Supreme Court Rules 7-2 on Obamacare

[Wyatt earp]

A huge hit to Trump by his 'loaded' Scotus.

Complete 'crazy' won't go the distance for Trump. Between this and the positive spin for Biden with Putin, this is Trump's worst day since the voters took him down.

Trump's supporters on this board are now isolated background noise.

His loaded SCOTUS I don't believe has given the right a big win. I always said if a justice was following the law it doesn't matter what President nominated them.

The reason why that's wrong in the US is because the political right is extremist and out of sync with the reality of the 21st. century, and they try to make their own new laws. Outlawing abortion for one instance.
However, on this question some sanity overruled.

Murder is sanity?







You're fucking nuts

 

[kaz]

It feels like the goalposts are moving.

The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.

The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.

I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself

Whatever dude.

You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.

You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down

I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.

Ciao loser.

Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong. Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do. My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else. I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things

There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.

If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

 

[colfax_m]

It feels like the goalposts are moving.

The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.

The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.

I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself

Whatever dude.

You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.

You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down

I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.

Ciao loser.

Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong. Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do. My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else. I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things

There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.

If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Fine with me...I'm not stuck with it....Obama care is over priced and unaffordable and has high deductibles....people with obamacare that come down with severe illness still end up in bankruptcy court.....

This is a lie as well as a sour grapes fallacy.

Its not a lie...if you claim it is show the proof....

You're a liar.

 

[Rigby5]

And the main most important distinction is....Medicare doesn't run on a profit motive -- it doesn't find more and more ways to deny coverage to people in order to line their own pockets.....

Right. But the profit motive works both ways. Their efforts to deny coverage are mitigated by their need to satisfy customers. If people get fed up, they can tell their insurance company to piss off. Your tax dollars will pay for Medicare regardless of whether you use it or not.

It's also interesting to note that Medicare claims processing is farmed out to insurance companies, often the same companies running your "for-profit" group insurance. These companies bid on the contracts for different regions - low bidder wins and then they make profits by, you guessed it, denying claims. Medicare is basically just the usual group insurance, paid for by the government rather than by employers.

No, the profit motive does not work both ways.
Since your employer prepays for you, you get no say in whether or what the insurance company or their medical providers, get paid.
Medicare is much better on feedback, because it is administered by people who only want to please you and no one else.
As far as you paying into Medicare whether you use it or not, that is the whole point of any social system, to pool risk.
And no, Medicare does not profit from denying claims.
Medicare has no similarity to private, for profit, health insurance, which has about 50% overhead costs, compared to only 10% for Medicare.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

Exactly!
Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

You’ve literally no sense of humor.
It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS. Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.

And again, the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.

 

[kaz]

Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong. Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do. My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else. I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things

There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.

If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

 

[Rigby5]

It feels like the goalposts are moving.

The point is that states can sue, and no one is suggesting they can’t. But before they sue they need to have a legitimate complaint that meets the standards to constitute a “case or controversy” and they failed to do so here.

The ruling (at least what I read) is pretty brutal in its breaking down their case.

I'm not playing your stupid endless rate hole word games with you. Go fuck yourself

Whatever dude.

You made a dumb, ignorant statement and now you're going to take out your anger on me because I attempted to explain it to you.

You do like to bicker, it's why I keep putting you on ignore to calm you down

I was actually pretty polite to you. Maybe you learned something today before putting me on ignore.

Ciao loser.

Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong. Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do. My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else. I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things

There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.

If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

Well yes it likely is correct that the SCOTUS did not see a case for how ACA harms individuals.
But should not that be obvious?
Mandating private, for profit, health insurance is not only bound to make prices increase, but to lower accountability to individuals, who then are forced to negotiate against group employers and made to prepay for health care.
It is obvious that ACA is illegal compared to many better options, such as just helping people finance health care costs after any catastrophic costs.
The courts just chickened out to avoid controversy and responsibility because they secretly benefit from what essentially is a Healthcare Industrial Complex, just as the Military Industrial Complex has taken over almost everything else.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Sounded like your normal useless bickering, still does.

You didn't understand what standing meant when you said it and you read the definition then didn't know how you were wrong. Useless bickering is your bag, it's all you do. My policy for bickering is putting you on temporary ignore, and I've done that to you like three times at least as anyone else. I try to save permanent ignore for people who do more serious things

There was nothing wrong about what I said. You should have stuck with ambiguous, that would be fine. It was not incorrect.

If you weren't such an unsufferable jerk, you might learn something.,

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

 

[Rigby5]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

Exactly!
Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

You’ve literally no sense of humor.
It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS. Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.

And again, the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.

I disagree.
The only thing good about ACA is that it tried to standardize prices and coverage a little, such as not allowing denials over pre-existing.
Otherwise it still is private, for profit, prepaid, 3rd party, totally out of control costs, and no means of enforcing quality.

 

[kaz]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

Exactly!
Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

You’ve literally no sense of humor.
It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS. Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.

