America...Hanging By Four Words

[jillian]

ya... PC knows what the high court is disagreeing about. but she has the answers. lol...

I guess in a simplistic world

but the whole drama queen thing about "America... hanging by four words" is really funny.

Dear jillian she might have gotten it from this article about the EIGHT key words:

Supreme Court Obamacare challenge takes shape finally - Yahoo News

After 80 minutes of arguments on Wednesday, the latest Supreme Court battle over Obamacare has apparently come down to two Justices, the literal meaning of eight words and a direct constitutional question.

Attorney Michael Carvin argued for the plaintiffs, who believe that Section 36B of the Affordable Care Act literally says that federal tax-credit subsidies for health insurance can only be offered on an “Exchange established by the State under section 1311” of the act.

I am more concerned about the first 10 words in the First Amendment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

For Obama to declare the ACA and "right to health care" as the law of the land
is establishing a nationalized belief, and requiring all citizens to pay for it, regardless of their beliefs to the contrary.

I find this to be a dangerous precedent.
Political beliefs need to be addressed as a Constitutional issue to stop political discrimination by creed.

all well and good but it really doesn't have anything to do with this issue.

we always pay for things we don't like. I paid taxes that went to an unnecessary war of choice run by the last president. *Shrug*

that's life.

 

[jillian]

The rules of legislative interpretation are quite clear. The court need not go into the legislative history when the words themselves are clear and unambiguous.

Those four words could not be any more clear.

The disturbing thing about this "controversy" as it currently exists is that there are tens of millions of people around this country - people who apparently were in the toilet during all of their High School civics classes - who believe that if the USSC rules against O'BamaCare they will be engaging in evil "judicial activism."

It's ******* pathetic.

Kennedy Offers An Escape Hatch For Government In Obamacare Case - Forbes

"Under the canon of statutory interpretation known as constitutional avoidance, if judges have a choice between a constitutional and unconstitutional reading of an ambiguous statute, they must choose the constitutional one."

No one is claiming that the Supreme Court will decide correctly.

That's why I explained the situation to you.

you stated your perception. that doesn't mean you are correctly stating anything.

 

[jillian]

ya... PC knows what the high court is disagreeing about. but she has the answers. lol...

I guess in a simplistic world

but the whole drama queen thing about "America... hanging by four words" is really funny.

Well, then....we agree that I understand the law....and possibly law in general,....better than you do.

no. we really don't. and let me know when you've passed a couple of bar exams. mmmkay?

kind of childish there, pc.

 

[jillian]

RBG may have hit the nail on the head when she raised the issue of standing. none of the plaintiffs are affected in the least by the ACA.

jillian all taxpayers have standing

the legal system is part of the problem that abridges the right to petition for redress of grievances, equal due process,
and equal representation and protection of beliefs, creeds and interest.

Notice that the Clintons and Obamas are all lawyers. And look how carefully they are able to cover their tracks because they know the limits of the law. What interest do they have in changing what benefits them politically?

Vern Wuensche is the only candidate for office who has challenged the legal profession and system as having a conflict of interest with government, and monopolizing influence in all three branches of govt.
That's because Vern Wuensche is not a lawyer.

If you use the legal system to determine whose beliefs are going to included or excluded by law, that is also a political conflict of interest. That's how all the corporate interests enjoy greater control gaming the system because they have power and resources to sue where individuals don't.

That's a whole other issue that many groups have rallied to take on: judicial and legal abuse and conflicts of interest.
The trouble is the court system and getting legal help is all under that system, controlled by judges and lawyers.
So it is incestuous at best. Good luck with that!

I gave up long ago and realized the people have to resolve our conflicts directly and form our own consensus on laws
if we are going to get the Courts and Govt to establish the real will and consent of the people.

taxpayer standing is very limited. and I think i'll go with RBG on this and not your wiki link. she asked a good question.... which doesn't mean it is how she'll rule. but i'm pretty sure that people who get free medical care like the plaintiffs have a lot of nerve complaining about the subsidies.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The rules of legislative interpretation are quite clear. The court need not go into the legislative history when the words themselves are clear and unambiguous.

Those four words could not be any more clear.

The disturbing thing about this "controversy" as it currently exists is that there are tens of millions of people around this country - people who apparently were in the toilet during all of their High School civics classes - who believe that if the USSC rules against O'BamaCare they will be engaging in evil "judicial activism."

It's ******* pathetic.

Kennedy Offers An Escape Hatch For Government In Obamacare Case - Forbes

"Under the canon of statutory interpretation known as constitutional avoidance, if judges have a choice between a constitutional and unconstitutional reading of an ambiguous statute, they must choose the constitutional one."

No one is claiming that the Supreme Court will decide correctly.

That's why I explained the situation to you.

you stated your perception. that doesn't mean you are correctly stating anything.

Of course I am correct.

Which parts of the OP do you deny?

None, right.

 

[PoliticalChic]

ya... PC knows what the high court is disagreeing about. but she has the answers. lol...

I guess in a simplistic world

but the whole drama queen thing about "America... hanging by four words" is really funny.

Well, then....we agree that I understand the law....and possibly law in general,....better than you do.

no. we really don't. and let me know when you've passed a couple of bar exams. mmmkay?

kind of childish there, pc.

Did you know that every Justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision was a lawyer.

Case closed?

 

[emilynghiem]

RBG may have hit the nail on the head when she raised the issue of standing. none of the plaintiffs are affected in the least by the ACA.

jillian all taxpayers have standing

the legal system is part of the problem that abridges the right to petition for redress of grievances, equal due process,
and equal representation and protection of beliefs, creeds and interest.

Notice that the Clintons and Obamas are all lawyers. And look how carefully they are able to cover their tracks because they know the limits of the law. What interest do they have in changing what benefits them politically?

Vern Wuensche is the only candidate for office who has challenged the legal profession and system as having a conflict of interest with government, and monopolizing influence in all three branches of govt.
That's because Vern Wuensche is not a lawyer.

If you use the legal system to determine whose beliefs are going to included or excluded by law, that is also a political conflict of interest. That's how all the corporate interests enjoy greater control gaming the system because they have power and resources to sue where individuals don't.

That's a whole other issue that many groups have rallied to take on: judicial and legal abuse and conflicts of interest.
The trouble is the court system and getting legal help is all under that system, controlled by judges and lawyers.
So it is incestuous at best. Good luck with that!

I gave up long ago and realized the people have to resolve our conflicts directly and form our own consensus on laws
if we are going to get the Courts and Govt to establish the real will and consent of the people.

taxpayer standing is very limited. and I think i'll go with RBG on this and not your wiki link. she asked a good question.... which doesn't mean it is how she'll rule. but i'm pretty sure that people who get free medical care like the plaintiffs have a lot of nerve complaining about the subsidies.

Hi jillian nothing is free
and no, the people don't want to give up their liberties for govt health care.
the only FREE health care is donated freely by charity; people still have to work for those resources,
but they DONATE VOLUNTARILY ==> GET IT?
govt mandates are paid by forcing taxes on people, so that's not free. sorry.

P.S. if you want proof that govt health care isn't free, just ask anyone who
supports ACA if they would agree to manage and pay for it through the Democrats and
everyone who supports it. If you like it so much, would you be willing to take it on
and make it work yourself, and cover the people you can afford to cover that way.
And suddenly they only support it if "everyone else is forced to pay for it by law"
so that shows it isn't free. it's coming from someone paying for it.
Because the minute you ask others to pay for it, they refuse. Very strange.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The rules of legislative interpretation are quite clear. The court need not go into the legislative history when the words themselves are clear and unambiguous.

Those four words could not be any more clear.

The disturbing thing about this "controversy" as it currently exists is that there are tens of millions of people around this country - people who apparently were in the toilet during all of their High School civics classes - who believe that if the USSC rules against O'BamaCare they will be engaging in evil "judicial activism."

It's ******* pathetic.

Kennedy Offers An Escape Hatch For Government In Obamacare Case - Forbes

"Under the canon of statutory interpretation known as constitutional avoidance, if judges have a choice between a constitutional and unconstitutional reading of an ambiguous statute, they must choose the constitutional one."

"ambiguous statute"

Nothing ambiguous here.

Get a dictionary.

It certainly is ambiguous in the full context of the law.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ya... PC knows what the high court is disagreeing about. but she has the answers. lol...

I guess in a simplistic world

but the whole drama queen thing about "America... hanging by four words" is really funny.

Well, then....we agree that I understand the law....and possibly law in general,....better than you do.

no. we really don't. and let me know when you've passed a couple of bar exams. mmmkay?

kind of childish there, pc.

Did you know that every Justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision was a lawyer.

Case closed?

lol, isn't Bush v Gore a better example of the point you're attempting?

 

[PoliticalChic]

ya... PC knows what the high court is disagreeing about. but she has the answers. lol...

I guess in a simplistic world

but the whole drama queen thing about "America... hanging by four words" is really funny.

Well, then....we agree that I understand the law....and possibly law in general,....better than you do.

no. we really don't. and let me know when you've passed a couple of bar exams. mmmkay?

kind of childish there, pc.

Did you know that every Justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision was a lawyer.

Case closed?

lol, isn't Bush v Gore a better example of the point you're attempting?

Would you like me to smash another pie in your kisser?

