Michele Bachmann, still full o'shit

[Sallow]

On the basis that they're the congress and can repeal any law that the damned well want to.

They can try. Do you really want this fight all over again? Don't you think they should be working to get the country working again instead of getting paid a lot of money to sit on their hands?

Of course you don't, you prefer no government but since we are paying them anyway, they could come up with some ideas.

You call Medicare/Medicaid, the FDA and the incomprehensible patchwork of in-state insurance monopolies, that have driven up the costs of everything related to the medical field, "no government"?

Really?

In state "monopolies", you guys are rich.

What drove everything up..was when HMOs went public and started playing big time casino with the stock market.

Investors want big returns.

 

[Sallow]

Repealing a tax doesn't involve the opinion of SCOTUS, so I am lost on what you believe. It looks like the SCOTUS is giving Congress an option on a law that only 30% of the people like and 70% think it is wrong, changing it into a tax will make it more vague and more unpopular. It might be best to repeal it and start over.

Your percentages are wrong..its more like 60/40 split now..and some of the people (Probably half) in the 60 wanted single payer. Gosh you guys make it sound like people didn't want this in the first place..they did. Only they wanted the Democratic version. What they got was the Republican version. But if you give them the components of the ACA..without calling it ObamaCare..it seems percentages change further..toward liking it.

But heck..when did you folks ever care about majorities?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mh8E0QPGARw]2/3 of the U.S. people are against the war,cheney says "so?" - YouTube[/ame]

If that is your belief, go with it. I encourage it.

Belief?

It's no "belief"..it's what happened.

 

[Oddball]

They can try. Do you really want this fight all over again? Don't you think they should be working to get the country working again instead of getting paid a lot of money to sit on their hands?

Of course you don't, you prefer no government but since we are paying them anyway, they could come up with some ideas.

You call Medicare/Medicaid, the FDA and the incomprehensible patchwork of in-state insurance monopolies, that have driven up the costs of everything related to the medical field, "no government"?

Really?

In state "monopolies", you guys are rich.

What drove everything up..was when HMOs went public and started playing big time casino with the stock market.

Investors want big returns.

That's right, in-state monopolies....It's what happens when you live in Minnesota and aren't allowed, by statute, to buy your insurance from a company in Connecticut.

Who invented the HMO?

 

[Papageorgio]

Your percentages are wrong..its more like 60/40 split now..and some of the people (Probably half) in the 60 wanted single payer. Gosh you guys make it sound like people didn't want this in the first place..they did. Only they wanted the Democratic version. What they got was the Republican version. But if you give them the components of the ACA..without calling it ObamaCare..it seems percentages change further..toward liking it.

But heck..when did you folks ever care about majorities?

2/3 of the U.S. people are against the war,cheney says "so?" - YouTube

If that is your belief, go with it. I encourage it.

Belief?

It's no "belief"..it's what happened.

We'll see in November 2012.

 

[BDBoop]

If that is your belief, go with it. I encourage it.

Belief?

It's no "belief"..it's what happened.

We'll see in November 2012.

That we will.

 

[Black_Label]

Bachmann always looks like she doesn't know what planet she is on.

 

[BDBoop]

And she's a MN rep.

 

[Sarah G]

Bachmann always looks like she doesn't know what planet she is on.

She looks like she's one of those cult people. Something in her crazy eyes.

 

[Listening]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

O.K. so we've established that Bachman is right and Poop is....well....full of poop.

The SCOTUS only looks at the bill (and in this case it makes the case for the admin....which tells you what a pathetic job the admin did....but I digress).

And now Poop is saying the congress can't overturn it or shouldn't.

We know that the constitution was amended to create prohibition....that is better and more solid than a SCOTUS ruling. And it was repealed.

Hhhhmmmmmm......

Seems to be Black Label means "Full of S**t" in another language.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

Interesting point.

In theory this need never be an issue, but the ACA was challenged for partisan reasons, not Constitutional.

 

[BDBoop]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

Interesting point.

In theory this need never be an issue, but the ACA was challenged for partisan reasons, not Constitutional.

What did you think of Ms. Bachmann's "logic?"

 

[Listening]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

Interesting point.

In theory this need never be an issue, but the ACA was challenged for partisan reasons, not Constitutional.

Now that is rich.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

I'm wondering when the SCOTUS ever said repealing a law. whether it is or isn't constitutional, was unconstitutional.

Congress may repeal any legislation at any time for any reason, the Court can do nothing to stop it.

Indeed, it’s not uncommon for Congress to rewrite legislation after being struck down by the Court, and make it applicable law again. See e.g. US v. Lopez (1995).

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News



So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

Interesting point.

In theory this need never be an issue, but the ACA was challenged for partisan reasons, not Constitutional.

What did you think of Ms. Bachmann's "logic?"

It would seem Bachmann came to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. The issue of potential severability isn’t predicated on what would ‘stand up on its own,’ but how the Court would determine what to retain and what to discard. As the minority opinion noted:

The Court has not previously had occasion to consider severability in the context of an omnibus enactment like the ACA…We have no reliable basis for knowing which pieces of the Act would have passed on their own. It is certain that many of them would not have, and it is not a proper function of this Court to guess which. To sever the statute in that manner “‘would be to make a new law, not to enforce an old one. This is not part of our duty.’”

Obviously if the four dissenters had been in the majority, the entire Act would have been invalidated.

 

[Listening]

Interesting point.

In theory this need never be an issue, but the ACA was challenged for partisan reasons, not Constitutional.

What did you think of Ms. Bachmann's "logic?"

It would seem Bachmann came to the correct conclusion for the wrong reasons. The issue of potential severability isn’t predicated on what would ‘stand up on its own,’ but how the Court would determine what to retain and what to discard. As the minority opinion noted:

The Court has not previously had occasion to consider severability in the context of an omnibus enactment like the ACA…We have no reliable basis for knowing which pieces of the Act would have passed on their own. It is certain that many of them would not have, and it is not a proper function of this Court to guess which. To sever the statute in that manner “‘would be to make a new law, not to enforce an old one. This is not part of our duty.’”

Obviously if the four dissenters had been in the majority, the entire Act would have been invalidated.

I think you got it pretty close....I am not sure about her point on the severability.....but the rest is how I see it.

I think you just threw cold water on Poop's need to back her claim Bachmunn is full of....Poop.

 

[Newby]

Boy, the wingnuts must all be in a real dither. I would not have guessed Roberts would have used Congress's ability to tax as a basis for his position. Bravo. America has moved a bit forward once more.

Yep, another step closer to the cliff.

 

[Meister]

Bachmann always looks like she doesn't know what planet she is on.

She looks like she's one of those cult people. Something in her crazy eyes.

I get that from Nan Pelosi, also.

 

[Si modo]

Boy, the wingnuts must all be in a real dither. I would not have guessed Roberts would have used Congress's ability to tax as a basis for his position. Bravo. America has moved a bit forward once more.

No wonder you are surprised. Leave it to a conservative to have integrity and leave it to a leftwing nutjob to be surprised about integrity.

 

[Listening]

Bachmann is on T.V.

Poop is.....well, she's......uh.....

Hhhhhmmmmm.......

If Bachmann is what Poop says she is.....she's gotta lot of people listening to her.

Poop keeps getting whacked on this board.

 

[Fordsflylow]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

No diff than Gov. Scott stating he would abide by the scotus ruling, UNTIL it didn't favor his agenda.