This just in re 0bama0Care

This just in re 0bama0Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

truckinslave -> This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 12:24:51 PM)
It's OUT. http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/breaking-federal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional Or, as one of the judges hearing one of these suits (I believe the judge hearing just the Va case) asked: "If they can make me do this, why can't they make me buy broccoli"? I especially like his dismissal of the totally dishonest way the Congress passed the bill, stating that the fines for not buying insurance were not a tax! not a tax!! not a fucking tax!!! and then arguing in court "Well, of course it's a tax. Any idiot can see it's a fuckin tax". In other words, the bill may fail to pass Constitutional muster because of the dishonest political fig leaf used to cover 0bama0s ass while it was shoved through Congress. He wrote: Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check

willbeurdaddy -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 12:54:50 PM)
Another critical aspect of this ruling is that he noted that the individual mandate is not severable from the rest of the law, and that makes the entire law unconstitutional.

slvemike4u -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 12:56:50 PM)
ROFLMAO... Well not that this has been cleared up....we can move onto other issues. Do you two really think this is the last word?

mnottertail -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 12:58:06 PM)
I imagine they will go find a judge that will rule it is severable in the not too distant future.

truckinslave -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 1:22:13 PM)
It is well-nigh inconceivable that even Harry Reid and his staff couldn't remember to insert a boilerplate severability clause.

truckinslave -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 1:24:17 PM)
Were I , God forbid, an 0bama0 supporter, I would hope it is the last word, or at least that the death rattle comes soon. This albatross can take him down in 2012.

truckinslave -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 1:25:31 PM)
I'd love to see the legal precedent for your opinion on that one.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 1:37:39 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave It is well-nigh inconceivable that even Harry Reid and his staff couldn't remember to insert a boilerplate severability clause. Staffer in a Christmas Eve email: "Mr. Reid, shouldnt we make any parts of the bill that are declared unlawful severable from the rest of the bill". Harry Reid: "How could any part of this Boxing Day gift be unlawful". Staffer: "Well, maybe the individual mandate wont be considered a tax and declared unconstitutional" Harry Reid: "Then we've got bigger problems, because without the individual mandate CBO would price this as costing trillions of dollars. A severability clause would only result in that being highlighted and giving someone the bright idea to ask CBO the question." Staffer: "Your call, Sir!"

mnottertail -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 1:38:43 PM)
http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/unions-lose-again-in-oklahoma/ here is one that would provide that precedent, I am not going to bother digging for the actual case, but note under the heading --- Judge disagrees, and what he said about severability.

Real0ne -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 1:38:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave It's OUT. http://www.sfexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/01/breaking-federal-judge-rules-obamacare-unconstitutional Or, as one of the judges hearing one of these suits (I believe the judge hearing just the Va case) asked: "If they can make me do this, why can't they make me buy broccoli"? I especially like his dismissal of the totally dishonest way the Congress passed the bill, stating that the fines for not buying insurance were not a tax! not a tax!! not a fucking tax!!! and then arguing in court "Well, of course it's a tax. Any idiot can see it's a fuckin tax". In other words, the bill may fail to pass Constitutional muster because of the dishonest political fig leaf used to cover 0bama0s ass while it was shoved through Congress. He wrote: Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing, after which the defenders of that legislation take an “Alice-in-Wonderland” tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely, thereby circumventing the safeguard that exists to keep their broad power in check thank you thank you thank you! Therein is precisely what I have been talking about! first no legislature in ANY state that I am aware of is mandated to pass law in conformance with the "CONSTITUTION"!!!. they can throw any shit at the wall that they want and let the courts sort it out. Everything beyond the 12th amend should be repealed and redone in accord with the first 10 and the BOR etc. Its a fucking joke. Supposed to have 3 well actually 4 branches of government but we only have one and it all falls onto the courts and the courts are US Courts under commerce. The 4th branch was supposed to be the people and they even stole the power there. Fucking attorneys get judges to overturn the courts standing which is completely a usurpation of the power of a fully empowered jury. They do it and are not in prison because attorneys dont give a fuck and people dont know any better so the beat goes on and get worse everyday! Now they are tazering people and killing hem on the side of the road. idiots. When a judge violates the constitution, his trustee duties the penalty is treason to hung by the neck until they are dead dead dead!

rulemylife -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:11:24 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave I'd love to see the legal precedent for your opinion on that one. How about from the Virginia ruling you are so happy with? Florida judge rules health care law is unconstitutional The final step will almost certainly be the U.S. Supreme Court. Two other federal judges have already upheld the law and a federal judge in Virginia ruled the insurance mandate unconstitutional but stopped short of voiding the entire thing.

jlf1961 -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:24:23 PM)
Leave it to the Republicans to celebrate a ruling that would leave millions in the United States without health insurance. And if the government mandate on Health insurance is unconstitutional, then the requirement to own car insurance falls under the same ruling.

