Supreme Court likely to allow Obamacare to stand.

[esalla]

Lol you sound like one of those simpletons at corkys fbi

You sound like a butthurt moron. Probably because you are one.

Does anyone else get the impression that a duck is quacking here?

Sorry Donald I am going to have to ignore you now as this is one of the recommended techniques for dealing with a sociopath like yourself. Oh you can still say anything you choose but I will not see it so as always I get the last word, which is, Bye Corky, quack on

 

[esalla]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified and still force people to pay for what they do not have so the mandate is dead. But that does not matter as they will just say that people who have health insurance are in a lower tax bracket in general, this will not ne legal either so this will be in the courts forever or until enough headshots are fired

 

[dblack]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

 

[esalla]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

Modified how, it was ruled unconstitutional. Describe the modification that you have in your mind that would be legal?

 

[dblack]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

Modified how, it was ruled unconstitutional. Describe the modification that you have in your mind that would be legal?

Just set the penalty as a positive amount, like it was before. Which would make it a "tax" in Roberts' view and thus constitutional. What law or decision prevents them from doing that?

 

[Orangecat]

Does anyone else get the impression that a duck is quacking here?

Sorry Donald I am going to have to ignore you now as this is one of the recommended techniques for dealing with a sociopath like yourself. Oh you can still say anything you choose but I will not see it so as always I get the last word, which is, Bye Corky, quack on

Ahh, children and their little pictures.
Once again, you prove "ignore" is for beaten cowards.
Bless your heart.

 

[Orangecat]

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

He likes to make things up and pretend they're facts. When called on it, he'll post silly pictures and pretend he's a stock market guru.

 

[esalla]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

Modified how, it was ruled unconstitutional. Describe the modification that you have in your mind that would be legal?

Just set the penalty as a positive amount, like it was before. Which would make it a "tax" in Roberts' view and thus constitutional. What law or decision prevents them from doing that?

Roberts view is inconsequential the mandate was ruled unconstitutional and the supreme court is highly unlikely to reverse this though they could. Now what is a positive amount penalty, positive means you get money the mandate was a fine for not sucking obamas cock like Roberts clearly did. Nothing you are saying makes sense. Are you looking forward to earning less under Biden?

 

[dblack]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

Modified how, it was ruled unconstitutional. Describe the modification that you have in your mind that would be legal?

Just set the penalty as a positive amount, like it was before. Which would make it a "tax" in Roberts' view and thus constitutional. What law or decision prevents them from doing that?

Roberts view is inconsequential the mandate was ruled unconstitutional and the supreme court is highly unlikely to reverse this though they could.

DId you read the article you linked to? It was ruled unconstitutional because there was zero penalty, thus no longer a tax and not covered under the previous decision. If that was bumped back up, to something above zero, the previous ruling would stand. Which brings us back to your claim that they can't do that. I hope you're right, but I have seen no indication that you are. Where are you getting that from? What makes you think Congress can't reset the penalty for the mandate?

Nothing you are saying makes sense. Are you looking forward to earning less under Biden?

You don't seem to be reading my posts. I'm not in favor of the mandate. I'm just worried that it will be very easy for the Dems to reverse, especially if Republicans screw around and lose control of the Senate.

 

[esalla]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

Modified how, it was ruled unconstitutional. Describe the modification that you have in your mind that would be legal?

Just set the penalty as a positive amount, like it was before. Which would make it a "tax" in Roberts' view and thus constitutional. What law or decision prevents them from doing that?

Roberts view is inconsequential the mandate was ruled unconstitutional and the supreme court is highly unlikely to reverse this though they could.

DId you read the article you linked to? It was ruled unconstitutional because there was zero penalty, thus no longer a tax and not covered under the previous decision. If that was bumped back up, to something above zero, the previous ruling would stand. Which brings us back to your claim that they can't do that. I hope you're right, but I have seen no indication that you are. Where are you getting that from? What makes you think Congress can't reset the penalty for the mandate?

Nothing you are saying makes sense. Are you looking forward to earning less under Biden?

You don't seem to be reading my posts. I'm not in favor of the mandate. I'm just worried that it will be very easy for the Dems to reverse, especially if Republicans screw around and lose control of the Senate.

So you are just wetting your pants hoping that people get taxed more.

You are a retard, go burn a Targett prove your worth, then bash a cops brains in, you know be a good liberal

 

[dblack]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

Modified how, it was ruled unconstitutional. Describe the modification that you have in your mind that would be legal?

Just set the penalty as a positive amount, like it was before. Which would make it a "tax" in Roberts' view and thus constitutional. What law or decision prevents them from doing that?

Roberts view is inconsequential the mandate was ruled unconstitutional and the supreme court is highly unlikely to reverse this though they could.

DId you read the article you linked to? It was ruled unconstitutional because there was zero penalty, thus no longer a tax and not covered under the previous decision. If that was bumped back up, to something above zero, the previous ruling would stand. Which brings us back to your claim that they can't do that. I hope you're right, but I have seen no indication that you are. Where are you getting that from? What makes you think Congress can't reset the penalty for the mandate?

Nothing you are saying makes sense. Are you looking forward to earning less under Biden?

You don't seem to be reading my posts. I'm not in favor of the mandate. I'm just worried that it will be very easy for the Dems to reverse, especially if Republicans screw around and lose control of the Senate.

So you are just wetting your pants hoping that people get taxed more.

You are a retard, go burn a Targett prove your worth, then bash a cops brains in, you know be a good liberal

Wow. If you can even comprehend my posts, there's not much point. Seeyabye.

 

[esalla]

It would at least be nice to see the Court strike down the mandate. Elected leaders shouldn't be allowed force us to buy things from their cronies.

The court can not strike down the mandate because it no longer exist

Yes it does. The penalty was reduced to zero, for now, but the mandate is still on the books. Republicans didn't have the balls to repeal it.

The court has already declared the mandate unconstitutional, so Biden can not reinstate it unless the supreme court rules that the mandate is constitutional. Really simple Biden has no power to do what he says

BREAKING: Fifth Circuit Declares Individual Mandate Unconstitutional, Punts on Whether Rest of ACA Must Fall (Updated)

As if there wasn't enough going on this week, a federal appellate court issues a significant (and significantly flawed) ruling in the latest Obamacare challenge

reason.com

From the article you linked to:

In short, a divided panel decided that the courts have jurisdiction to hear the case and the appeal, the individual mandate is unconstitutional because Congress' decision to zero out the penalty means that it may no longer be construed as a tax, and that the question of severability is complex and difficult and must be reconsidered by the district court.

This implies that all that is needed to make it constitutional again is to reinstate the penalty, thus making it (in the eyes of Roberts) a tax.

The penalty can not be reinstated by Biden because the courts ruled it unconstitutional and for the record the mandate, penalty or o care tax are all the same thing

I've read nothing supporting that view. The law is still on the books. A court ruling a law unconstitutional does doesn't repeal the law, it just means it can't be enforced. If the law is modified, such that it is constitutional, it can once again be enforced. Congress can crank the penalty back up any time they can get the votes, which is why the GA runoffs are so important.

The mandate can not be enforced or be modified ...

Where are you getting the idea that it can't be modified? Again, I've read nothing supporting that.

Modified how, it was ruled unconstitutional. Describe the modification that you have in your mind that would be legal?

Just set the penalty as a positive amount, like it was before. Which would make it a "tax" in Roberts' view and thus constitutional. What law or decision prevents them from doing that?

Roberts view is inconsequential the mandate was ruled unconstitutional and the supreme court is highly unlikely to reverse this though they could.

