Here it comes: We're in the chute... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Here it comes: We're in the chute...


G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:02
Ok, the big moment is approaching.

Here is what to look for.


The Supreme Court typically delivers its opinions at 10am on Mondays, with the most contentious cases being last.

So, set your DVR's. I go with Fox News.

As early as tomorrow, 6/11, but more likely:

6/18 or

6/25,

We should have the opinion on the alleged "Affordable Care Act" or in typical shorthand, the healthcare law, spawn of Satan (Nancy Pelosi) and her lapdog, Barack Hussein Obama.

Ladies and Gentleman, Place your bets!

There are two phases in which the court was asked to decide:

1. The personal mandate,

2. The rest of the body of the law as signed.

They can go different ways. I make the following prediction:

1. The personal mandate: Overturned. Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy. I predict based on reactions during oral arguments that better than 50% chance Breyer joins, giving us a 6-3 tossing out the personal mandate. Scalia or Roberts write the opinion. I PRAY that its Scalia, he can bring the pointed snark. If you want to hear editorial content and a cohesive, intelligent and direct (as it can get, the SCOTUS does NOT comment on opinions outside the Court) smackdown to Obama, Pelosi and Leahy, here is where you will hear it. It may be elegantly worded, it WILL have technical detail as to why, and since Obama, Pelosi and Leahy are such legal illiterates, he will probably go to the tedium of having to cite Marbury v. Madison to cement judicial review, since they seem to have forgotten it.

2. The remainder: Overturned, 5-4, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, with a possible join by Breyer, odds less than 50%.

It will be beyond a mess if the mandate is struck down and the rest of the law is not, as the law is built on the personal mandate. It completely falls apart otherwise.

Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsburg all dissent, with Ginsburg a possible wildcard. I predict Kagan will write the dissent, or possibly the wise Latina.The dissent will have to be about as warped and entertaining as the oral arguments, everything but handstands in order to justify or defend the illogic of the whole mess complete with its contradictions. Otherwise, it will just go shallow and cite general principles since getting too far into the details will require them explaining the unexplainable.

The night of the decision you should try and listen to Mark Levin to get a dissertation on how it all went down.


That's my story and I'm sticking to it. You heard it here first.

Place your bets!

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 12:12
Can I place my bet after it's been announced?

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 12:15
Can I place my bet after it's been announced?

No Mr. Obama, that would be cheating!

Just1More
06-10-2012, 12:46
It's payback time for Obama scolding them publicly at the State of the Union address!

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 12:59
No Mr. Obama, that would be cheating!

Oh well, the crystal ball is in the shop. :wavey:

They will come out with a decision, and it will probably fall short of a complete repeal.

Gundude
06-10-2012, 13:02
It will be beyond a mess if the mandate is struck down and the rest of the law is not, as the law is built on the personal mandate. It completely falls apart otherwise.While the rest of the law is unworkable without the mandate, is it within the purview of the SC to throw it out on that basis?

Even if they don't overturn the rest of it, congress would have to, because there's no way the insurance companies will be forced to provide pre-existing condition coverage without the mandate.

aircarver
06-10-2012, 13:04
S' OK ... The race track wouldn't let me do that either .... :supergrin:

.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:04
While the rest of the law is unworkable without the mandate, is it within the purview of the SC to throw it out on that basis?

Depends on how it affects the Commerce Clause. And other issues that are beyond my legal comprehension.

Scalia was ready to throw it out without reading it because it was so huge and incomprehensible.

aircarver
06-10-2012, 13:07
Scalia was ready to throw it out without reading it because it was so huge and incomprehensible.

Pelosi thought she finally had someone who had to read it ! ..... :supergrin:

.

HexHead
06-10-2012, 13:33
It's payback time for Obama scolding them publicly at the State of the Union address!

That's why I think Alito might get to write the decision striking down the bill. Payback's a *****.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 13:35
That's why I think Alito might get to write the decision striking down the bill. Payback's a *****.

