-
Guest
Step By Step Interactive Tool for the ACA Decision
-
Don't click the link, it makes you a liberal!
 Originally Posted by CornfieldCounty
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.
Originally Posted by Sonuvahusker
I'm reaching the point of becoming a lunatic here
-
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?!?!?!
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
-
Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker
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
-
Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker
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.
Born a Nebraskan, raised a Nebraskan, will die a Nebraskan!! Go Big Red!
Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamalie the Pharisee - Addressing the Sanhedrin regarding the new group called Christians
"I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates," he wrote. "Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates." - Art Laffer (on 999 plan)
-
Heisman
Originally Posted by Huskermedic
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.
-
Originally Posted by huskrthill
Originally Posted by Huskermedic
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
Born a Nebraskan, raised a Nebraskan, will die a Nebraskan!! Go Big Red!
Men of Israel, consider carefully what you intend to do to these men. Some time ago Theudas appeared, claiming to be somebody, and about four hundred men rallied to him. He was killed, all his followers were dispersed, and it all came to nothing. After him, Judas the Galilean appeared in the days of the census and led a band of people in revolt. He too was killed, and all his followers were scattered. Therefore, in the present case I advise you: Leave these men alone! Let them go! For if their purpose or activity is of human origin, it will fail. But if it is from God, you will not be able to stop these men; you will only find yourselves fighting against God.” - Gamalie the Pharisee - Addressing the Sanhedrin regarding the new group called Christians
"I support collecting more in taxes from people with high incomes who choose to actually pay taxes at lower tax rates than use lawyers and accountants to avoid taxes at higher tax rates," he wrote. "Some tax revenues at low tax rates is a heckuva lot better than no tax revenues at high tax rates." - Art Laffer (on 999 plan)
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
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.)
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
-
Originally Posted by McKinneyTXHusker
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
-
Scout Team
Originally Posted by huskrthill
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.
"If you aren't fired with enthusiasm, you will be fired with enthusiasm." Vince Lombardi
-
Originally Posted by ChitownHusker
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.
Originally Posted by Warhorse
Never been on a liberal blog in my life.
|
|
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
