Get tickets for all Husker games here. Follow us on Facebook and Twitter.
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Step By Step Interactive Tool for the ACA Decision

  1. #1
    All Big 10

    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    19,569

    Step By Step Interactive Tool for the ACA Decision

    "We need education in the obvious more than investigation of the obscure."

    "If you find yourself on the side of the majority, it's time to pause and reflect."

    “A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”

  2. #2
    Habitual Line Crosser
    Husker Poyer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Lincoln, NE
    Posts
    15,138
    Don't click the link, it makes you a liberal!



    Quote Originally Posted by CornfieldCounty View Post
    You get so wrapped up in the proverbial "its all about me and my" that you loose not only your creditability but any resemblance of intelligence.
    Quote Originally Posted by Sonuvahusker View Post
    I'm reaching the point of becoming a lunatic here


  3. #3
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Interesting indeed. In arguing for using the Commerce Clause as the operative authority, I see that Ginsburg argues that "Congress just followed Massachusetts' lead" in this area. Has no one explained to Ginsburg the difference between a state's rights and the Federal Government's rights?!?!?!

  4. #4
    Moderator
    ChitownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Allen, Texas
    Posts
    31,777
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    Interesting indeed. In arguing for using the Commerce Clause as the operative authority, I see that Ginsburg argues that "Congress just followed Massachusetts' lead" in this area. Has no one explained to Ginsburg the difference between a state's rights and the Federal Government's rights?!?!?!
    To be fair, she was just describing the history of health care legislation rather than justifying its constitutionality in that section. That said, I thought it was clearly a politically motivated comment that was unnecessary, much like Scalia's unnecessary reference to the Obama decree on immigration.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  5. #5
    The Tech Support Guy
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    22,020
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    Interesting indeed. In arguing for using the Commerce Clause as the operative authority, I see that Ginsburg argues that "Congress just followed Massachusetts' lead" in this area. Has no one explained to Ginsburg the difference between a state's rights and the Federal Government's rights?!?!?!
    Liberal's always forget that part about it. Let the states fix HC in there own way which is best for the voters of that state. Keep the feds out of it.

  6. #6
    Husker Fan
    huskrthill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Location
    Approximately 41° 12' 19" N, 96° 9' 29" W
    Posts
    43,624
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskermedic View Post
    Liberal's always forget that part about it. Let the states fix HC in there own way which is best for the voters of that state. Keep the feds out of it.
    Hate to break it to you, Medic... but states no longer have rights. States now only exist as political subdivisions subservient to the central government. It's been trending that way for quite some time, so you might as well just accept it.

    The United States of America should quit pretending that it is still governed by the Constitution. It's all a ruse. Time to "tear it up" (figuratively) and start over with something that might not be so widely dismissed. At least then we can have some legitimacy again.

  7. #7
    The Tech Support Guy
    Huskermedic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, United States
    Posts
    22,020
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Huskermedic View Post
    Liberal's always forget that part about it. Let the states fix HC in there own way which is best for the voters of that state. Keep the feds out of it.
    Hate to break it to you, Medic... but states no longer have rights. States now only exist as political subdivisions subservient to the central government. It's been trending that way for quite some time, so you might as well just accept it.

    The United States of America should quit pretending that it is still governed by the Constitution. It's all a ruse. Time to "tear it up" (figuratively) and start over with something that might not be so widely dismissed. At least then we can have some legitimacy again.
    That is why Roberts ruled the way he did. The court said congress can't force you to buy something unless it is a tax. It also through out the things the Feds were trying to force on the states.

    What the court did today was give the power back to the people.

    Now we just need to throw out the members of congress that thought this whole bill was a good idea.

    Some good ideas in it but most does not fix hc

  8. #8
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    To be fair, she was just describing the history of health care legislation rather than justifying its constitutionality in that section. That said, I thought it was clearly a politically motivated comment that was unnecessary, much like Scalia's unnecessary reference to the Obama decree on immigration.
    I guess that's my point then - all I expect to see in her writings on this decision is whether its constitutional or not, and why or why not. (And of course that goes for Scalia also.)

  9. #9
    Moderator
    ChitownHusker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Allen, Texas
    Posts
    31,777
    Quote Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker View Post
    I guess that's my point then - all I expect to see in her writings on this decision is whether its constitutional or not, and why or why not. (And of course that goes for Scalia also.)
    I don't mind them giving some history/background, etc., but given that these decisions the last couple of days may be the first instances that a lot of people really read a Supreme Court opinion, I wish that they'd keep the political commentary out to help reinforce the notion that this is an independent branch of government that is not beholden to political pressures. I thought that Roberts' opinion was very measured and reasonable, and struck exactly the right tone. He is clearly aware of the fact that the entire country is watching the court, and is doing a good job of protecting its instititional reputation.
    "The distinctive mark of the Christian, today more than ever, must be love for the poor, the weak, the suffering." Pope John Paul II


  10. #10
    Starter
    Husker Mort's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    13,880
    Quote Originally Posted by huskrthill View Post
    Hate to break it to you, Medic... but states no longer have rights. States now only exist as political subdivisions subservient to the central government. It's been trending that way for quite some time, so you might as well just accept it.

    The United States of America should quit pretending that it is still governed by the Constitution. It's all a ruse. Time to "tear it up" (figuratively) and start over with something that might not be so widely dismissed. At least then we can have some legitimacy again.
    It is hard to be a federalist when so many states are failing their residents so extremely.
    "Every Wednesday it's like, ‘Holy moly, this is the Super Bowl.’" Mike Cavanaugh on the media attention the NU O-line coach receives

  11. #11
    Heisman

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    McKinney, Texas, United States
    Posts
    11,787
    Quote Originally Posted by ChitownHusker View Post
    I don't mind them giving some history/background, etc., but given that these decisions the last couple of days may be the first instances that a lot of people really read a Supreme Court opinion, I wish that they'd keep the political commentary out to help reinforce the notion that this is an independent branch of government that is not beholden to political pressures. I thought that Roberts' opinion was very measured and reasonable, and struck exactly the right tone. He is clearly aware of the fact that the entire country is watching the court, and is doing a good job of protecting its instititional reputation.
    Agreed. Roberts did an excellent job, I think. On the other hand, Ginsburg's commentary about Massachusetts comes across to me as attempting to justify POTUS/Congress' passage of ACA on the grounds of "well, Massachusetts did it first, they just followed Massachusetts" which is pretty nonsensical reasoning.







Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •