Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 6:37:23 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that health insurance companies don't provide any healthcare services, and are by definition an expense, by bother wasting money on them?


Because they give free citizens a choice. Choice is important to free citizens. Therefore Choice is important in the United States.


In every other country that claims to be civilised, there is government provided healthcare AND private healthcare. Anyone who doesn't like the service the state provides, and can afford it, has a free choice to go private.

Only in the US are the choices limited to pay or die. I guess that shows how important choice is to you.


Precisely. You're catching on.

(in reply to leonine)
Profile   Post #: 41
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 7:03:25 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that health insurance companies don't provide any healthcare services, and are by definition an expense, by bother wasting money on them?


Because they give free citizens a choice. Choice is important to free citizens. Therefore Choice is important in the United States.

This is so easy because we can always go back to the Constitutional preamble, we are guaranteed Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty means nobody can force us to buy policies managed and controlled by the Government

Except the Constitution does say Americans can be made to buy insurance policies managed and controlled by the government. Your auto insurance is mandated by the government, what it covers is controlled by the government.


Whether the constitution say it or not hasn't been entirely settled.

I proffer no opinion at the moment, I just note the supremes have several potential cases in the pipeline.

It's already settled law. If they overturn those previous rulings they will prove their politicization and will likely allow the Democrats to stack the court in the next 2 years and simply make Roberts etc. irrelevant. Which would result in rapid overturning of every ruling you like from the last decade or so.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 42
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 7:04:32 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that health insurance companies don't provide any healthcare services, and are by definition an expense, by bother wasting money on them?


Because they give free citizens a choice. Choice is important to free citizens. Therefore Choice is important in the United States.


In every other country that claims to be civilised, there is government provided healthcare AND private healthcare. Anyone who doesn't like the service the state provides, and can afford it, has a free choice to go private.

Only in the US are the choices limited to pay or die. I guess that shows how important choice is to you.


Precisely. You're catching on.

Wrong. This worship of wealth over anything else is not anything like what the founders believed or intended.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 43
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 7:05:26 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that health insurance companies don't provide any healthcare services, and are by definition an expense, by bother wasting money on them?


Because they give free citizens a choice. Choice is important to free citizens. Therefore Choice is important in the United States.

This is so easy because we can always go back to the Constitutional preamble, we are guaranteed Life, Liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Liberty means nobody can force us to buy policies managed and controlled by the Government

Except the Constitution does say Americans can be made to buy insurance policies managed and controlled by the government. Your auto insurance is mandated by the government, what it covers is controlled by the government.


Whether the constitution say it or not hasn't been entirely settled.

I proffer no opinion at the moment, I just note the supremes have several potential cases in the pipeline.

It's already settled law. If they overturn those previous rulings they will prove their politicization and will likely allow the Democrats to stack the court in the next 2 years and simply make Roberts etc. irrelevant. Which would result in rapid overturning of every ruling you like from the last decade or so.


The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.

Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 44
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 7:09:13 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux


quote:

ORIGINAL: leonine


quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

Given that health insurance companies don't provide any healthcare services, and are by definition an expense, by bother wasting money on them?


Because they give free citizens a choice. Choice is important to free citizens. Therefore Choice is important in the United States.


In every other country that claims to be civilised, there is government provided healthcare AND private healthcare. Anyone who doesn't like the service the state provides, and can afford it, has a free choice to go private.

Only in the US are the choices limited to pay or die. I guess that shows how important choice is to you.


Precisely. You're catching on.

Wrong. This worship of wealth over anything else is not anything like what the founders believed or intended.


Who said anything about wealth. Choice Ken, choice.

Although I found this quote from Mason to be interesting:
That all power of suspending Laws, or the Execution of Laws by any
Authority, without Consent of the Representatives of the People in the
Legislature, is injurious to their Rights, and ought not to be exercised.....

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 45
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 7:11:43 AM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.

Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....


Wrong!

The entire ACA was litigated and the Court found only one part to be partially unconstitutional. Going back and reversing themselves would have the same result now as Roberts feared it would have then. He'll make sure the law is not overturned for the same reason.

(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 46
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 7:26:57 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen


quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.

Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....


Wrong!

The entire ACA was litigated and the Court found only one part to be partially unconstitutional. Going back and reversing themselves would have the same result now as Roberts feared it would have then. He'll make sure the law is not overturned for the same reason.


No Ken - thats not how the Supreme court works - at all.




NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENTBUSINESS
ET AL
.
v
. SEBELIUS, SECRETARY OFHEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES


Brought two specific issues before the supreme court. As you know - since you said it in more than 6 posts already.
The questions were: did the Fed Govt have the authority to require an individual purchase health insurance; and could the federal govt withhold social security from states that did not expand.

Those were the only issues ruled on: here's the citation:http://www.scribd.com/doc/98542275/Scotus-opinion

It is common for the supreme court to hear the same issue more than once (Dred Scott anyone?) Brown vs Board of Education. Hell, the interstate commerce clause has been brought more than 100 times.

So your pretend outrage will have to find a better cause.



< Message edited by Phydeaux -- 11/16/2013 7:28:37 AM >

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 47
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 7:50:33 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:


It is common for the supreme court to hear the same issue more than once (Dred Scott anyone?)


Uh, no sonny, the Dred Scott v Sanford case was overturned by the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.   They don't hear the same case twice, never.  You know double jeopardy and all that gobbletygook.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Phydeaux)
Profile   Post #: 48
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 11:00:26 AM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.
Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....

Wrong!
The entire ACA was litigated and the Court found only one part to be partially unconstitutional. Going back and reversing themselves would have the same result now as Roberts feared it would have then. He'll make sure the law is not overturned for the same reason.


Shit, you know that isn't true! They only decided on the things challenged. The entire law wasn't challenged. The only things that they ruled on were the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion portion. One was ruled Constitutional (under the taxing authority, which wasn't how it was sold the public) and the other ruled unConstitutional. There was no "partially unconstitutional" part.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 49
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 2:45:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.
Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....

Wrong!
The entire ACA was litigated and the Court found only one part to be partially unconstitutional. Going back and reversing themselves would have the same result now as Roberts feared it would have then. He'll make sure the law is not overturned for the same reason.


Shit, you know that isn't true! They only decided on the things challenged. The entire law wasn't challenged. The only things that they ruled on were the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion portion. One was ruled Constitutional (under the taxing authority, which wasn't how it was sold the public) and the other ruled unConstitutional. There was no "partially unconstitutional" part.


What else is there to litigate? Insurance regulations? That is clearly within federal purview.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 50
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 4:25:12 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.
Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....

Wrong!
The entire ACA was litigated and the Court found only one part to be partially unconstitutional. Going back and reversing themselves would have the same result now as Roberts feared it would have then. He'll make sure the law is not overturned for the same reason.

Shit, you know that isn't true! They only decided on the things challenged. The entire law wasn't challenged. The only things that they ruled on were the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion portion. One was ruled Constitutional (under the taxing authority, which wasn't how it was sold the public) and the other ruled unConstitutional. There was no "partially unconstitutional" part.

What else is there to litigate? Insurance regulations? That is clearly within federal purview.


I don't think we've gotten final ruling on whether or not the Federal Government is allowed to tax for this purpose. The individual mandate couldn't be opposed by any individuals in the US because no one had any standing. That's not even something that's going to occur until after April 2015.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 51
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 5:58:10 PM   
Yachtie


Posts: 3593
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


It is common for the supreme court to hear the same issue more than once (Dred Scott anyone?)


Uh, no sonny, the Dred Scott v Sanford case was overturned by the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.   They don't hear the same case twice, never.  You know double jeopardy and all that gobbletygook.


Each of these cases took the 14th amendment into account -

Try Plessy v Ferguson. It was later revisited under Brown v. Bd. Of Ed. (link in Plessy)

What was stated in Brown is -

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.


Wou're wrong, MN. As Phydeaux said, and BTW, he said issue, you said case.


It's funny too. I'd swear you'd answer someone saying "Dogs bark" with "No, cats have sharp claws."





< Message edited by Yachtie -- 11/16/2013 6:01:51 PM >

_____________________________

“We all know it’s going to end badly, but in the meantime we can make some money.” - Jim Cramer, CNBC

“Those who ‘abjure’ violence can only do so because others are committing violence on their behalf.” - George Orwell

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 52
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 8:24:16 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.
Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....

Wrong!
The entire ACA was litigated and the Court found only one part to be partially unconstitutional. Going back and reversing themselves would have the same result now as Roberts feared it would have then. He'll make sure the law is not overturned for the same reason.

Shit, you know that isn't true! They only decided on the things challenged. The entire law wasn't challenged. The only things that they ruled on were the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion portion. One was ruled Constitutional (under the taxing authority, which wasn't how it was sold the public) and the other ruled unConstitutional. There was no "partially unconstitutional" part.

