The Obamacare Supreme Court Decision Thread

[Dr.House]

After the spanking the 0bama lawyer got in the oral arguments, how can any rational thinking lib still think a mandate is any way shape or form Constitutional?

 

[idb]

The decision is supposed to be announced early Thursday June 28.

Many people seem to think it's a fait accompli that the SC is going to overturn the ACA that Congress passed two years ago. Maybe, maybe not.

Considering that a lot of people are emotionally invested (to say the least) in the Supreme Court's ruling, as opposed to being intellectually invested in the merits (or lack thereof) of Obamacare, it seems to me that many people will either be extremely elated or furious beyond words at the court's decision if and when it does or doesn't turn out the way they expect and want it to be decided.

This thread may serve as a place for people to vent their frustration if the court makes a majority ruling that runs contrary to their views.

Both sides will claim victory, no matter what the ruling is.

 

[Sallow]

Pity there can’t be a thread where the ruling would be discussed in an objective, unemotional, and rational manner.

There is nothing rational about this. The fact it made it this far is a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down the government. This was the conservative solution to the health care problem..and now it's one they want reversed.

And they aren't doing it in congress..they are doing it in court.

It’s also a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down Obama, regardless the damage to the Nation.

To be fair..they engaged in this sort of nonsense with Clinton as well. Conservatives are seriously not interested in preserving Democratic institutions.

What they want, ultimately, is that the common folk have no voice..or vote.

And that this country is ruled by very rich people.

 

[jillian]

After the spanking the 0bama lawyer got in the oral arguments, how can any rational thinking lib still think a mandate is any way shape or form Constitutional?

easy... 200 years of caselaw... but it's not like that means anything to the rightwingnuts or their embarrassing henchmen on the Supreme Court.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I think we should wait until their actually is a ruling.

We don't agree a lot but on this we do.

Someone is trying to jump the gun for a big thread.

 

[Sallow]

The decision is supposed to be announced early Thursday June 28.

Many people seem to think it's a fait accompli that the SC is going to overturn the ACA that Congress passed two years ago. Maybe, maybe not.

Considering that a lot of people are emotionally invested (to say the least) in the Supreme Court's ruling, as opposed to being intellectually invested in the merits (or lack thereof) of Obamacare, it seems to me that many people will either be extremely elated or furious beyond words at the court's decision if and when it does or doesn't turn out the way they expect and want it to be decided.

This thread may serve as a place for people to vent their frustration if the court makes a majority ruling that runs contrary to their views.

Both sides will claim victory, no matter what the ruling is.

They'll spin it to be sure.

But this is ultimately going to reflect badly on Conservatives. Because it will be conservative judges that will vote to over-ride legislation from congress.

 

[Ernie S.]

Pity there can’t be a thread where the ruling would be discussed in an objective, unemotional, and rational manner.

who the fuck here does THAT apply to?

who the fuck here besides you,does THAT apply to?

Fixed your typo. You are welcome, sir.

 

[g5000]

Pity there can’t be a thread where the ruling would be discussed in an objective, unemotional, and rational manner.

Roll out the cancer lady!

And you can quote me.

 

[Avatar4321]

Pity there can’t be a thread where the ruling would be discussed in an objective, unemotional, and rational manner.

There is nothing rational about this. The fact it made it this far is a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down the government. This was the conservative solution to the health care problem..and now it's one they want reversed.

And they aren't doing it in congress..they are doing it in court.

It’s also a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down Obama, regardless the damage to the Nation.

So the nation is going to be damaged by the Courts upholding the Constitution?

 

[Dr.House]

The decision is supposed to be announced early Thursday June 28.

Many people seem to think it's a fait accompli that the SC is going to overturn the ACA that Congress passed two years ago. Maybe, maybe not.

Considering that a lot of people are emotionally invested (to say the least) in the Supreme Court's ruling, as opposed to being intellectually invested in the merits (or lack thereof) of Obamacare, it seems to me that many people will either be extremely elated or furious beyond words at the court's decision if and when it does or doesn't turn out the way they expect and want it to be decided.

This thread may serve as a place for people to vent their frustration if the court makes a majority ruling that runs contrary to their views.

Both sides will claim victory, no matter what the ruling is.

They'll spin it to be sure.

But this is ultimately going to reflect badly on Conservatives. Because it will be conservative judges that will vote to over-ride legislation from congress.

Bullshit...

America will applaud the decision that we won't be forced into something we don't want and can't afford... Your flaming liberal opinions are out of touch with the majority of Americans who don't want a mandated healthcare law 2900 + pages long that was never read by the fuckstains who passed it...

 

[Dr.House]

After the spanking the 0bama lawyer got in the oral arguments, how can any rational thinking lib still think a mandate is any way shape or form Constitutional?

easy... 200 years of caselaw... but it's not like that means anything to the rightwingnuts or their embarrassing henchmen on the Supreme Court.

What caselaw says all Americans MUST purchase a good or service from the government?

There was a reason the 0bama lawyer was laughed at during oral arguments, dear...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I’d like to see the IM invalidated, so Congress would be free to make actual reform and implement a single-payer “Medicare for all’ program.

Sadly Congress is unwilling or unable to do the right thing.

And with a single payer program it would allow insurance companies to go back to being insurance companies, rather than healthcare providers (which was never their original intent) and ensure basic coverage for all.