Possible. I'm also thinking Roberts may write the opinion since he's the Chief Justice to shield the others, not that there's anything that can be done to them.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 13:37
Possible. I'm also thinking Roberts may write the opinion since he's the Chief Justice to shield the others, not that there's anything that can be done to them.

I think I'll be happy if Roberts or Alito is writing the MAJORITY opinion. We'll have to wait and see though.

JBnTX
06-10-2012, 13:37
It's payback time for Obama scolding them publicly at the State of the Union address!


I put ten dollars on this.

It's time to put Obama in his place.

HexHead
06-10-2012, 13:46
While the rest of the law is unworkable without the mandate, is it within the purview of the SC to throw it out on that basis?

Even if they don't overturn the rest of it, congress would have to, because there's no way the insurance companies will be forced to provide pre-existing condition coverage without the mandate.

Here's how severability in this case was explained by Judge Napolitano. Congress, in one of the earlier versions of the bill had a severability clause included in it. Boilerplate in most contracts, it means if one part of the contract or in this case bill is declared null or void, the rest of the contract or bill stands.

However, the final version omitted the severability language. So now, the question the before the SCOTUS is whether or not the ACA would have been voted on and passed without the individual mandate? If not, under the letter of the law, the entire bill must be thrown out. Since the individual mandate was the primary funding mechanism for the ACA, it's hard to see how it would have been voted in without it.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 14:03
Here's how severability in this case was explained by Judge Napolitano. Congress, in one of the earlier versions of the bill had a severability clause included in it. Boilerplate in most contracts, it means if one part of the contract or in this case bill is declared null or void, the rest of the contract or bill stands.

However, the final version omitted the severability language. So now, the question the before the SCOTUS is whether or not the ACA would have been voted on and passed without the individual mandate? If not, under the letter of the law, the entire bill must be thrown out. Since the individual mandate was the primary funding mechanism for the ACA, it's hard to see how it would have been voted in without it.


Thanks for the reminder! Good stuff, great point!

So, yes, when the mandate is thrown out, it should by definition ALL get thrown out. In its entirety.

With any intellectual honesty and real law degree? It should get tossed 9-0.

Anyone voting in the minority should lose their law license because they're a) idiots b)dishonest c) just plain incompetent.

Gunnut 45/454
06-10-2012, 14:13
I'm praying for a birthday present of complete over turn on the 11th. If it's 5-4 or 6-3 doesn't matter though 6-3 would be more to my liking as it will just isolate the Progressive Liberals on the court more and show there true colors as against the COTUS!:supergrin:

HarlDane
06-10-2012, 14:22
Possible. I'm also thinking Roberts may write the opinion since he's the Chief Justice to shield the others, not that there's anything that can be done to them.Because of the magnitude of the issue, if it's struck down, Roberts will write the opinion and will do so in the narrowest possible way, especially if he can get a lefty or two on board. For better or worse, he's a consensus builder who prefers to see the court move slowly, especially on controversial issues.

Jerry
06-10-2012, 14:36
Anyone voting in the minority should lose their law license because they're a) idiots b)dishonest c) just plain incompetent.

Yet Ruth Bader Ginsburg is still a justice. :upeyes:

countrygun
06-10-2012, 15:23
I think HH is on this one. The first part is ALMOST obvious, but without it, it is not the bill that was passed. severability is one thing in a civil contract, but quite another in passing a law. The POTUS doesn't have a line item veto on spending bills why should any other branch have the same thing?

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 16:23
Its going to be exciting either way.

I do beleive we'll prevail and it will be thrown out.


God help us if its not. We'll never be able to live down the smug of nazi pelosi.

callihan_44
06-10-2012, 17:24
the mandate must go, hope for a grand slam b-slap down on obamaopelosi

Goaltender66
06-10-2012, 18:10
My prediction, FWIW.

