Health Reform Takes Another Hit, This Time in Florida

I'm not seeking your approvaal joe and so while I believe I'm made my case, I also understand your position, I just don't agree with it and I'm pretty sure nothing I write is going to convince you.

So all we are left with is just sour grapes from you simply because the Supreme Court takes a more Conservative view of legislation than you do.

Arthur

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

This post is so intellectually insulting on so many fronts. It is trolling at its worst.

Especially coming from someone who claims he stands for truth and honesty, and above all facts. Even though all you generally provide is a link that either doesn't support your argument, or at least only partially (very little partially) supports your argument. Proof is not provided by someone who googles buzzwords or phrase on wiki and provides a link to say that they provided proof.

I got a warning for laughing at such idiocy from pdude. Yes, this is very similar. My only reaction is to laugh at the enormous amount of ignorance shown in that statement.

The whole point of the revolution was exactly the opposite of that statement. It just shows a profound lack of historical knowledge. What is worse is that you do these things intentionally.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You wrote that and you still cannot see how this is "force"?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

We may have to agree to disagee. But it seems your arguement all boils down to reliance on political domination of the supremes. And that is a pretty weak position.

If you can make a reasonable case proving the Healthcare Reform Act violates the Consitution, I am all ears. And if you can make a case that the
Heatlhcare Reform Act does not benefit the country, I am all ears. But I have not heard such a case yet from anyone on your side.

We have more than sour grapes if the supremes do not rule on legislation based on the law and precedent and rule exclusively on political ideology as it appears will be the case. The fact that we can tell how certian justices will vote even before the case has been heard is telling. If the supremes were truely an unbiased and fair court, we would have a hearing before the judgement. And predictions of judical decisions would be far more uncertian.

If the supremes are no longer able to make decisions based on evidence and the law, then perhaps we need to revist how supremes are appointed and their life long tenures in order to achieve a fair court.

 

The HRA in general (its many thousands of pages) doesn't violate the constitution but a PROVISION within it, the individual mandate, does.

Well at least according to half the judges that have looked at it.

I tend to agree with those judges.
You tend to agree with the judges that think it doesn't.

So at this point, from a judicial perspective, it's a toss up.

Which the Supreme Court will resolve.

The funny part is if they don't agree with you, you want to toss out the court and our entire SC system.
If they don't agree with me, I'll accept that the system worked and that I'm not as knowledgeable in law as they are.

Arthur

 

Well I want to get a court that is less partisan and more focused on the rule of law. If my grief with this supreme court were limited to just one issue, you may have a point. But it is not.

My issue with this supreme court goes much further and begins with the appointment of george II as president. It also includes the ruling last year allowing unlimited amounts of money into our election process. The last thing our election process needs is more money.

What we need in our election system is more honesty...more facts and more reason.

 

Joe,

That just brings us back to the exact same point:

If they don't agree with you, you want to toss out the court and our entire SC system.

Rational people accept that the system worked and that we are not as knowledgeable in law as they are.

But it warms my heart to see you are still pissed off on their decison on Bush v Gore, as if they got it wrong.

They didn't.

Arthur

 

LOL I am sure bush v Gore does warm your little heart. The supremes were so proud of that little decision they said that their decision in this case should not be precedent for further cases.

And when you have justices as you do on this court, who are blatently acting as political agents and lining their pockets with special interest money, I think that is crossing the line.

 

Yeah, they said that because:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore

Which makes sense considering that different states do ballots in different ways.

Not all of them have issues with "hanging chads".

LOL

Arthur

 

Ah yeah, we can have a whole nother discussion on that issue. The point is this court has been a activist court making law rather than interepreting the law.

And members of the court have profited from special interest money and refused to recuse themselves. It is the most corrupt court in modern history.

 

Yes, Bush did that through the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

 

Yep, pretty darn scary. All george need do is say you are a enemy combatant and he could toss you into some deep dark hole and you would never be heard from again.

Funny how no Tea Partiers/Republicans were in the least upset about that little issue. I didn't hear any cries of fascism then.

 

Nope, my point was asking if the president suspended Habeas Corpus for US Citizens?

MCA did not do that.

Purpose— This chapter establishes procedures governing the use of military commissions to try alien unlawful enemy combatants engaged in hostilities against the United States for violations of the law of war and other offenses triable by military commission.

The Act defines an alien as "a person who is not a citizen of the United States"

Arthur

 

The definition of enemy combatant was rather vague and could include American citizens.

 

Not when you read the PURPOSE of the law and the definition of ALIEN, thus its purpose was clear and there was no vagueness to it at all.

Arthur

 

Even if it you are correct, it was ruled unconstitutional. And does it matter if it applies to only aliens? Our laws and bill of rights applies to alien and citizen alike. If an alien is arrested are they not entitled to Miranda Rights? Yes they are.

 

Correct. My income tax burden is currently potentially higher than it would be if I owned a home, or had children, or had bought a hybrid car in the past year, or any number of things. That's how the structure of our tax code works. But at no point have I ever felt that I'm being forced to do any of those things.

 

Yes it does matter, since the Constitution wasn't overly clear on the matter

But, the Supreme Court ruled that the right of Habeus Corpus extends to Aliens, and invalidated that part of the MCA.

Which I have no problem with.

But the FACT remains, as I posted, that Bush did not recind HC for US Citizens.

Arthur

 

The difference is all of those are CREDITS.

Not fines.

Arthur

 

So the argument here is that if the individual mandate were structured as a 2.5% income tax increase, coupled with a tax credit exactly offsetting it for those who carry health insurance, there would be no objection to it? Functionally, of course, this is the same thing. A simple rewrite of a handful of sentences to end up with the exact same outcome is all it'll take to completely mitigate your concerns?

That's a pretty straightforward fix then, I suppose.