What else is there to litigate? Insurance regulations? That is clearly within federal purview.


I don't think we've gotten final ruling on whether or not the Federal Government is allowed to tax for this purpose. The individual mandate couldn't be opposed by any individuals in the US because no one had any standing. That's not even something that's going to occur until after April 2015.


The Court already ruled on the mandate. They are not going to revisit that.

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 53
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 8:37:04 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
The only thing thats settled law is that the government can impose a tax. Thats the only bit thats been ruled on.
And, as a point of fact - the democrats can't stack the court until someone dies.
Pay attention. Rules of law and all that....

Wrong!
The entire ACA was litigated and the Court found only one part to be partially unconstitutional. Going back and reversing themselves would have the same result now as Roberts feared it would have then. He'll make sure the law is not overturned for the same reason.

Shit, you know that isn't true! They only decided on the things challenged. The entire law wasn't challenged. The only things that they ruled on were the Individual Mandate and the Medicaid expansion portion. One was ruled Constitutional (under the taxing authority, which wasn't how it was sold the public) and the other ruled unConstitutional. There was no "partially unconstitutional" part.

What else is there to litigate? Insurance regulations? That is clearly within federal purview.

I don't think we've gotten final ruling on whether or not the Federal Government is allowed to tax for this purpose. The individual mandate couldn't be opposed by any individuals in the US because no one had any standing. That's not even something that's going to occur until after April 2015.

The Court already ruled on the mandate. They are not going to revisit that.


Yeah, cuz they never ever look at things from any different angles, do they? Noooo, not them. Once ruled, it stays forever ruled.

You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word on it, Ken. You may be right. You may be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see. And, if you're right, remind me and I'll make a post declaring you were right. You'll have to remind me because I'm sure I won't remember in a year and a half (and, that's not even the least bit false, sadly).




_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 54
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 8:43:11 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, cuz they never ever look at things from any different angles, do they? Noooo, not them. Once ruled, it stays forever ruled.

You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word on it, Ken. You may be right. You may be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see. And, if you're right, remind me and I'll make a post declaring you were right. You'll have to remind me because I'm sure I won't remember in a year and a half (and, that's not even the least bit false, sadly).

The Court has never revisited an issue with no change to the makeup of the Court and to the best of my knowledge has never reversed a ruling while any of the justices from the original ruling were still alive. The number of reversals of rulings by the Court is relatively small and there is simply no way the Roberts Court can reverse itself on this without looking political which would give Obama the excuse to pack the court which Roberts knows and wants to avoid.

EDIT: Actually the court did revisit capital punishment but it never reversed itself. It allowed a different trial procedure and some other statutory changes.

< Message edited by DomKen -- 11/16/2013 8:46:55 PM >

(in reply to DesideriScuri)
Profile   Post #: 55
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 9:15:32 PM   
DesideriScuri


Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, cuz they never ever look at things from any different angles, do they? Noooo, not them. Once ruled, it stays forever ruled.
You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word on it, Ken. You may be right. You may be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see. And, if you're right, remind me and I'll make a post declaring you were right. You'll have to remind me because I'm sure I won't remember in a year and a half (and, that's not even the least bit false, sadly).

The Court has never revisited an issue with no change to the makeup of the Court and to the best of my knowledge has never reversed a ruling while any of the justices from the original ruling were still alive. The number of reversals of rulings by the Court is relatively small and there is simply no way the Roberts Court can reverse itself on this without looking political which would give Obama the excuse to pack the court which Roberts knows and wants to avoid.
EDIT: Actually the court did revisit capital punishment but it never reversed itself. It allowed a different trial procedure and some other statutory changes.


Yep, never, ever, ever change their minds. Nope. Not ever. Once ruled it is in the books and done. Like I said, Ken, we'll have to wait and see.


_____________________________

What I support:

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

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 56
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/16/2013 9:24:22 PM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Yeah, cuz they never ever look at things from any different angles, do they? Noooo, not them. Once ruled, it stays forever ruled.

You'll have to forgive me for not taking your word on it, Ken. You may be right. You may be wrong. We'll just have to wait and see. And, if you're right, remind me and I'll make a post declaring you were right. You'll have to remind me because I'm sure I won't remember in a year and a half (and, that's not even the least bit false, sadly).

The Court has never revisited an issue with no change to the makeup of the Court and to the best of my knowledge has never reversed a ruling while any of the justices from the original ruling were still alive. The number of reversals of rulings by the Court is relatively small and there is simply no way the Roberts Court can reverse itself on this without looking political which would give Obama the excuse to pack the court which Roberts knows and wants to avoid.