I like to look at who has authored the opinions in the term. Roberts tends to spread the work out as evenly as he can, so if you see one or two justices who haven't authored decisions this late in the term, you can kind of guesstimate what's in the pipeline.

So far, Scalia has written eight decisions, Ginsburg seven, Breyer six, Thomas five, Roberts six, Kagan five, And Kennedy six. Alito has written four, so that's a good sign, but Sotomayor has also written four, which is not. :)

That said, would Sotomayor really be writing this decision? I highly doubt it. A ruling upholding ACA would be written by someone with more chops.

So I'm left predicting Alito will be writing at least a couple of decisions in the next two weeks, and one of those will be overturning ACA.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 18:13
didn't Kegan excuse herself because she helped write the thing?

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 18:37
That said, would Sotomayor really be writing this decision? I highly doubt it. A ruling upholding ACA would be written by someone with more chops.

No, that's not how it works. You're doing it wrong.

The decision is the vote of the MAJORITY. So, someone in the majority writes the opinion.

Soto will almost certainly be in the minority, so at best she could author a dissent.

If Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy rule as expected against AHCA and throw it out, they are the majority and the decision will be written by one of them. The others in the minority, the losing side, would not be expected to issue an opinion in favor of something they voted against.

One of the majority could be particularly passionate about the issue and request Roberts give it to them, otherwise, he could look at the workload and who hasn't authored as much and give it to them.

The pronouncement always comes from the winners. If AHCA prevailed and was found constitutional, God give us strength, Soto might get to write the decision presuming she upheld it.

I just don't think that will happen.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 18:40
didn't Kegan excuse herself because she helped write the thing?

No, she didn't, but should have. Roberts let it go rather than start a fight. Disgusting if you ask me. She's an intellectual lightweight and ABSOLUTELY got the job because she's an Obama sycophant, more so than even Soto.

aircarver
06-10-2012, 19:03
God help us if its not. We'll never be able to live down the smug of nazi pelosi.

OTOH if it goes down, she'll melt like sugar in the rain ....... :supergrin:

.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 19:06
No, she didn't, but should have. Roberts let it go rather than start a fight. Disgusting if you ask me. She's an intellectual lightweight and ABSOLUTELY got the job because she's an Obama sycophant, more so than even Soto.


That stinks on ice, however in my optimistic, and borderline divine, manner I somehow think that, in order to leave her in he must have had a pretty good idea that there were already enough minds made up that she would not be decisive.

Cavalry Doc
06-10-2012, 19:10
That stinks on ice, however in my optimistic, and borderline divine, manner I somehow think that, in order to leave her in he must have had a pretty good idea that there were already enough minds made up that she would not be decisive.

I think a justice must recuse themselves, it cannot be forced on them.

countrygun
06-10-2012, 19:16
I think a justice must recuse themselves, it cannot be forces on them. I think......


I somehow seem to the the Chief Justice can in case of conflict of interest, or call for a vote from the other Justice'.

I've can't remember it happening however. Bloody disgusting and a sign that, indeed, Obama's whole Administration is corrrupt.

Goaltender66
06-10-2012, 19:20
No, that's not how it works. You're doing it wrong.

The decision is the vote of the MAJORITY. So, someone in the majority writes the opinion.

Soto will almost certainly be in the minority, so at best she could author a dissent.

If Roberts, Alito, Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy rule as expected against AHCA and throw it out, they are the majority and the decision will be written by one of them. The others in the minority, the losing side, would not be expected to issue an opinion in favor of something they voted against.

One of the majority could be particularly passionate about the issue and request Roberts give it to them, otherwise, he could look at the workload and who hasn't authored as much and give it to them.

The pronouncement always comes from the winners. If AHCA prevailed and was found constitutional, God give us strength, Soto might get to write the decision presuming she upheld it.

I just don't think that will happen.

I'm looking at the authoring figuring that, of course, the predicted author will be part of the majority. And certainly, Sotomayor will be voting to keep ACA in all it's dysfunctional glory. But I really don't think that, if there was a majority to keep ACA, Sotomayor would be writing it. She wouldn't be able to write something that would keep, say Kennedy on board because she's too stridently leftist. If anything, a decision keeping ACA would be written by Kennedy, not by someone on the far left wing. Roberts simply wouldn't assign it to Sotomayor.

On the other hand, Alito appears due to have a decision released under his name, and I think we're pretty sure he's a vote to overturn, so...tea leaves say ACA will be overturned and Alito will be writing the decision.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 20:21
I'm looking at the authoring figuring that, of course, the predicted author will be part of the majority. And certainly, Sotomayor will be voting to keep ACA in all it's dysfunctional glory. But I really don't think that, if there was a majority to keep ACA, Sotomayor would be writing it. She wouldn't be able to write something that would keep, say Kennedy on board because she's too stridently leftist. If anything, a decision keeping ACA would be written by Kennedy, not by someone on the far left wing. Roberts simply wouldn't assign it to Sotomayor.

On the other hand, Alito appears due to have a decision released under his name, and I think we're pretty sure he's a vote to overturn, so...tea leaves say ACA will be overturned and Alito will be writing the decision.

I think this is a pretty lucid scenario. There is the issue of the breadth or narrowness of the opinion keeping or losing votes.

TDC20
06-10-2012, 21:25
OTOH if it goes down, she'll melt like sugar in the rain ....... :supergrin:

.
I was thinking more like the Wicked Witch of the West when the bucket of water was thrown on her.... "I'm melting!!! Melting!!!...."

QNman
06-10-2012, 21:39
:popcorn:

certifiedfunds
06-10-2012, 21:45
What this decision needs is the wisdom of a wise latina woman.

G29Reload
06-10-2012, 22:05
What this decision needs is the wisdom of a wise latina woman.

She's a blithering idiot. Lefty activist. She will be in the minority.

gwalchmai
06-11-2012, 06:08
What this decision needs is the wisdom of a wise latina woman.yeah, but they wouldn't let her advise on it...

http://www.steinski.com/wp-content/uploads/272blog_lindachavezbushlgc0.jpg

Sam Spade
06-11-2012, 07:17
Predicting decisions of the Court is like...well, I don't know what it's like. But they're the closest thing we have to a arcane cabal of wizards, ad guessing which way they're going to line up isn't a high payoff proposition.

G29Reload
06-11-2012, 11:51
Predicting decisions of the Court is like...well, I don't know what it's like. But they're the closest thing we have to a arcane cabal of wizards, ad guessing which way they're going to line up isn't a high payoff proposition.

Its high enough stakes to be worth the interest.

Again, like re-electing Obama, upholding the AHCA requires legal handstands so contradictory as to be absurd.

Oh well, it wasn't today, next week or the week after.

DonGlock26
06-11-2012, 19:31
I vote double overturn.


_

G29Reload
06-18-2012, 19:51
It's looking 10am, 6/25/2012.

Turn back tyranny, or over the cliff.

Vic777
06-19-2012, 11:26
That's my story and I'm sticking to it. You heard it here first.
Thanks for the info, it's the 25th I guess. The day America dies or starts the courageous climb back up the hill. China owns the Moon!

Goaltender66
06-19-2012, 12:42
There are some opinions being released this Thursday too. Probably not Florida but maybe Arizona v. US?

G29Reload
06-19-2012, 15:06
There are some opinions being released this Thursday too. Probably not Florida but maybe Arizona v. US?

Yes, that's due too! It could be a VERY bad week for Zero. Lets hope so!

G29Reload
06-20-2012, 22:43
Speculation that it could be as early as tomorrow, Thursday 6/21 at 10 am.

If not, then likely the following Monday, and an outside chance it could be NEXT Thursday, the 28th.

The court does have options to add days to its session depending on the Chief Justice and the workload.


Also, AZ is in the mix.

But snap to everyone…its VERY soon!

janice6
06-20-2012, 22:51
I was thinking more like the Wicked Witch of the West when the bucket of water was thrown on her.... "I'm melting!!! Melting!!!...."



What do you mean "like her"?

It is her!

Goaltender66
06-21-2012, 07:47
FYI...SCOTUS will announce decisions in reverse order of seniority of the Justice who wrote the Majority Opinion.

Tea leaves say no AZ decision today because it was argued last and it's controversial. Obamacare...I'm going to say doubtful. Probably First American Financial v Edwards, and there's one covering juvenile life w/o parole.

Goaltender66
06-21-2012, 08:02
Court just announced Southern Union v. US. First Circuit is reversed by 6-3. This was argued back in February, so before Obamacare and AZ v US.

ETA: Hey, you may not have been waiting for Southern Union, but Southern Union was likely waiting for Southern Union. :)

Cavalry Doc
06-21-2012, 08:03
"Maybe" today according to Drudge.

Goaltender66
06-21-2012, 08:07
Knox v. SEIU was just announced by Alito, covering whether a state can force an employee to pay a union fee that goes to political activities without disclosing or allowing for objection.

Ninth circuit reversed by 7-2 and says the case is not moot...union treatment of nonmembers who opt out of the fee when they got notice is a 1A violation. FFX Spyder hardest hit.

Goaltender66
06-21-2012, 08:12
Gotta say, while Alito finishes reading his summary, that I hate in a modern democracy we have to sit and wait for nine unelected people to proclaim their decisions, as if we were waiting on the announcement of a Papal Bull or something. :upeyes:

Breyer is currently droning on about the sacred rights of public service unions or something. blah blah blah...

At least one more opinion coming up, and it's not going to be from Sotomayor or Kagan.

Cavalry Doc
06-21-2012, 08:19
Knox v. SEIU was just announced by Alito, covering whether a state can force an employee to pay a union fee that goes to political activities without disclosing or allowing for objection.

Ninth circuit reversed by 7-2 and says the case is not moot...union treatment of nonmembers who opt out of the fee when they got notice is a 1A violation. FFX Spyder hardest hit.

It's a sad day for the democrats.

Goaltender66
06-21-2012, 08:21
Court just announced Dorsey v US and Hill v. US, having to do with fair sentencing. Breyer is reading the summary, which overturns the 7th circuit by 5-4. Scalia dissenting along with the usual suspects. Court says Fair Sentencing Act minimums now apply to sentences for crack cocaine convictions that were done before the Act was passed into law.

There seems to be another opinion waiting.

certifiedfunds
06-21-2012, 08:21
It's a sad day for the democrats.

Hopefully it gets worse

certifiedfunds
06-21-2012, 08:22
Court just announced Dorsey v US and Hill v. US, having to do with fair sentencing. Breyer is reading the summary, which overturns the 7th circuit by 5-4. Scalia dissenting along with the usual suspects.

There seems to be another opinion waiting.

It would be great if the court would do a Steve Jobs with, "Oh and one last thing......":supergrin:

Goaltender66
06-21-2012, 08:25
Court announced FCC v Fox, overturning the 2nd District in a unanimous decision. Kennedy authored the opinion. FCC broadcast standards are apparently too vague to be constitutional. :)

ETA: I should amend that...Court is saying in this case the standards were too vague, not all standards.


ETAA: And that's all, folks. No more opinions today. Court will probably add another opinion day next week, so Monday for sure and possibly Thursday.

Goaltender66
06-21-2012, 08:28
It would be great if the court would do a Steve Jobs with, "Oh and one last thing......":supergrin:

:rofl::rofl:

walt cowan
06-21-2012, 08:49
i only wish your all right on this one.

G29Reload
06-21-2012, 18:45
Ok, its looking next Monday, or Thurs at latest. Busy session.

AZ
AHCA

are the 2 biggies.

Cavalry Doc
06-21-2012, 18:55
Ok, its looking next Monday, or Thurs at latest. Busy session.

AZ
AHCA

are the 2 biggies.

http://www.google.com/url?source=imglanding&ct=img&q=http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Z3Quh6d507c/Tw2A0JMSk0I/AAAAAAAAEJo/T_0SKzFqiXE/s400/hurry-up-and-wait.jpg&sa=X&ei=WcLjT8apD4r20gGEhPnzCQ&ved=0CAkQ8wc&usg=AFQjCNHjIytwEsxfaklxIrhTuLbQiFXxnA




No sweat, been there plenty of times. Patience is a virtue.

G29Reload
06-21-2012, 19:39
Patience is a virtue.

Not when wanting to see Nancy look like the idiot she is. It can't get her fast enough.


Yeah i know, driving me crazy.

Bruce H
06-21-2012, 20:10
Would be classic if the majority opinion stated " we read it and found out what was in it and overturned it".

G29Reload
06-24-2012, 07:14
Ok, General Quarters, everyone!

Gotta be tomorrow at 10am. That and AZ.

Outside chance of Thursday, but the last Monday is traditional!

I have my DVR set and will try to snag something at work...

PocketProtector
06-24-2012, 07:30
It's payback time for Obama scolding them publicly at the State of the Union address!

It's not about payback, it's about an unconstitutional, POS, total abortion of a law. It's strictly a power grab. Of course that could be said about anything passing through congress these days.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 08:11
Not when wanting to see Nancy look like the idiot she is. It can't get her fast enough.


Yeah i know, driving me crazy.

Nancy always looks like an idiot. You don't have to wait.

Cavalry Doc
06-24-2012, 08:15
Would be classic if the majority opinion stated " we read it and found out what was in it and overturned it".

http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/91/2012/05/30/112585_600.jpg

:rofl:

G29Reload
06-24-2012, 08:40
http://media.caglecartoons.com/media/cartoons/91/2012/05/30/112585_600.jpg

:rofl:

Sorry Barry, its terminal.

G29Reload
06-27-2012, 20:51
Looks like they can't delay it any more

Tomorrow, 10am!

certifiedfunds
06-27-2012, 21:09
Looks like they can't delay it any more

Tomorrow, 10am!

I hope I don't lose my free wellness visits.

JohnnyReb
06-27-2012, 21:58
My prediction, the nanny state will continue its course.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

G29Reload
06-27-2012, 22:05
My prediction, the nanny state will continue its course.



After the Arizona case, I'm really ******* bricks.

I wonder if it was just horse trading? Look, you give us room to hold up AZ and we'll give you an extra thumbs down on O-care.

G29Reload
06-27-2012, 22:07
I hope I don't lose my free wellness visits.

You're not well? I suspected…


You're on the Gulf. Take two steamed crawfish and you'll be tossin beads in no time.

gwalchmai
06-28-2012, 04:46
What, if anything, do you think is the significance of dragging this out as long as they have? Drama?

onalandline
06-28-2012, 04:48
What, if anything, do you think is the significance of dragging this out as long as they have? Drama?

I don't know, but the SCOTUS has only one real choice: Shoot down the entire law.

HarlDane
06-28-2012, 04:59
What, if anything, do you think is the significance of dragging this out as long as they have? Drama?I've noticed a trend of leaving important or controversial cases until the last day of the session. I don't know if it's because they don't want other rulings to be overshadowed or they just want to make sure they can leave town as soon as the it's released.

Cavalry Doc
06-28-2012, 05:56
I don't know, but the SCOTUS has only one real choice: Shoot down the entire law.

Actually, there are a few possibilities. It stays intact and enforceable. The individual mandate is struck only. The individual mandate, and mandates to insurance companies is struck. There are other possibilities. It should be a little clearer by tomorrow.

onalandline
06-28-2012, 08:27
Actually, there are a few possibilities. It stays intact and enforceable. The individual mandate is struck only. The individual mandate, and mandates to insurance companies is struck. There are other possibilities. It should be a little clearer by tomorrow.