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:26:18 PM)
Relax. It's just theater. When the states get done wasting money on this, we'll move on. Besides, still to be determined is whether they even have standing.

truckinslave -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:26:27 PM)
Well. You tried. I'll give you that. This is an analysis (by an economics professor) of a case meant to overturn a state law. From his essay: "The unions argued that since these two provisions of the Oklahoma law are clearly invalid, and since it does not include a severability clause, the whole law must be overturned. Again, Judge Seay disagreed with the unions. The issue of severability is a matter of state law, and Oklahoma has an umbrella statute that states that "the provisions of every act or application of the act shall be severable unless the act contains a non-severability clause." How anyone can think this has any impact- any impact, let alone one favorable to your previous post- baffles me. I knew of no exceptions to the severability principle in federal Constitutional law before I read the link. I still don't.

truckinslave -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:29:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: jlf1961 And if the government mandate on Health insurance is unconstitutional, then the requirement to own car insurance falls under the same ruling. What a disingenuous canard. Owning a car is an activity voluntary to a degree not commonly associated with just living. Remember, if this stand they can force you to buy asparagus. And Chevies. At times of their chosing.

truckinslave -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:32:15 PM)
26 states are parties to the lawsuits against this. It's dead.

rulemylife -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:41:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave 26 states are parties to the lawsuits against this. It's dead. So we have two judges who ruled it constitutional, one who did not, and one who decided only the requirement to buy was unconstitutional. And this somehow ads up to the entire law being dead?

Musicmystery -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:43:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave 26 states are parties to the lawsuits against this. It's dead. It's theater. Next act, standing.

mnottertail -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 2:50:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: truckinslave Well. You tried. I'll give you that. This is an analysis (by an economics professor) of a case meant to overturn a state law. From his essay: "The unions argued that since these two provisions of the Oklahoma law are clearly invalid, and since it does not include a severability clause, the whole law must be overturned. Again, Judge Seay disagreed with the unions. *The issue of severability is a matter of state law,* and Oklahoma has an umbrella statute that states that "the provisions of every act or application of the act shall be severable unless the act contains a non-severability clause." How anyone can think this has any impact- any impact, let alone one favorable to your previous post- baffles me. I knew of no exceptions to the severability principle in federal Constitutional law before I read the link. I still don't. Read what the judge DID say, fuck the professor. Actually in our terms of discussion it is called the severablility doctrine, and there are no exceptions because the law doesn't exist, and never has, Federallyu, only the reasoning behind why rulings are made the way they are. Again, severability in the law is in the law, at state levels, at county levels, at township levels, at who gives a fuck levels. There is no question of severability in the US Constitution, which then means the severability DOCTRINE will apply, and that is paraphrased (badly) and in short, if the removal of the individual parts does not FUNDAMENTALLY ALTER the intent of the ENTIRE legislation, it is severable. I cana bet any number of lawyers can convince any number of judges that with republicans saying out loud in front of god and everybody, that if they can't repeal the entire law, they will repeal odious parts of it, or defund odious parts of it. Jesus H Shithouse Lawyerin' Christ!!!! If that isn't proof of severability, Jesus was a catholic. And again, they will find a judge that agrees with that, and we are on to a ruling by the supreme court at some point. Unless you are going to throw every republican in congress in jail for the crime of treason, that's what you are looking at. But we all know this isn't the end of it, and it is going to the Supreme Court.

Louve00 -> RE: This just in re 0bama0Care (1/31/2011 3:39:46 PM)
What I don't get is people don't want free health care and so many many thought the single payer system was just that...free health care. So....nobody gets free health care and nobody wants to pay for healthcare. I fully understand the "you can't make me" mentality...but which stance are people taking here? Or have they just not figured it out yet, and are going with the ones who have the loudest scare tactic?

Page: [1] 2 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625