancy Pelosi famously said that, paraphrasing, "You have to pass it in order to see what's in it." It was Nancy who who gave Congress three days to look through the 2,700 pages bill, and even that she reneged on that passed the bill even before the 3 days was up. And I guarantee you that those who voted on it never read through the entire 2,700 pages bill to see what's in it. And I remember the debate in AD where a few ADers claimed to have read the bill in its entirety at the time it was crafted in a few short days while their BS meter maxed out. It is just as equally as silly to expect justices to read all of the 2,700 pages of the bill on deciding which provisions or language should be dropped or kept. What we have was a bunch of idiots in Congress who didn't know better to pass that bill (without reading it all), but had to pass it in order to see what's in it.

Morons.

Grayma · 04-01-2012, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.

Grayma · 04-01-2012, 01:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kokonut

Justice Breyer on Obamacare: 'I Haven

Obamacare was a bill voted in favor of by Democrats (and no Republicans), a bill that Nancy Pelosi famously said that, paraphrasing, "You have to pass it in order to see what's in it." It was Nancy who who gave Congress three days to look through the 2,700 pages bill, and even that she reneged on that passed the bill even before the 3 days was up. And I guarantee you that those who voted on it never read through the entire 2,700 pages bill to see what's in it. And I remember the debate in AD where a few ADers claimed to have read the bill in its entirety at the time it was crafted in a few short days while their BS meter maxed out. It is just as equally as silly to expect justices to read all of the 2,700 pages of the bill on deciding which provisions or language should be dropped or kept. What we have was a bunch of idiots in Congress who didn't know better to pass that bill (without reading it all), but had to pass it in order to see what's in it.

Morons.

I think it should be illegal for Congress to ever pass a bill without reading it first.
To do otherwise is grossly irresponsible.

kokonut · 04-01-2012, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.

One of the problem is that insurance companies in each state are protected from interstate competition by the federal McCarran-Ferguson Act (1945), which grants states the right to regulate health plans within their borders. So, of course, one state insurance plans could be higher than a neighboring state, and if competition were allowed, people could buy insurance plans that are cheaper or have more or better coverages in another state than their own.
(see more here - Out-of-state Health Insurance - Allowing the Purchase (State Implementation Report)).

Here's an interesting article to read.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/28/us...pagewanted=all

kokonut · 04-01-2012, 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

I think it should be illegal for Congress to ever pass a bill without reading it first.
To do otherwise is grossly irresponsible.

They do that alot...especially if there are pages and pages of the stuff in a single bill. Nancy Pelosi is the poster girl for what's wrong in Congress.

**TXgolfer** · 04-01-2012, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

Probably the most ridiculous chart ever posted on AD. National Women's Center? Yeah that wouldn't be self serving or anything.

Breaking News: It costs more to insure a new Mercedes than it does a 20 year old Daewoo. I costs more to insure a car in some states than it does in others.

Car insurance is more expensive for 16yo boys than it is for 16yo girls. Car insurance is more expensive for people under 25. Car insurance is more expensive for people with wrecks and tickets. Car insurance is more expensive for single people than married people. Life insurance is more expensive for smokers and stuntmen than non smokers and accountants. Liability insurance is more expensive for Mining companies than it is for florists. Disability insurance is more expensive for commercial construction workers than it is for Piano teachers.

rolling7 · 04-01-2012, 10:27 AM

Best post of the day.....but it is early

**Jiro** · 04-01-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.

then we should abolish our social welfare programs.

**Foxrac** · 04-01-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

I am a woman, and even if I trusted those graphics to be neutrally sourced, unbiased, accurate depictions (and I don't)- it would not matter to me. What I care about is whether or not the laws passed in this country are Constitutional.

If this is seen as Constitutional, then we have lost all limits on government authority, and that is far worse than paying for your own birth control.

Today, our justice system is more partisan activist and alternative to legislative control, especially the Congress rather than follow the US Constitution.

US Constitution has a lot of questions and they do have some limit on authority, not all of cases.

Based on my opinion, health care reform is constitutional.

**Foxrac** · 04-01-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TXgolfer

Probably the most ridiculous chart ever posted on AD. National Women's Center? Yeah that wouldn't be self serving or anything.

Breaking News: It costs more to insure a new Mercedes than it does a 20 year old Daewoo. I costs more to insure a car in some states than it does in others.

Car insurance is more expensive for 16yo boys than it is for 16yo girls. Car insurance is more expensive for people under 25. Car insurance is more expensive for people with wrecks and tickets. Car insurance is more expensive for single people than married people. Life insurance is more expensive for smokers and stuntmen than non smokers and accountants. Liability insurance is more expensive for Mining companies than it is for florists. Disability insurance is more expensive for commercial construction workers than it is for Piano teachers.

I disagree with you about compare to other kind of insurances. I do believe that women should have equal rights as men do like pay at same insurance rate for both genders. Some states banned on discrimination for health insurance companies to make higher, different for women.

**Foxrac** · 04-01-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

then we should abolish our social welfare programs.

Exactly, nothing violate the US Constitution, otherwise, Supreme Court may use power to strike down as misguided to the constitution.

That why I called Supreme Court as corrupted court in some cases.

rolling7 · 04-01-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

then we should abolish our social welfare programs.

Nope, the correct statement is that we should abolish GOVERNMENT social welfare.
Social welfare has been and always will be the responsibility of society.