I know there are possibilities, but if they are true to the Constitution, and the separation of powers, it must be struck down.

jastroud
06-28-2012, 08:28
D'oh!

Cavalry Doc
06-28-2012, 10:42
I know there are possibilities, but if they are true to the Constitution, and the separation of powers, it must be struck down.

There are times when I am very disappointed about being right. Today is one of times. Barrycare will actually increase my marketability greatly, but I was rooting for it to be struck down.

Oh well, it's not the end of the country, but it is a step closer. There is still work to do. We need to get back up, dust ourselves off, and get as many conservatives as possible into the house and senate.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 10:49
Oh well, it's not the end of the country, but it is a step closer. There is still work to do. We need to get back up, dust ourselves off, and get as many conservatives as possible into the house and senate.


Right on, Doc.


.

Blast
06-28-2012, 11:07
http://laudyms.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/us-sinking-ship.jpg

G29Reload
06-28-2012, 11:24
well, i was close...but still majorly wrong in a way i could not have imagined.

We GOT Flipper...and lost Roberts. I hope Roberts lives to rue the day.

They threw us a bone in saying Necessary And Proper and Commerce can't compel.

And they went to plenary power to lay taxes.

The one hit to Obama is they Held that he lied in his campaign promise of no new taxes. Its a tax. But he got what he wanted, so he'll probably get over it.

I am mortified that Pelosi prevailed. The people spoke in 11/2010 and booted the Congress that made this travesty. They're no where to be found. And we suffered the consequences.

The ONLY hope now remaining, is that Romney gets in and is able to repeal. That's it.

gwalchmai
06-28-2012, 11:54
Saw it coming when the held it for last. The fix is in.

aspartz
06-28-2012, 11:59
Oh well, it's not the end of the country, but it is a step closer. There is still work to do. We need to get back up, dust ourselves off, and get as many conservatives as possible into the house and senate.
Has the GOP found a conservative to run for POTUS yet?


ARS

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

countrygun
06-28-2012, 12:01
My questions about the how the decision was to be made were on form not result. I am not terribly surprised BUT I am surprised tha they gave us a big bone in their opinion on the Commerce Clause. In the smell of the manure pile let us not overlook the rose that is growing there. The Rose will out last the manure.

I can't say anything in argument about the upholding the mandate other than I think it is wrong, and I do not think it was within the SCOTUS scope to redefine it as a tax if it wasn't presented to the Court as a tax. That is judicial activism. It should have been "judged" on it's face as presented not redefined to fit in the Court.

But they have done nothing in support of Obama care that can't be undone by election, on the other hand the ruling on the Commerce Clause is, and will remain, a set of handcuffs on both the Congress and the White House and restricts an often abused and over extended "power".

The life of Obama care is still in the hands of the people, and as part of the ruling, the power of the Federal Government has been trimmed back.

G29Reload
06-28-2012, 20:13
My questions about the how the decision was to be made were on form not result. I am not terribly surprised BUT I am surprised tha they gave us a big bone in their opinion on the Commerce Clause. In the smell of the manure pile let us not overlook the rose that is growing there. The Rose will out last the manure.

No, it won't. It's flat out dead wrong, and worthless at that.

Levin covered this tonight. There is no putting lipstick on a pig.

Robert's opinion is near incoherent.

HE says they can't do it via Commerce. But they have power to tax.

Except they don't. Not the way this does it. HE plowed new ground in a twisted, contorted and damaging way, and now it will take overturning precedent to un damage the COTUS.

On one hand they can't compel commerce to then regulate it. Can't regulate inactivity.

But they can tax inactivity? And its a tax, but not according to the COTUS that specifies what specific taxes are, AND Congress said specifically this is NOT a tax? And not a tax by definition under the COTUS, or the Injunction, but it functions as one, but its not?

WTF??

You can now be taxed for doing nothing. Just for breathing.

And its not a small tax.

It starts at 1 %.

then it goes to 2.5.

Of INCOME.

And who says it won't be raised? No such thing as a tax ever created that wasn't raised.

Those 20,000 IRS agents stand. They're here till this is repealed.

Roberts stabbed us in the back. Did NOT see that coming.

certifiedfunds
06-28-2012, 20:15
well, i was close...but still majorly wrong in a way i could not have imagined.

We GOT Flipper...and lost Roberts. I hope Roberts lives to rue the day.

They threw us a bone in saying Necessary And Proper and Commerce can't compel.

And they went to plenary power to lay taxes.

The one hit to Obama is they Held that he lied in his campaign promise of no new taxes. Its a tax. But he got what he wanted, so he'll probably get over it.

I am mortified that Pelosi prevailed. The people spoke in 11/2010 and booted the Congress that made this travesty. They're no where to be found. And we suffered the consequences.

The ONLY hope now remaining, is that Romney gets in and is able to repeal. That's it.

You can find them......in board rooms and on K Street

Yessir How High
06-28-2012, 20:23
No, it won't. It's flat out dead wrong, and worthless at that.

Levin covered this tonight. There is no putting lipstick on a pig.

Robert's opinion is near incoherent.

HE says they can't do it via Commerce. But they have power to tax.

Except they don't. Not the way this does it. HE plowed new ground in a twisted, contorted and damaging way, and now it will take overturning precedent to un damage the COTUS.

On one hand they can't compel commerce to then regulate it. Can't regulate inactivity.

But they can tax inactivity? And its a tax, but not according to the COTUS that specifies what specific taxes are, AND Congress said specifically this is NOT a tax? And not a tax by definition under the COTUS, or the Injunction, but it functions as one, but its not?

WTF??

You can now be taxed for doing nothing. Just for breathing.

And its not a small tax.

It starts at 1 %.

then it goes to 2.5.

Of INCOME.

And who says it won't be raised? No such thing as a tax ever created that wasn't raised.

Those 20,000 IRS agents stand. They're here till this is repealed.

Roberts stabbed us in the back. Did NOT see that coming.

You're usually so smart.

I was depending on you.

Maybe you oughta change your avatar to a thumb held horizontal.

Gundude
06-28-2012, 21:06
You can now be taxed for doing nothing. Just for breathing.

And its not a small tax.

It starts at 1 %.

then it goes to 2.5.

Of INCOME.Uh, so it's an "income tax" then?

If you breathe and have an income, you get taxed.

This is a new, shocking thing now?

QNman
06-28-2012, 21:30
Uh, so it's an "income tax" then?

If you breathe and have an income, you get taxed.

This is a new, shocking thing now?

It's more stealing from "the rich" (aka the workers and producers) to give to those who will not work or produce. If you're "poor", you are exempt.

This White House and Congress seem hell bound to destroy any incentive to be upwardly mobile.

HarlDane
06-28-2012, 21:42
I knew Roberts would carve out a narrow compromise with a 5-4 decision, but I thought it was going to go the other way.

JFrame
06-28-2012, 21:44
I knew Roberts would carve out a narrow compromise with a 5-4 decision, but I thought it was going to go the other way.


As did most of us...


.

G29Reload
06-29-2012, 10:36
You're usually so smart.

I was depending on you.

Maybe you oughta change your avatar to a thumb held horizontal.

It's not me that brought the stupid, but roberts. and lawlessly.

not an income tax, but an illegal capitation tax, calculated by income.

i'm actually smarter...or more honest...than a supreme ct justice. AND a president.

G29Reload
06-29-2012, 10:37
Uh, so it's an "income tax" then?

If you breathe and have an income, you get taxed.

This is a new, shocking thing now?

No. See my last post.