And again, the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.

We hate all government redistribution of wealth schemes.

Fund your own programs, don't rob us to fund it for you, Captain Blowhard

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

Exactly!
Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

You’ve literally no sense of humor.
It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS. Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.

And again, the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.

We hate all government redistribution of wealth schemes.

Fund your own programs, don't rob us to fund it for you, Captain Blowhard

I bet you think this re-distribution of wealth to the top happened naturally huh?

So you have no problem with it

 

[kaz]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

 

[kaz]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

The same cop out they used to not rule on Democrat election fraud

Exactly!
Republicans showed up again empty handed and without merit.

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

That isn't what I said. God you're stupid

It’s exactly what you said. You just don’t understand what you meant by “cop out”.
SCOTUS literally decided that the argument was so dumb that they couldn’t rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

No, the literally did not. That is not what dismissed for lack of standing means. The closest you can get to what you are saying is dismissed with prejudice but that does not even make the jump you are here - courts do not make a ruling on the level of intelligence an argument brings. Considering it was not even a 9-0 decision, it is clear the court did not state it was so dumb they could not rule on it.

You’ve literally no sense of humor.
It is pretty dumb though to appeal such a weak case all the way to the SCOTUS. Lack of standing in this case meant that the states were not damaged sufficiently enough to even make the case against the ACA in the first place.

And again, the right's unwarranted hatred of the ACA has nothing to do with its provisions and everything to do with the president who signed it into law.

We hate all government redistribution of wealth schemes.

Fund your own programs, don't rob us to fund it for you, Captain Blowhard

I bet you think this re-distribution of wealth to the top happened naturally huh?

So you have no problem with itView attachment 502937

Wow, I hope you don't gamble if that's what you bet your money on that you can read minds.

I just don't care about the wealthy. I don't have wealth envy like you do, my green friend

 

[colfax_m]

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.

 

[theHawk]

It was just announced that the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 on Obamacare saying the states don't have standing on this case.

So Obamacare stays.

For now.

Supreme Court spares Obamacare from GOP challenge

Two of Trump's three appointees, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, joined the majority opinion, while the third, Neil Gorsuch, dissented.

www.nbcnews.com

So Obama lied it is a tax.

 

[colfax_m]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

I am stating the fact that after 10 plus years....Conservative attempts to repeal Obamacare legislatively and judicially failed....

and the lie of "replace" has been so thoroughly proven to have always been a lie -- that Republicans don't even try to offer a better alternative that would have as much support as Obamacare still has.....despite it being fear-mongered for 10 yrs...

I bet you also think all of those voter fraud conspiracy cases are valid despite the courts laughing at those too....

 

[kaz]

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

And you’ll never say what it does mean. Maybe it means nothing, just empty angry rhetoric.

Actually, I would. Here's the secret. You have to ask me what I mean, not tell me what I mean. Not once have you done that. Don't worry about it, leftists never do. It's not just you

 

[kaz]

Coldfax says: Bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker, bicker ...

Meh, I was polite. You are the one that started getting all nasty.

You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what, when the truth is they only have standing in a case that they identify a legitimate reason to sue, an injury.

Standing is like one of the first hurdles a lawsuit has to pass. The fact that this lawsuit couldn't get standing just demonstrates how poorly the plaintiffs crafted the lawsuit. You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case.

"You just didn't seem to understand what standing meant as you said "if states don't have standing who does" (paraphrasing). It seems to imply that a state has standing no matter what."

No, it doesn't mean that or imply it

What about this part:

"You should be pissed not at the judges for recognizing this, but at the plaintiffs for not making a better case."

Have you ever once stopped to think that maybe the folks you cheer for to overturn the ACA -- that maybe they are just not good lawyers or that their arguments just suck??

Or do these lawyers know that it's all about the show, its all about the legal theatrics that makes folks like you so giddy....and not the results

Because for the last 10 plus years it has been the "show" that has kept their base satisfied...just the "appearance" that you are putting that uppity darkie Obama in his place.......they could care less about any results of policy solutions...

Let's review history:

1) The ACA was a direct violation of the Constitution, in particular the fifth, ninth and tenth amendments

2) Roberts decided he had a career to think of over his country and decided the whole thing was a tax because of the mandate. That somehow made healthcare exchanges and regulating our healthcare also inexplicably a tax

3) Congress removed the mandate.

4) The SCOTUS inexplicably still didn't overturn it even though their own lame justification was gone

You're still arguing there is no case. You're like the morons who say OJ wasn't guilty and there's no proof the holocaust happened. You're a nut job

1. Nope.
2. The individual mandate is constitutional because it’s a tax.
3. Sure did.
4. How could the individual mandate be unconstitutional if it doesn’t even exist anymore? That doesn’t make any sense.

You didn't read my post.

2. This doesn't address the point of the second bullet

4. God you're stupid. That is seriously how you read my post? No wonder your replies are always so stupid if that's how you read