EDIT: Actually the court did revisit capital punishment but it never reversed itself. It allowed a different trial procedure and some other statutory changes.




Once again just uneducated poppycock. Although reverses is a tad strong - the supremes more "refine" a ruling than outright reverse.
If you want evidence of that look at oh - I don't know

Affirmative action

1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke,
1995 Tompkins v. Alabama State University
1998 Farmer v. Ramsay
1998 Pollard v. Oklahoma State Regents for Higher Education
2003, the U.S. Supreme Courtruled in the Gratz v. Bollinger
2003, Grutter v. Bollinger

You could look at oh... Gun Control:

Muscarello v. United States, - U.S. - (1998)
Caron v. U.S., - U.S. - (1998)
Bryan v. United States, - U.S. - (1998)
Printz v. U.S., - U.S. - (1997)
Bailey v. U.S., - U.S. - (1995)
Beecham v. U.S., - U.S. - (1994)
Smith v. U.S., 508 U.S. -, (1993)
Perpich v. Dept. of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990)
Church of Scientology v. IRS, 484 U.S. 9 (1987)
Barrett v. U.S., 423 U.S. 212 (1976)


And more than 100 more.

So to say that a court never reviews an issue more than once is well simply idiotic, and evidence of a lack of knowledge before speaking.

And before you say that the supremes have never reviewed an individual law more than once: (also idiotic, but, hey)

Flemming v. Nestor (1960) decision
Steward Machine Company v. Davis,
Helvering v. Davis,

... to name a few of many.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 57
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/18/2013 2:22:21 AM   
leonine


Posts: 409
Joined: 11/3/2009
From: [email protected]
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Do so, you might finally learn something.





Tail, I bet you believe in "global warming" (or whatever they're calling it this week) too, right?

<SARCASM> Well, that obviously proves he's ignorant. </SARCASM>

_____________________________

Leo9


Gonna pack in my hand, pick up on a piece of land and build myself a cabin in the woods.
It's there I'm gonna stay, until there comes a day when this old world starts a-changing for the good.
- James Taylor

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 58
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/18/2013 4:32:42 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:


It is common for the supreme court to hear the same issue more than once (Dred Scott anyone?)


Uh, no sonny, the Dred Scott v Sanford case was overturned by the ratification of the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.   They don't hear the same case twice, never.  You know double jeopardy and all that gobbletygook.


Each of these cases took the 14th amendment into account -

Try Plessy v Ferguson. It was later revisited under Brown v. Bd. Of Ed. (link in Plessy)

What was stated in Brown is -

Whatever may have been the extent of psychological knowledge at the time of Plessy v. Ferguson, this finding is amply supported by modern authority and any language to the contrary in Plessy v. Ferguson is rejected.


Wou're wrong, MN. As Phydeaux said, and BTW, he said issue, you said case.


It's funny too. I'd swear you'd answer someone saying "Dogs bark" with "No, cats have sharp claws."





And as you have proven they do not hear the same 'issue' twice. Exactly as stated in error in the original, and exactly as I stated was not at all the case.  I swear to god, if you guys could understand reality, you still would be unable to comprehend.

Something is different if ever the 'same issue' comes before a court, and it must be, or you would have to unwind law.  The supreme court will not hear 'repeal Obamacare' 42 times.   Show me the exact same issue twice.  You must be saying the issue was is Dred Scott slave or free, that wasn't the issue in Plessy v. Ferguson. 

At issue in Dred Scott, is a slave who goes into free territory no longer a slave.
At issue in Plessy  is whether or not it was constitutionally a states right to racially segregated schools as separate but equal.

Brown v Education overturned Plessy on federal grounds  (14th amendment) not allowing it was a states rights issue. Which it was in Plessy. 

< Message edited by mnottertail -- 11/18/2013 4:52:12 AM >

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Yachtie)
Profile   Post #: 59
RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? - 11/19/2013 4:54:29 AM   
Phydeaux


Posts: 4828
Joined: 1/4/2004
Status: offline 		Ah, where even DomKen can't state a bold faced lie one can count on the dancing leprechaun.

Suffice it to say it is more than adequately proven that the supreme court could choose to rule hundreds of more times on the ACA if it so chooses.

Personally, I don't think they will - nothing more than a dozen more rulings max.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 60
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Is the time right for a PUBLIC OPTION? Page: <<   < prev  1 2 [3] 4   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.188