Bush v Gore was substantiated by every Liberal paper.


“Gore won” is the equivalent of a political Stanford-Binet IQ Test. And this is a one-question test, so the stakes are high. The bad news, you failed. The good news? Your level of knowledge has attained its nadir, so you have no place to go, but up.

Here is the correct response, you may use it to prepare for your next exam:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html


The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....



New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com


An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.

The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12



I love grinding you to dust.

 

[NYcarbineer]

ya... PC knows what the high court is disagreeing about. but she has the answers. lol...

I guess in a simplistic world

but the whole drama queen thing about "America... hanging by four words" is really funny.

Well, then....we agree that I understand the law....and possibly law in general,....better than you do.

no. we really don't. and let me know when you've passed a couple of bar exams. mmmkay?

kind of childish there, pc.

Did you know that every Justice who agreed with the Dred Scott decision was a lawyer.

Case closed?

lol, isn't Bush v Gore a better example of the point you're attempting?

Would you like me to smash another pie in your kisser?

Bush v Gore was substantiated by every Liberal paper.


“Gore won” is the equivalent of a political Stanford-Binet IQ Test. And this is a one-question test, so the stakes are high. The bad news, you failed. The good news? Your level of knowledge has attained its nadir, so you have no place to go, but up.

Here is the correct response, you may use it to prepare for your next exam:

In the first full study of Florida's ballots since the election ended, The Miami Herald and USA Today reported George W. Bush would have widened his 537-vote victory to a 1,665-vote margin if the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court would have been allowed to continue, using standards that would have allowed even faintly dimpled "undervotes" -- ballots the voter has noticeably indented but had not punched all the way through -- to be counted.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/media/media_watch/jan-june01/recount_4-3.html


The lead of an April 4, 2001 USA Today story headlined, “Newspapers' recount shows Bush prevailed,” by reporter Dennis Cauchon:

George W. Bush would have won a hand count of Florida's disputed ballots if the standard advocated by Al Gore had been used, the first full study of the ballots reveals. Bush would have won by 1,665 votes -- more than triple his official 537-vote margin -- if every dimple, hanging chad and mark on the ballots had been counted as votes, a USA TODAY/Miami Herald/Knight Ridder study shows. The study is the first comprehensive review of the 61,195 "undervote" ballots that were at the center of Florida's disputed presidential election....



New York Times headline clearly stated, "Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote,
Study of Disputed Florida Ballots Finds Justices Did Not Cast the Deciding Vote - NYTimes.com


An exhaustive review of last year's disputed presidential election in Florida indicates that George W. Bush still would have defeated Al Gore even if Mr. Gore had been granted the limited vote recounts he was seeking. Several U.S. news organizations consider the study the final word on the 2000 presidential election.

The study found that even if Al Gore had won the right to limited recounts in Florida, he still would have lost to Mr. Bush by at least 200 votes. The official results gave Mr. Bush a 537 vote victory.
http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2001-11/a-2001-11-12-4-Newspaper.cfm?moddate=2001-11-12



I love grinding you to dust.

Way to miss the point, Grandma.

 

[NYcarbineer]

And amidst it all, the careful-what-you-wish-for goblin emerges:

Red states’ SCOTUS reckoning: Oklahoma governor suddenly terrified of losing subsidies

Red states SCOTUS reckoning Oklahoma governor suddenly terrified of losing subsidies - Salon.com

lol.

 

[Conservative65]

The law was never intended to create a situation where some Americans got the subsidies and some didn't, all else being equal.

A law where one person's healthcare was forcibly funded by another should have never been created.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The law was never intended to create a situation where some Americans got the subsidies and some didn't, all else being equal.

A law where one person's healthcare was forcibly funded by another should have never been created.

We 'forcibly' fund all sorts of services for those who can't afford them otherwise. That's what civilized people do. This is not where grandmother goes off on the ice floe just because she's gotten old.

 

[Conservative65]

The law was never intended to create a situation where some Americans got the subsidies and some didn't, all else being equal.

A law where one person's healthcare was forcibly funded by another should have never been created.

We 'forcibly' fund all sorts of services for those who can't afford them otherwise. That's what civilized people do. This is not where grandmother goes off on the ice floe just because she's gotten old.

The we're a civilization argument. Interesting how it's always one part of civilization support the other part. When is the other half of the civilization going to start doing their part instead of demanding someone else constantly do it for them?

My grandmother wouldn't have nor didn't go off on the ice. Her family took care of her. Since that's what her family did, and I was part of the ones doing it, expecting others to take care of their own grandmothers is not asking them to do anything I haven't already done and would do again. It's not my job to take care of someone else's grandmother. It's theirs. Being a part of society doesn't mean I owe another person's grandmother a damn thing regardless of how much you think it's your place to spend someone else's money doing it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By including the four words "established by the state," Democrats poked a hole in their own lifeboat.