 

[jillian]

There is nothing rational about this. The fact it made it this far is a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down the government. This was the conservative solution to the health care problem..and now it's one they want reversed.

And they aren't doing it in congress..they are doing it in court.

It’s also a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down Obama, regardless the damage to the Nation.

So the nation is going to be damaged by the Courts upholding the Constitution?

no. it damages the country when the high court becomes a shill for the rightwingnuts and loses legitimacy as the final arbiter of the constitution.

i know that your partisanship means more to you, though.

 

[Avatar4321]

It’s also a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down Obama, regardless the damage to the Nation.

So the nation is going to be damaged by the Courts upholding the Constitution?

no. it damages the country when the high court becomes a shill for the rightwingnuts and loses legitimacy as the final arbiter of the constitution.

i know that your partisanship means more to you, though.

I believe in the Constitution. I swore to uphold and defend it. I take my oath seriously. Which has been why I opposed Obamacare from the beginning.

 

[jillian]

After the spanking the 0bama lawyer got in the oral arguments, how can any rational thinking lib still think a mandate is any way shape or form Constitutional?

easy... 200 years of caselaw... but it's not like that means anything to the rightwingnuts or their embarrassing henchmen on the Supreme Court.

What caselaw says all Americans MUST purchase a good or service from the government?

There was a reason the 0bama lawyer was laughed at during oral arguments, dear...

the commerce clause has been broadly interpreted for as long as its been interpreted.

and do you really think there's a substantive difference between having to pay FICA and having to buy into a pool of insurers to cover services you will at some point in time use.

i love how that was peachy keen when the heritage foundation came up with it as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's single payor, but suddenly became "unconstitutional" when this president signed it into law.

he wasn't laughed at by the judges. he was laughed at by people like you because he came off like the bill buckner of constitutional lawyers. but that was personally, not the law behind him, dear.

 

[Ernie S.]

The decision is supposed to be announced early Thursday June 28.

Many people seem to think it's a fait accompli that the SC is going to overturn the ACA that Congress passed two years ago. Maybe, maybe not.

Considering that a lot of people are emotionally invested (to say the least) in the Supreme Court's ruling, as opposed to being intellectually invested in the merits (or lack thereof) of Obamacare, it seems to me that many people will either be extremely elated or furious beyond words at the court's decision if and when it does or doesn't turn out the way they expect and want it to be decided.

This thread may serve as a place for people to vent their frustration if the court makes a majority ruling that runs contrary to their views.

In my view, either way I'm going to have mixed feelings. I can't believe the mandate to buy insurance is constitutional which is what a Supreme Court decision should be based upon. On the other hand, there are a lot of things to like about the Act and it will be a shame to see it cast aside because part of it is unconstitutional. So if it remains intact; the Constitution (as I read it) is violated. If it is repealed, we lose a good law based on this archaic document written by men who likely would be the first to wonder why we're still living under a 200+ year old document.

I think they would be quite pleased that we do, AND that over the years, we have used their perscribed method for making changes. The Founding Fathers gave us a document, written in fairly simple language the common man could understand. They meant it to last, but provided a cumbersome method to amend it. This cumbersomeness is not by mistake. Were it simple to amend, it would be 10 times the size of the healthcare bill by now and just as impossible to decipher.

 

[Dr.House]

It’s also a testament to how committed conservatives are to tearing down Obama, regardless the damage to the Nation.

So the nation is going to be damaged by the Courts upholding the Constitution?

no. it damages the country when the high court becomes a shill for the rightwingnuts and loses legitimacy as the final arbiter of the constitution.

i know that your partisanship means more to you, though.

So it's ok when the court agrees with you, but they're over reaching and partisan when the ruling doesn't go your way?

You probably thing Ginsberg isn't partisan....lol

 

[jillian]

So the nation is going to be damaged by the Courts upholding the Constitution?

no. it damages the country when the high court becomes a shill for the rightwingnuts and loses legitimacy as the final arbiter of the constitution.

i know that your partisanship means more to you, though.

I believe in the Constitution. I swore to uphold and defend it. I take my oath seriously. Which has been why I opposed Obamacare from the beginning.

nonsense... you opposed it because the voices on the right told you to.

 

[Avatar4321]

the commerce clause has been broadly interpreted for as long as its been interpreted.

and do you really think there's a substantive difference between having to pay FICA and having to buy into a pool of insurers to cover services you will at some point in time use.

i love how that was peachy keen when the heritage foundation came up with it as an alternative to Hillary Clinton's single payor, but suddenly became "unconstitutional" when this president signed it into law.

he wasn't laughed at by the judges. he was laughed at by people like you because he came off like the bill buckner of constitutional lawyers. but that was personally, not the law behind him, dear.

That's an outright lie and you know it. The commerce clause was interpreted incredibly narrowly until the Great Depression. Wickard v. Fiilburn is the decision that changed that.

Anyone who has ever attended law school and pays attention knows that case.

 

[Avatar4321]

no. it damages the country when the high court becomes a shill for the rightwingnuts and loses legitimacy as the final arbiter of the constitution.

i know that your partisanship means more to you, though.

I believe in the Constitution. I swore to uphold and defend it. I take my oath seriously. Which has been why I opposed Obamacare from the beginning.

nonsense... you opposed it because the voices on the right told you to.

I oppose it because I sat down and read the Constitution. I recommend doing so someday.