RE: What the Republicans got

RE: What the Republicans got (Full Version)

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

Message

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 11:48:03 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail And I see it way different, what could possibly be challenged and heard at Scotus? So the teabaggers got their dick in one hand and a whisky bottle in the other, same as always, and loud and ignorant mouths. Typically, what does one need to bring a suit? Standing, right? How does one have standing when there hasn't been any "damages?" This was yet another politically savvy move on the part of the Democrats. Start giving the shit out before you start the "penalty" parts. No one gains standing to challenge the law until a few years after people have already enjoying the benefits. Not only would you have to go through the process of rolling back years of the phase-in, but you'd also have issues with the smear campaigns and feelings of ill will because you're taking something away from someone. Like I said before, it's easier to prevent someone from getting something than it is to take it away once they've gotten it.

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 12:05:08 PM)
to bring suit, not much of nothing. To have it heard, and to have it heard before the supreme court requires a fuck of a lot more than standing. Your waltz thru the legal scenery there reminded me of the birthers hoping to unroll back to before his presidency. That will not happen and neither will the slippery slope you are trying to slalom there. Congress has the power to tax, it is a tax, already been decided. And after a few years of accumulating these 'benefits' of the law, who will be suing because the 'benefit' was forced upon them against their will? Because only those benefitting would by definition have the standing. Those who did not are a different class and the 14th amendment does not offer them equal protections because they did not benefit in that way. That has been stated plainly by scotus in numerous cases. I simply asked what suit could be mounted? Under what element in the constitution? Teabaggers can't bring suit down there from the government, they have no standing. That has been tried many times. The Scotus reply has always been, you don't like the law? Tough shit, change it then.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 12:05:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The SCOTUS ruling upheld one specific part (albeit a part that would have sunk the entire thing had it not been upheld), and torpedoed another specific part. I still believe there will be Constitutionality challenges coming, so it's still not done yet. Over what? The case the Court ruled on tossed pretty much every complaint against the wall hoping one would stick. The only thing they won was the frankly bizarre ruling on Medicaid.

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 12:10:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The SCOTUS ruling upheld one specific part (albeit a part that would have sunk the entire thing had it not been upheld), and torpedoed another specific part. I still believe there will be Constitutionality challenges coming, so it's still not done yet. Over what? The case the Court ruled on tossed pretty much every complaint against the wall hoping one would stick. The only thing they won was the frankly bizarre ruling on Medicaid. It wasn't so bizarre, the law was enforced expansion of medicaid at the state level to those 138% above poverty. If not, lose all your money. The Scotus found that to be too coercive regarding states rights. I was ok with that ruling, and didnt find it bizarre, but I found the states attitudes to be fucking bizarre (especially the deadbeat red states, they always belly up to the trough for federal tax dollars, and why they missed this gravy train I still do not fathom).

Phydeaux -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:14:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic what they wanted...what they got... [image]local://upfiles/228382/ADC458D300764DD29229A3C9B7B0F26D.jpg[/image] Fucking horseshit lies!!! McConnell got extra funding for a pork-barrel project. [:'(] And of course, the democrats gave $174,000 to the wife of Lautenburg.

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:16:54 PM)
That of course isnt true, it was a bipartisan effort, republicans giving that shit out like it is the minneapolis airport bathroom. Check the vote.

Phydeaux -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:21:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail That of course isnt true, it was a bipartisan effort, republicans giving that shit out like it is the minneapolis airport bathroom. Check the vote. Laughing .. of course its true. The democrats basically said - do this or we will continue to rape you. and the republicans caved. Your claims to the contrary are just paid spin.

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:25:10 PM)
who is paying the nutsackers to spin it? seems to me that the pork coming out went to the fatass teabaggers who look like deputy dawg, of course we know that any nutsacker is buyable they have no principle.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:27:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail to bring suit, not much of nothing. To have it heard, and to have it heard before the supreme court requires a fuck of a lot more than standing. Your waltz thru the legal scenery there reminded me of the birthers hoping to unroll back to before his presidency. That will not happen and neither will the slippery slope you are trying to slalom there. Congress has the power to tax, it is a tax, already been decided. And after a few years of accumulating these 'benefits' of the law, who will be suing because the 'benefit' was forced upon them against their will? Because only those benefitting would by definition have the standing. Those who did not are a different class and the 14th amendment does not offer them equal protections because they did not benefit in that way. That has been stated plainly by scotus in numerous cases. I simply asked what suit could be mounted? Under what element in the constitution? Teabaggers can't bring suit down there from the government, they have no standing. That has been tried many times. The Scotus reply has always been, you don't like the law? Tough shit, change it then. Tried many times? Standing won't be about having benefits forced on them. That's a completely stupid thing to say. I still believe there will be a hearing mounted on the validity of it as a tax. And, it will come down to how the SCOTUS interprets "General Welfare." If providing the funding for health insurance isn't considered part of the "General Welfare," then Congress does not have the authority to tax for those purposes. You know SCOTUS decisions can be very narrow and don't always apply widely across legislation. Two things have been brought to their bench. One was upheld and one was not. Time will tell.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:28:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The SCOTUS ruling upheld one specific part (albeit a part that would have sunk the entire thing had it not been upheld), and torpedoed another specific part. I still believe there will be Constitutionality challenges coming, so it's still not done yet. Over what? The case the Court ruled on tossed pretty much every complaint against the wall hoping one would stick. The only thing they won was the frankly bizarre ruling on Medicaid. "frankly bizarre?" How do you figure?

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:30:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And of course, the democrats gave $174,000 to the wife of Lautenburg. Isn't that standard operating procedure, though? It was my belief that it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and that the only "outrage" was that she wasn't hurting for money (which has no bearing on whether she should get it or not, if it's standard operating procedure).

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:30:59 PM)
and you are thinking that the 58 year old CHIEF JUSTICE of SCOTUS is gonna retire in your lifetime? Yeah, they may bring up the validity of it being a tax, but since he held it, wrote the opinion, and castigated the justice department that it was, and that it was legal, I do not see any one other than pee wee fucking herman trying to take that argument to court and quibbling with the chief justice that he wouldn't know what the fuck the legal definition of the word tax is. That is fucking ludicrous.

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:32:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail and you are thinking that the sixty year old CHIEF JUSTICE of SCOTUS is gonna retire in your lifetime? Yeah, they may bring up the validity of it being a tax, but since he held it, wrote the opinion, and castigated the justice department that it was, and that it was legal, I do not see any one other than pee wee fucking herman trying to take that argument to court and quibbling with the chief justice that he wouldn't know what the fuck the legal definition of the word tax is. That is fucking ludicrous. And, we'll see how it all works out, too, won't we?

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:35:49 PM)
Nope, as I said, we wont. I changed his age to 58 btw thats what he is.

Phydeaux -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:55:05 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And of course, the democrats gave $174,000 to the wife of Lautenburg. Isn't that standard operating procedure, though? It was my belief that it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and that the only "outrage" was that she wasn't hurting for money (which has no bearing on whether she should get it or not, if it's standard operating procedure). I make no claims about SOP or not SOP. It does kind of give a clearer picture tho as to what the democrats in office priorities are, doesn't it. Its not $174k to charity. Its a 174k to the wife. Important enough to make SURE it got into the resolution funding it.

