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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

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.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic
what they wanted...what they got...

Fucking horseshit lies!!!

McConnell got extra funding for a pork-barrel project.

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And of course, the democrats gave $174,000 to the wife of Lautenburg.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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).

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.

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).

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.

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.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

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.