DId you read the article you linked to? It was ruled unconstitutional because there was zero penalty, thus no longer a tax and not covered under the previous decision. If that was bumped back up, to something above zero, the previous ruling would stand. Which brings us back to your claim that they can't do that. I hope you're right, but I have seen no indication that you are. Where are you getting that from? What makes you think Congress can't reset the penalty for the mandate?

Nothing you are saying makes sense. Are you looking forward to earning less under Biden?

You don't seem to be reading my posts. I'm not in favor of the mandate. I'm just worried that it will be very easy for the Dems to reverse, especially if Republicans screw around and lose control of the Senate.

So you are just wetting your pants hoping that people get taxed more.

You are a retard, go burn a Targett prove your worth, then bash a cops brains in, you know be a good liberal

Wow. If you can even comprehend my posts, there's not much point. Seeyabye.

You can not comprehend that forcing people to pay for something that they did not receive is illegal.

Are you happy at least that Biden is going to lower your pay by repealing the Trump tax cuts?

 

[justinacolmena]

I'm sick of the leftist healthcare bullshit already. Get circumcised and free healthcare for life, they promise.​

We have South African dentists in Alaska pulling not only the four wisdom teeth but the four front teeth (upper incisors) for "cosmetic" reasons.

Moses needs to lay down the law here. The discussion needs to center on three points, none of which is how to pay for it.

1. What are the best practices of medicine?
2. What are the best ways to punish and torture doctors out of their malpractice?
3. What are the best ways to force, coerce, or compel doctors to engage in best practices of care with their patients?

 

[BrokeLoser]

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

The healthcare program that doubled profits for providers will stand and baby killing remains AWESOME!
How fucking cool.

Insurers’ Profits Have Nearly Doubled Since Obama Was Elected - Washington Examiner

In 2008, the year that Barack Obama was elected as president, the combined annual profits of America's ten largest health insurance companies were $8 billion. Under Obamacare, the ten largest health insurers' annual profits have risen to $15 billion. This is another fine example of the natural...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

 

[laferia52]

'Obamacare' likely to survive, high court arguments indicate

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing...

apnews.com

I post this as someone that did not support Obamacare but I have a bigger point to make.

People vote for lousy candidates because they say "Supreme Court" but really, the Supreme Court rarely makes
any sort of big rulings.

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

Healthcare is not affordable with the Affordable Care Act. The deductibles are too high. Some are $8000 to $12000 dollars and even higher.After meeting your deductible the plans pay between 60% to 80% of the charges .The only people who have benefited are the ones that ended up getting medicaid in states that expanded their medicaid programs. Otherwise you are screwed if you get one of those plans. You end up paying your subsidized premium if you qualify for a subsidy and paying for your healthcare out of your own pocket all year because you have not met your deductible. The new year starts and the deductible starts again

 

[LeftofLeft]

'Obamacare' likely to survive, high court arguments indicate

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing...

apnews.com

I post this as someone that did not support Obamacare but I have a bigger point to make.

People vote for lousy candidates because they say "Supreme Court" but really, the Supreme Court rarely makes
any sort of big rulings.

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

Radical Liberals who fight tooth and nail to keep Conservative judges from being appointed are not afraid of their landmark legislations like Obamacare and legalized abortion from being overturned. They are deathly afraid of not being able to usurp the legislative process by not having their own radical judges in place to legislate from the Bench.

 

[pknopp]

'Obamacare' likely to survive, high court arguments indicate

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing...

apnews.com

I post this as someone that did not support Obamacare but I have a bigger point to make.

People vote for lousy candidates because they say "Supreme Court" but really, the Supreme Court rarely makes
any sort of big rulings.

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

Radical Liberals who fight tooth and nail to keep Conservative judges from being appointed are not afraid of their landmark legislations like Obamacare and legalized abortion from being overturned. They are deathly afraid of not being able to usurp the legislative process by not having their own radical judges in place to legislate from the Bench.

Trump appointees are going to vote to let it stand.

