Florida Judge Rules ObamaCare Unconstitutional

[Zander]

Face the facts LEFTIES - your precious Obamacare is going down. You actual expect that a lousy bill passed in the middle of the night with kickbacks and purchased votes will be allowed to stand?? You must hate children.

 

[AmericanFirst]

Face the facts LEFTIES - your precious Obamacare is going down. You actual expect that a lousy bill passed in the middle of the night with kickbacks and purchased votes will be allowed to stand?? You must hate children.

They are so delusional they actually believe the lies that spill out of their mouths. The whole process of pushing that bill down our throats was a shameful exercise.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??

Yes you do remember that.

the hypocrisy that is the White House now whining about judicial activism has been noted already.

Your deflection is noted as well.

 

[thereisnospoon]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

you'd know that if you weren't just spewing.

Oh...I get it....Because certain SC justices may decide Obamacare or parts thereof would be unconstitutional, that in and of itself makes them out to be "hacks"...
You are incorrect, sweetie pie..The bill did not contain the severability clause and therefore if one part is struck down the entire law is stuck down.
Liberals...Riding the short bus to mediocrity

no. you don't get it.

and frankly, someone as ignorant as you patronizing me is kind of funny.

ok what don't I get? The part that Reid and Pelosi deliberately left severability out of the law or the part that the federal judge made his decision to find Obamacare unconstitutional and because of the lack of severability was more or less forced to find the entire law to be unconstitutional...
Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you.
The mere fact that you ,one who presents herself as being so well educated is here on a political discussion board having to debate with a high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt..
Now genius , how much intelligence does THAT take?
Now ,go ahead. Think of a clever comeback. Dazzle me.
You're on a losing streak here. A federal judge with over 40 years experience has rendered a decision. You don't like it because the decision has the potential for political disaster for your side. So you decide to pop off a few legal sounding sentences and then with all the wisdom your education can muster you conclude the decision was "stupid"..
Oh yes. That is what you implied....Gotta hand to ya there boopie. You outsmarted all of us.....
You got patronized because you deserved it.....Tell me, if a gentleman pulls out your chair so may be seated, do you consider that "patronizing"?....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Remember the good old days when the Right used to ridicule the Left with the line that the left used the courts to do what they couldn't get done legislatively??

Yes you do remember that.

The court didn't legislate in this case, puddinhead.

Work on your memory.

I didn't say they did you illiterate inbred.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Medicare isn't a mandate?

Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?

You're forced to pay into it if you work. It's an insurance; you're required to pay a premium towards it.

 

[Yurt]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

you'd know that if you weren't just spewing.

Generally that is true, but there are exceptions. Please note that I am not saying that finding the mandate unconstitutional makes the whole law unconstitutional, but there have been cases in the past where an entire law was declared unconstitutional because a fundamental part of it is unconstitutional. Whether this will eventually hold up is for the courts to decide, not you or me.

The only exceptions that exist are when the unconstitutional portion, if there is one, cannot under any circumstances be severed from the body of the law.

For people who claim to hate activist judges, the rightwingnuts sure love *their* activist judges.

I know that if this Court were to actually rely on precedent and do it's job, this law is constitutional. I say that based upon the current state of the law and the rules of stare decisis.That said, I also have no doubt that the rightwingnuts on the Court will strike down the mandate. I also have no doubt that the left side of the bench will uphold the law. That leaves the decision to Justice Kennedy.

But I also know that Judge Vinson's decision doesn't meet any criteria for adjudication that I've ever heard of.

Make you wonder who assigned the case to him in Florida.

i'm curious as to what prior decisions you believe support the h/c law....

just the names if you want

 

[Yurt]

Medicare isn't a mandate?

Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?

You're forced to pay into it if you work. It's an insurance; you're required to pay a premium towards it.

no, you're wrong and clearly do not understand obamacare

 

[Vel]

Medicare isn't a mandate?

Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?

You're forced to pay into it if you work. It's an insurance; you're required to pay a premium towards it.

But, you're not forced to pay into it simply because you're alive. That's the problem with Obamacare.

 

[The Infidel]

Are you forced to sign up for Medicare?

You're forced to pay into it if you work. It's an insurance; you're required to pay a premium towards it.

But, you're not forced to pay into it simply because you're alive. That's the problem with Obamacare.