Phydeaux -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 1:56:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail to bring suit, not much of nothing. To have it heard, and to have it heard before the supreme court requires a fuck of a lot more than standing. Your waltz thru the legal scenery there reminded me of the birthers hoping to unroll back to before his presidency. That will not happen and neither will the slippery slope you are trying to slalom there. Congress has the power to tax, it is a tax, already been decided. And after a few years of accumulating these 'benefits' of the law, who will be suing because the 'benefit' was forced upon them against their will? Because only those benefitting would by definition have the standing. Those who did not are a different class and the 14th amendment does not offer them equal protections because they did not benefit in that way. That has been stated plainly by scotus in numerous cases. I simply asked what suit could be mounted? Under what element in the constitution? Teabaggers can't bring suit down there from the government, they have no standing. That has been tried many times. The Scotus reply has always been, you don't like the law? Tough shit, change it then. Tried many times? Standing won't be about having benefits forced on them. That's a completely stupid thing to say. I still believe there will be a hearing mounted on the validity of it as a tax. And, it will come down to how the SCOTUS interprets "General Welfare." If providing the funding for health insurance isn't considered part of the "General Welfare," then Congress does not have the authority to tax for those purposes. You know SCOTUS decisions can be very narrow and don't always apply widely across legislation. Two things have been brought to their bench. One was upheld and one was not. Time will tell. As I recall there is already two other challenges in the works, and one challenge on the docket.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 2:02:55 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The SCOTUS ruling upheld one specific part (albeit a part that would have sunk the entire thing had it not been upheld), and torpedoed another specific part. I still believe there will be Constitutionality challenges coming, so it's still not done yet. Over what? The case the Court ruled on tossed pretty much every complaint against the wall hoping one would stick. The only thing they won was the frankly bizarre ruling on Medicaid. It wasn't so bizarre, the law was enforced expansion of medicaid at the state level to those 138% above poverty. If not, lose all your money. The Scotus found that to be too coercive regarding states rights. I was ok with that ruling, and didnt find it bizarre, but I found the states attitudes to be fucking bizarre (especially the deadbeat red states, they always belly up to the trough for federal tax dollars, and why they missed this gravy train I still do not fathom). Previous actions of this sort have survived court challenges, most notably forcing states to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose all highway funds.

DomKen -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 2:06:37 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux And of course, the democrats gave $174,000 to the wife of Lautenburg. Isn't that standard operating procedure, though? It was my belief that it wasn't anything out of the ordinary, and that the only "outrage" was that she wasn't hurting for money (which has no bearing on whether she should get it or not, if it's standard operating procedure). I make no claims about SOP or not SOP. It does kind of give a clearer picture tho as to what the democrats in office priorities are, doesn't it. Its not $174k to charity. Its a 174k to the wife. Important enough to make SURE it got into the resolution funding it. So the Democrats wanted 175k for a Senators widow. The Republicans wanted 2 billion in pork to get their majority leader reelected. Which should we be more upset by?

DesideriScuri -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 2:28:12 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri The SCOTUS ruling upheld one specific part (albeit a part that would have sunk the entire thing had it not been upheld), and torpedoed another specific part. I still believe there will be Constitutionality challenges coming, so it's still not done yet. Over what? The case the Court ruled on tossed pretty much every complaint against the wall hoping one would stick. The only thing they won was the frankly bizarre ruling on Medicaid. It wasn't so bizarre, the law was enforced expansion of medicaid at the state level to those 138% above poverty. If not, lose all your money. The Scotus found that to be too coercive regarding states rights. I was ok with that ruling, and didnt find it bizarre, but I found the states attitudes to be fucking bizarre (especially the deadbeat red states, they always belly up to the trough for federal tax dollars, and why they missed this gravy train I still do not fathom). Previous actions of this sort have survived court challenges, most notably forcing states to raise the drinking age to 21 or lose all highway funds. Was that ever challenged, though? The SCOTUS effectively said that if a State doesn't expand Medicaid, then the money that was going to go to that State for funding the expansion of Medicaid was the only money that could be denied.

mnottertail -> RE: What the Republicans got (10/17/2013 2:39:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Phydeaux I make no claims about SOP or not SOP. It does kind of give a clearer picture tho as to what the democrats in office priorities are, doesn't it. Its not $174k to charity. Its a 174k to the wife. Important enough to make SURE it got into the resolution funding it. It gives a very clear picture of what the nutsackers in office priorities are since their widows receive exactly the same as any other nutsackers widows have. They always are funded by resolution. What else would you fund them under? Do nutsackers operate under different laws than the realities? Oh yes they do, I forgot. that is why they are shitcanning even as we speak. The Senate handbook says that upon the death of a senator who had been serving in office, “in the next appropriations bill, an item will be inserted for a gratuity to be paid to the widow(er) or other next- of-kin, in the amount of one-year’s compensation.” and it wasn't just stuck in there yesterday. Course nutsackers change the rules and do not obey them in any case. Like the rule change that removed the choice of every member save boehner from introducing privileged motions, so they couldnt bring this bill to the floor weeks ago, without the pork stuck in by the borrow and spend hogwallowing nutsakcers.

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

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625