There are many outlets, I.e. charity, church, benefactors, etc. and the government can not match them for oversight.

**Foxrac** · 04-01-2012, 08:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Nope, the correct statement is that we should abolish GOVERNMENT social welfare.
Social welfare has been and always will be the responsibility of society.

There are many outlets, I.e. charity, church, benefactors, etc. and the government can not match them for oversight.

It is obviously that most of social welfare are funded by government, that why Jiro just simply stated it and you just playing with his words.

Church? lol. Charity? lol. Not all charities can help with people, just not enough.

rolling7 · 04-01-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

It is obviously that most of social welfare are funded by government, that why Jiro just simply stated it and you just playing with his words.

Church? lol. Charity? lol. Not all charities can help with people, just not enough.

Nope, I'm well aware that all most all of todays social programs are government controlled. That is why I was not playing on words. What you don't understand is that people stay years and years and years on the government programs but those that are non-government have oversight and help people to get back on their feet and remove themself from the program. I'm also well aware that there are fewer non-government outlets today due to the apathy of people thinking "let the government handle it". Many years ago when there were many non-government outlets many, many people became involved and contributed help.

Which would you rather participate in? a) a government run program that has no accountability, no oversight, no time limit nor any restrictions.........or....b) a non-government run program that does have restrictions, that does have oversight, that does require you to pull yourself up and get out of the program and be accountable to yourself.

The easy way, and most people take the easy way, is (a) but the most beneficial to society and to the person is (b).

**Foxrac** · 04-01-2012, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Nope, I'm well aware that all most all of todays social programs are government controlled. That is why I was not playing on words. What you don't understand is that people stay years and years and years on the government programs but those that are non-government have oversight and help people to get back on their feet and remove themself from the program. I'm also well aware that there are fewer non-government outlets today due to the apathy of people thinking "let the government handle it". Many years ago when there were many non-government outlets many, many people became involved and contributed help.

Which would you rather participate in? a) a government run program that has no accountability, no oversight, no time limit nor any restrictions.........or....b) a non-government run program that does have restrictions, that does have oversight, that does require you to pull yourself up and get out of the program and be accountable to yourself.

The easy way, and most people take the easy way, is (a) but the most beneficial to society and to the person is (b).

My answer will be A - in bold.

However, if you making too much income after get a better job so you will kick out of food stamp, Medicaid and other welfare.

rolling7 · 04-02-2012, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Foxrac

My answer will be A - in bold.

However, if you making too much income after get a better job so you will kick out of food stamp, Medicaid and other welfare.

See where you took the easy way and those, who like you take the easy way, will never be beneficial citizens.

kokonut · 04-02-2012, 10:08 AM

You have two incentives for those who are able bodied, work on your own and the opportunity to advance yourself and make more money, or receive welfare support that limits your outlook.

Getting off welfare should be designed to allow others to gradually wean from it but it has a trapping that if you take a job with a certain number of hours, you could lose your welfare support.

Grayma · 04-02-2012, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

then we should abolish our social welfare programs.

So you believe social welfare is unconstitutional?

What purpose do you believe the Constitution serves?

**Jiro** · 04-02-2012, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Grayma

So you believe social welfare is unconstitutional?

What purpose do you believe the Constitution serves?

I didn't say that. You did.

Am I correct?

rolling7 · 04-02-2012, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jiro

I didn't say that. You did.

Am I correct?

Grayma did not say you did said that but only ask you two questions.

Are you going to answer the two? Because I would really like to read your viewpoint.

**Jiro** · 04-02-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rolling7

Grayma did not say you did said that but only ask you two questions.

Are you going to answer the two? Because I would really like to read your viewpoint.

why don't you sit down and wait until we finish talking? it's impolite to interrupt.

03-28-2012, 10:22 AM	#121 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	Review & Outlook: A Constitutional Awakening - WSJ.com Looks bad...or good...depending on what you're talking about. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

03-28-2012, 11:03 AM	#122 (permalink)
TXgolfer Dream Weaver Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Everywhere Posts: 17,689	Today's questioning leaves me less optimistic. Depends on which line of thought Kennedy was following when he expressed concern for insurance companies if the mandate were struck down. __________________ Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. - Romans 12:21 Sometimes at night, I see their faces. I feel the traces they've left on my soul

03-28-2012, 01:23 PM	#124 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	A good article - Sinners In the Hands of Anthony Kennedy \| RedState __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

03-30-2012, 11:27 AM	#127 (permalink)
Jiro Aparecium Deletrius Legil Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: The Soprano State Posts: 60,590	__________________ - Don't forget to buy Jiro's Special Edition Sunglasses for $19.95

04-02-2012, 10:08 AM	#146 (permalink)
kokonut Registered User Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 15,348	You have two incentives for those who are able bodied, work on your own and the opportunity to advance yourself and make more money, or receive welfare support that limits your outlook. Getting off welfare should be designed to allow others to gradually wean from it but it has a trapping that if you take a job with a certain number of hours, you could lose your welfare support. __________________ Before AD. After AD. "Restriction on free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us." -Thurgood Marshall, former Supreme Court Justice "... turns out they are telling the truth."

Today
Deafness	Sponsored Links __________________ This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members. Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

03-30-2012, 08:37 AM	#126 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Who is Chris Matthews? I never heard of him. (wink)(wink)

04-01-2012, 10:27 AM	#136 (permalink)
rolling7 Banned Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 3,340	Best post of the day.....but it is early

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode