Arianrhod
Gold Member
- Jul 24, 2015
- 11,060
- 1,076
- 255
You really don't want to discuss the topic? Okay.So there's only one idiomatic expression you'd want to obliterate. That's hopeful. How do you feel about the Oxford comma?Your decision in defiance of accepted idiomatic usage to declare "it only means this and nothing else" is the exclusionary part.
What other idiomatic expressions do you feel need bowdlerizing?
Nothing, unlike you, I've proved my point.
I see you've decided to go with "Deflection"....
Apparently the new SCOTUS challenge is of less interest here than the OP had hoped...
Apparently you are one of those people that can never admit they've made a mistake. What is so hard about saying "I was wrong"?
LINK: New Obamacare Appeal to Be Filed With the Supreme Court: ‘So Unconstitutional in So Many Ways’
A new ACA challenge will be brought up before the SCOTUS, and it is 'un-deniable'...but it won't matter.
The new lawsuit accurately , appropriately points out that all tax-raising legislation MUST be originated in the House of Representatives - the ACA was created in the Senate, and the decision that the monetary fine on those who refused to purchase 'Obamacare' Insurance was technically created by/in the Supreme Court.
(Obama lawyers argued that it was a punitive FINE, not a tax, so as not to break Obama's promise that no new taxes would be included in the ACA...however, Chief Justice Roberts stated a 'FINE' is Un-Constitutional and therefore the government MUST have intended it to be a 'tax', thereby saving the ACA.)
Although accurate, the point is already 'moot'. The 'old' system of insurance in the US has already been destroyed, replaced with the 'ACA'. Attempting to go back will waster hundreds of billions of dollars and throw those now insured through the ACA into chaos, once again having to scramble to get new insurance, and the Insurance companies would have to scramble to recreate insurance policies...again.
....not going to happen.
Not going to happen for the same reason King v Burwell failed, because it's essentially the same non-argument. When you start haggling over the meanings of commonly accepted words (ironic, given some of the posts in this thread), you need, as an attorney, to be better equipped than the attorneys you're arguing against.
I blame Bill Clinton for starting that whole "definition of 'is'" business.
One clever thing the Pacific Legal Foundation has done, though, is file the suit as an organization, not an individual. In the King case, the plaintiff's past history showed the suit to be bogus long before SCOTUS began discussing it.