Liberals Should Fear SCOTUS in 2015

[Siete]

the SC can rule on a law forcing congress to amend or write a new law... the POTUS can veto either the new law or the amendment ... a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 rds majority in congress as does overturning a veto ... good luck for all the RW's living out there in Hobbit World ..

 

[peach174]

You know most of the time they don't revisit cases, but this is now there 2nd time on this law

It's not a revisit.
It's a case on an entirely different matter.

 

[The Rabbi]

the SC can rule on a law forcing congress to amend or write a new law... the POTUS can veto either the new law or the amendment ... a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 rds majority in congress as does overturning a veto ... good luck for all the RW's living out there in Hobbit World ..

I realize you arent very bright and your posts are riddled with absurdity. But try followiong this one:
The Court cannot force Congress to amend the law. In fact the law does not need to be amended, technically. People on the federal exchange will simply be ineligible for subsidies.
But that will create so much havoc Congress will want to act. And with control of House and Senate, and lots of unhappy Dems runnign the hell away from Ocare, they will overhault it to the point of non recognition. No more mandate. No more medical device tax. No more locked into 3 types of shitty over priced plans.
And if Obama vetoes the fix then everything goes back to people losing their subsidies. Who gets the blame there?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It is getting picked off. Only Congress a future president or the Supremes over ride a presidents EO and read the news democrats are breaking away with Obama.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Dang, I know the subsidies are done in 36 states, liberals in the know are scared to death SCOTUS took this case

They ruled the ACA was a tax. Do you really think they're going to worry about a couple of missing words? The court isn't blind, and it isn't dumb either.

You know most of the time they don't revisit cases, but this is now there 2nd time on this law

It's not a revisit.
It's a case on an entirely different matter.

yea obama care is revisted, the supremes didnt have to hear it, they could have let the other two cases work there way out on judcial review, one case by 3 judges the other by 11? (i forget) Btw i was as surprised as liberals when they decided to hear this case

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Americans have nothing to fear from SCOTUS.

No change on campaign finance laws.

ACA subsidies will remain untouched.

Marriage equality will become the law of the land.

So all Americans are liberals now? Or are you just dumbin' out again? Rhetorical on both questions.

 

[peach174]

Dang, I know the subsidies are done in 36 states, liberals in the know are scared to death SCOTUS took this case

They ruled the ACA was a tax. Do you really think they're going to worry about a couple of missing words? The court isn't blind, and it isn't dumb either.

You know most of the time they don't revisit cases, but this is now there 2nd time on this law

It's not a revisit.
It's a case on an entirely different matter.

yea obama care is revisted, the supremes didnt have to hear it, they could have let the other two cases work there way out on judcial review, one case by 3 judges the other by 11? (i forget) Btw i was as surprised as liberals when they decided to hear this case

Different case altogether

The 1st one was on whether it was a mandate or a tax.

This case concerns tax subsidies that currently help millions of people afford health insurance under the law. According to the challengers, those subsidies are being provided unlawfully in three dozen states that have decided not to run the marketplaces, known as exchanges, for insurance coverage.
If the challengers are right, people receiving subsidies in those states would become ineligible for them, destabilizing and perhaps dooming the law.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Well you are correct, but it is still Obama care after it was changed after the Supremes ruling on it.

 

[Wyatt earp]

If you were the Supremes would you want to look like a fool after Gruber?

 

[Wyatt earp]

My last thoughts on this to July , Gruber/Obama thought they could outbullshit the American public and The law, they wernt counting on 36 states to say fuck you.

We will see

 

[Siete]

the SC can rule on a law forcing congress to amend or write a new law... the POTUS can veto either the new law or the amendment ... a constitutional amendment takes 2/3 rds majority in congress as does overturning a veto ... good luck for all the RW's living out there in Hobbit World ..

I realize you arent very bright and your posts are riddled with absurdity. But try followiong this one:
The Court cannot force Congress to amend the law. In fact the law does not need to be amended, technically. People on the federal exchange will simply be ineligible for subsidies.
But that will create so much havoc Congress will want to act. And with control of House and Senate, and lots of unhappy Dems runnign the hell away from Ocare, they will overhault it to the point of non recognition. No more mandate. No more medical device tax. No more locked into 3 types of shitty over priced plans.
And if Obama vetoes the fix then everything goes back to people losing their subsidies. Who gets the blame there?

since youre an idiot you basically repeated what I just posted then say I/m not very bright. That's why youre an idiot.

 

[JakeStarkey]

all the far conweirds are extremely nervous, whistling as they walk by the WG

 

[JFK_USA]

I thought conservatives were against judicial activism? Oh I see, it's only the liberal activism but making corporations people when they clearly were created to insulate PEOPLE from legal liability is the biggest conservative judicial activism ever.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Just going to book mark this thread for July

 

[JakeStarkey]

Many of us will do that and rub the conweirds' collective face in the mud.

 

[Syriusly]

Obamacare, religious freedom, and same-sex marriage equality are all on the judicial agenda.


Will the Roberts' court overturn Obamacare? Or clarify the legal case for or against same-sex marriage? Or determine just what “hate speech” is as opposed to freedom of speech.

Why would I ever 'fear' a Supreme Court decision?

Will I be hurt if "Obamacare" is struck down(which isn't actually of course on the agenda- only a crucial portion of "Obamacare"? Not at all. I think our country will, but then it will be up to the Republicans.

Same sex marriage- regardless of the decision of the Supreme Court- my wife and I's marriage will still be intact- as will same gender marriage in California. Why would I fear a Supreme Court decision any more than you?

Just more conservative hyperbole.

 

[Syriusly]

No words were missed, the Supremes are human after all and read about Gruber . The only thing the Obama care Drafters didnt count on 36 states didnt take the bait, so they had to change it. What you dont understand 5 supremes are mad

And what special and private insight do you have into the minds of 5 supreme court justices?

Are you saying that they are insane? Or angry?

But more importantly- do they call you late at night to share these things with your- or text you? Or are you friends on facebook?

 

[LoneLaugher]

It takes a special kind of patriot to express glee when suggesting that Americans should fear the supreme court.

Way to go!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Agsin I am very aware of the Supremes attitude, I don't waste my time on playstation 4 or stupid t.v. Sitcoms , my focus Is my job and news and politics

 

[Wyatt earp]

I am not even trying to say your an ignorant person blowing up shit on a video game or laughing at a sitcom, hey we all Need are chemical releases

Nothing wrong with that, mine is knowledge