 

[LeftofLeft]

'Obamacare' likely to survive, high court arguments indicate

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing...

apnews.com

I post this as someone that did not support Obamacare but I have a bigger point to make.

People vote for lousy candidates because they say "Supreme Court" but really, the Supreme Court rarely makes
any sort of big rulings.

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

Radical Liberals who fight tooth and nail to keep Conservative judges from being appointed are not afraid of their landmark legislations like Obamacare and legalized abortion from being overturned. They are deathly afraid of not being able to usurp the legislative process by not having their own radical judges in place to legislate from the Bench.

Trump appointees are going to vote to let it stand.

I know they are and I am not surprised. I knew this with each of his appointees. My point was to show the real reason liberals and Democrats lose their shit over a Conservative joining the bench.....it is one less slot for Liberals to expand their radical agenda. When have Conservative judges or how often have conservative judges overturn legislation?

 

[pknopp]

'Obamacare' likely to survive, high court arguments indicate

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing...

apnews.com

I post this as someone that did not support Obamacare but I have a bigger point to make.

People vote for lousy candidates because they say "Supreme Court" but really, the Supreme Court rarely makes
any sort of big rulings.

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

Radical Liberals who fight tooth and nail to keep Conservative judges from being appointed are not afraid of their landmark legislations like Obamacare and legalized abortion from being overturned. They are deathly afraid of not being able to usurp the legislative process by not having their own radical judges in place to legislate from the Bench.

Trump appointees are going to vote to let it stand.

I know they are and I am not surprised. I knew this with each of his appointees. My point was to show the real reason liberals and Democrats lose their shit over a Conservative joining the bench.....it is one less slot for Liberals to expand their radical agenda. When have Conservative judges or how often have conservative judges overturn legislation?

Its pretty rare for any court to do anything major.

 

[LeftofLeft]

'Obamacare' likely to survive, high court arguments indicate

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing...

apnews.com

I post this as someone that did not support Obamacare but I have a bigger point to make.

People vote for lousy candidates because they say "Supreme Court" but really, the Supreme Court rarely makes
any sort of big rulings.

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

Radical Liberals who fight tooth and nail to keep Conservative judges from being appointed are not afraid of their landmark legislations like Obamacare and legalized abortion from being overturned. They are deathly afraid of not being able to usurp the legislative process by not having their own radical judges in place to legislate from the Bench.

Trump appointees are going to vote to let it stand.

I know they are and I am not surprised. I knew this with each of his appointees. My point was to show the real reason liberals and Democrats lose their shit over a Conservative joining the bench.....it is one less slot for Liberals to expand their radical agenda. When have Conservative judges or how often have conservative judges overturn legislation?

'Obamacare' likely to survive, high court arguments indicate

WASHINGTON (AP) — A more conservative Supreme Court appears unwilling to do what Republicans have long desired: kill off the Affordable Care Act, including its key protections for pre-existing...

apnews.com

I post this as someone that did not support Obamacare but I have a bigger point to make.

People vote for lousy candidates because they say "Supreme Court" but really, the Supreme Court rarely makes
any sort of big rulings.

Trump got his picks but Obamacare and abortion will still stand.

Radical Liberals who fight tooth and nail to keep Conservative judges from being appointed are not afraid of their landmark legislations like Obamacare and legalized abortion from being overturned. They are deathly afraid of not being able to usurp the legislative process by not having their own radical judges in place to legislate from the Bench.

Trump appointees are going to vote to let it stand.

I know they are and I am not surprised. I knew this with each of his appointees. My point was to show the real reason liberals and Democrats lose their shit over a Conservative joining the bench.....it is one less slot for Liberals to expand their radical agenda. When have Conservative judges or how often have conservative judges overturn legislation?

Its pretty rare for any court to do anything major.

Agreed. Then why the need for the panic by Liberals when a Conservative gets appointed other than to act like an entitled child disappointed that he does not get a seat at the table?