The NYSun sees the irony, and laughs at it.....


"The solution herewith being offered by the Sun is to refer the matter not to the Supreme Court but to the Congress. If this is a matter of the Congress simply failing to write language in the law that conveyed its intent, why not give Congress a chance to fix its error?

Aye, laddies, there’s the rub, isn’t it?
For there’s not a snowball’s chance in Hades that the Congress of the United States is going to reword this law in the way the Obama administration insists Congress intended it to be read."
Scotus Get Us Re-write - The New York Sun


For the sake of America, I sure hope the Supreme Court gets the joke.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The law was never intended to create a situation where some Americans got the subsidies and some didn't, all else being equal.

A law where one person's healthcare was forcibly funded by another should have never been created.

We 'forcibly' fund all sorts of services for those who can't afford them otherwise. That's what civilized people do. This is not where grandmother goes off on the ice floe just because she's gotten old.

The we're a civilization argument. Interesting how it's always one part of civilization support the other part. When is the other half of the civilization going to start doing their part instead of demanding someone else constantly do it for them?

My grandmother wouldn't have nor didn't go off on the ice. Her family took care of her. Since that's what her family did, and I was part of the ones doing it, expecting others to take care of their own grandmothers is not asking them to do anything I haven't already done and would do again. It's not my job to take care of someone else's grandmother. It's theirs. Being a part of society doesn't mean I owe another person's grandmother a damn thing regardless of how much you think it's your place to spend someone else's money doing it.

Always difficult to guess whether NYLiar knows the truth, or is simply too ignorant to know it.

The truth is that the $ trillion a year spent for half a century by the Left, on welfare and other 'forced-civilized programs,' has done almost nothing to relieve poverty, and incentivizes the very behaviors that cause poverty.

 

[Conservative65]

The law was never intended to create a situation where some Americans got the subsidies and some didn't, all else being equal.

A law where one person's healthcare was forcibly funded by another should have never been created.

We 'forcibly' fund all sorts of services for those who can't afford them otherwise. That's what civilized people do. This is not where grandmother goes off on the ice floe just because she's gotten old.

The we're a civilization argument. Interesting how it's always one part of civilization support the other part. When is the other half of the civilization going to start doing their part instead of demanding someone else constantly do it for them?

My grandmother wouldn't have nor didn't go off on the ice. Her family took care of her. Since that's what her family did, and I was part of the ones doing it, expecting others to take care of their own grandmothers is not asking them to do anything I haven't already done and would do again. It's not my job to take care of someone else's grandmother. It's theirs. Being a part of society doesn't mean I owe another person's grandmother a damn thing regardless of how much you think it's your place to spend someone else's money doing it.

Always difficult to guess whether NYLiar knows the truth, or is simply too ignorant to know it.

The truth is that the $ trillion a year spent for half a century by the Left, on welfare and other 'forced-civilized programs,' has done almost nothing to relieve poverty, and incentivizes the very behaviors that cause poverty.

Some people like him are so stupid they don't know how stupid they really are.

With them, it's the taxes are the costs of living in a society. That's the claim just after supporting that it's OK if many also living in that society are exempt from paying certain ones.

 

[Care4all]

there is absolutely no indication in the entire bill, nor from the governors that went with the federal exchange, that subsidies would not be given if these people bought through the federal exchange....period.

that's all that matters, the people who voted for it and passed it, did not think subsidies through the States who chose the federal exchange would not offer subsidies, the governors of the states who went with a federal exchange did not know it, the law itself in every aspect relies on these states using the federal exchange and getting subsidies.

don't think this case is that hard of a case for the SC to decided. From the link above:

Q. ...Has the administration given up?

A. No. The administration says the law's own "text, structure, design and history" refute the other side's arguments. Attempting to divine the meaning of four words in isolation from the rest of massive law is foolhardy, the Justice Department says. Several portions of the law indicate that consumers can claim tax credits no matter where they live, and that a central purpose of the law was to make health care affordable to all Americans. No member of Congress indicated that subsidies would be limited, and several states argue in a separate brief to the court that they had no inkling they had to set up their own exchange for their residents to get tax credits. The administration also says it is nonsensical to think Congress would have set such a "self-defeating scheme." The only possible reading of the law allows subsidies nationwide, the administration says.

 

[Care4all]

even the amount of money the CBO estimated for the cost and scoring of Obamacare INCLUDED the subsidies paid to the states who chose to use the federal exchange instead of opening their own.

And another thing, my state voted to go with the federal exchange and voted not to go with the State exchange, so did they establish an exchange in their state by voting to use the federal one instead of a new one?