Commerce clause

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-care-lawsuit-shift-momentum-coverage-debate/

 

[Dr Grump]

1) Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
2) I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you.
3) The mere fact that you ,one who presents herself as being so well educated is here on a political discussion board having to debate with a high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt..Now genius , how much intelligence does THAT take?

1) No, they would probably show a little more class and intelligence
2) Her pinky shows more signs of life and intelligence
3) I am not surprised you are a "high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt'. It shows....

 

[boedicca]

And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.

Feel manly now, bub?

 

[The Infidel]

1) Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
2) I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you.
3) The mere fact that you ,one who presents herself as being so well educated is here on a political discussion board having to debate with a high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt..Now genius , how much intelligence does THAT take?

1) No, they would probably show a little more class and intelligence
2) Her pinky shows more signs of life and intelligence
3) I am not surprised you are a "high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt'. It shows....

DEFLECTION

 

[boedicca]

He who cannot erect must deflect.

Just sayin'.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

no. if the court looks at a law, even if it decides that part is unconstitutional (which it isn't unless scalia and his buds continue to be hacks), then only the part that is unconstitutional is struck down.

you'd know that if you weren't just spewing.

Generally that is true, but there are exceptions. Please note that I am not saying that finding the mandate unconstitutional makes the whole law unconstitutional, but there have been cases in the past where an entire law was declared unconstitutional because a fundamental part of it is unconstitutional. Whether this will eventually hold up is for the courts to decide, not you or me.

The only exceptions that exist are when the unconstitutional portion, if there is one, cannot under any circumstances be severed from the body of the law.

For people who claim to hate activist judges, the rightwingnuts sure love *their* activist judges.

I know that if this Court were to actually rely on precedent and do it's job, this law is constitutional. I say that based upon the current state of the law and the rules of stare decisis.That said, I also have no doubt that the rightwingnuts on the Court will strike down the mandate. I also have no doubt that the left side of the bench will uphold the law. That leaves the decision to Justice Kennedy.

But I also know that Judge Vinson's decision doesn't meet any criteria for adjudication that I've ever heard of.

Make you wonder who assigned the case to him in Florida.

Could I point out that the administration presented 12 separate arguments in their motion to dismiss about why the mandate is a fundamental part of the ACA, and that without it the whole law falls apart? Or that the people who wrote the law actually say the same thing? How is it judicial activism to defer to the words of the administration and Congress about how important the mandate is? Maybe the problem here is not Vinson's decision, but the arguments and evidence he was presented.

 

[jillian]

And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.

Feel manly now, bub?

it's a woman?

that's too funny.

so it's okay for it to insult an anonymous woman on a messageboard? and it's okay for you to insult an anonymous man on a messageboard?

go back to your bon bons and do us all a favor.

 

[jillian]

1) Don't go mistaking me for one of your hair and nail school graduate party girl friends.
2) I'm a hell of a lot smarter then you.
3) The mere fact that you ,one who presents herself as being so well educated is here on a political discussion board having to debate with a high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt..Now genius , how much intelligence does THAT take?

1) No, they would probably show a little more class and intelligence
2) Her pinky shows more signs of life and intelligence
3) I am not surprised you are a "high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt'. It shows....

actually i was trying to educate it. i wouldn't call any discussion with that simpleton a debate.

and it thinks it's smarter than i am?

heh... whatever floats its boat. it can't even make a cogent argument.

 

[Dr Grump]

And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.

Feel manly now, bub?

1) I have no idea of the gender of the Spoon.
2) And you're insulting me, now. You feel manly?

 

[Dr Grump]

And here's Dr. Grump overcompensating for his short-cummings by insulting an anonymous woman on the internets.

Feel manly now, bub?

it's a woman?

that's too funny.

so it's okay for it to insult an anonymous woman on a messageboard? and it's okay for you to insult an anonymous man on a messageboard?

go back to your bon bons and do us all a favor.

Actually Bod's wrong (for a change.....)

From HIS post "a high school grad with a few adult education courses under his belt.."

 

[Dr.House]

Why does it have to impact me personally to have an opinion on it?

because you'd destroy everything good about the law for no reason.

the part you don't like is what pays for the rest of it.

Get rid of the whole thing and write something that IS constitutional....


Why should a healthy 20-something be forced to by insurance he doesn't want or need?

Are we going to start requiring city-dwelling high risers who don't own cars to buy auto insurance anyway to pay for the idiots who drive around without it?

does anyone else want to tackle these questions?