Page 64 of 64 FirstFirst ... 1454626364
Results 1,891 to 1,898 of 1898

Thread: The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

  1. #1891
    功 流感 战斗机 Uncle Ted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Where ∑ ★ = 1
    Posts
    23,629

    Default

    I guess AOC didn't get the memo... don't talk about expanding the court until AFTER the election:

    "If there is one thing I am, it's always right." -Ted Nugent.
    "I honestly believe saying someone is a smart lawyer is damning with faint praise. The smartest people become engineers and scientists." -SU.
    "Yet I still see wisdom in that which Uncle Ted posts." -creek.
    GIVE 'EM HELL, BRIGHAM!

  2. #1892

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Uncle Ted View Post
    I guess AOC didn't get the memo... don't talk about expanding the court until AFTER the election:

    It actually would be better for AOC's political career if Trump stays in power for another 4 years. 4 more years of Trump and the pendulum is likely to swing much harder to the left than it will right now.
    Prepare to put mustard on those words, for you will soon be consuming them, along with this slice of humble pie that comes direct from the oven of shame set at gas mark “egg on your face”! -- Moss

    There are three rules that I live by: never get less than twelve hours sleep; never play cards with a guy who has the same first name as a city; and never get involved with a woman with a tattoo of a dagger on her body. Now you stick to that, and everything else is cream cheese. --Coach Finstock

  3. #1893
    Corporate lackey for Jesus Jeff Lebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    The heart of the UC
    Posts
    52,669

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Donuthole View Post
    It actually would be better for AOC's political career if Trump stays in power for another 4 years. 4 more years of Trump and the pendulum is likely to swing much harder to the left than it will right now.
    This is correct.
    "There is no creature more arrogant than a self-righteous libertarian on the web, am I right? Those folks are just intolerable."
    "It's no secret that the great American pastime is no longer baseball. Now it's sanctimony." -- Guy Periwinkle, The Nix.
    "Juilliardk N I ibuprofen Hyu I U unhurt u" - creekster

  4. #1894

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Moliere View Post
    Glad to know that liberals are as good at fear mongering as conservatives.
    Wasn't it the ACA that outlawed insurance companies refusing to cover preexisting conditions? The thought is if she's the deciding vote in declaring it unconstitutional that the industry goes back to where it was.

    The current case I don't get though. If the rationale in trying to strike down the ACA was that the mandate to buy insurance wasn't Constitutional but Roberts engineered a ruling saying that the penalty since it was collected by the IRS was therefore a tax, and therefore Constitutional. Then once the penalty was taken away some states sued saying the tax is now gone so it's now Unconstitutional! Yippee! But wait, if there is no penalty for not buying insurance then is there an unConstitutional mandate anymore? Nope. The whole argument seems illogical to me, maybe someone can explain it.
    Last edited by BlueK; Yesterday at 03:59 AM.

  5. #1895

    Default The Supreme Court, bastion of conservatism

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Wasn't it the ACA that outlawed insurance companies refusing to cover preexisting conditions? The thought is if she's the deciding vote in declaring it unconstitutional that the industry goes back to where it was.

    The current case I don't get though. If the rationale in trying to strike down the ACA was that the mandate to buy insurance wasn't Constitutional but Roberts engineered a ruling saying that the penalty since it was collected by the IRS was therefore a tax, and therefore Constitutional. Then once the penalty was taken away some states sued saying the tax is now gone so it's now Unconstitutional! Yippee! But wait, if there is no penalty for not buying insurance than is there an unConstitutional mandate anymore? Nope. The whole argument seems illogical to me, maybe someone can explain it.
    I know! What are they even arguing about? Why don’t the idiots just check what the constitution says about it

  6. #1896

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Now who’s the dean? View Post
    I know! What are they even arguing about? Why don’t the idiots just check what the constitution says about it
    The ACA is old news. The republican party would be smart to move on from "repeal and replace" or attempts to get the courts to strike it down.

  7. #1897
    Princeps Inter Pares
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    12,486

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by BlueK View Post
    Wasn't it the ACA that outlawed insurance companies refusing to cover preexisting conditions? The thought is if she's the deciding vote in declaring it unconstitutional that the industry goes back to where it was.

    The current case I don't get though. If the rationale in trying to strike down the ACA was that the mandate to buy insurance wasn't Constitutional but Roberts engineered a ruling saying that the penalty since it was collected by the IRS was therefore a tax, and therefore Constitutional. Then once the penalty was taken away some states sued saying the tax is now gone so it's now Unconstitutional! Yippee! But wait, if there is no penalty for not buying insurance than is there an unConstitutional mandate anymore? Nope. The whole argument seems illogical to me, maybe someone can explain it.
    The logic, as I understand it, is that under the NFIB v. Sebellius ruling, the mandate was constitutional because it was a tax. That holding meant that the Court did not have to consider the next step: if the mandate is unconstitutional, does the entire act fail, or can the mandate be stricken and the rest of the act preserved.

    Now the "tax" penalty has been repealed, leaving only the mandate. More precisely, the dollar amount of the penalty was reduced to $0; everything else about the act was left intact. The question now before the Court is whether (1) the mandate, absent the tax penalty, is unconstitutional, and (2) without the mandate the entire law is invalid.

    Here is a link to the briefs to the case now before the Court.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...ornia-v-texas/

    The first question is a little interesting, in my opinion, but the second one I think is quite clearly "no."

    The mandate is now a toothless provision, with effectively no consequences for failure to comply. For all intents and purposes, repealing the tax penalty killed the mandate. So does a toothless mandate violate the constitution? Can Congress pass a law saying everyone has to do something if it allows no means to enforce that provision? Challengers say yes; Congress cannot do anything without an enumerated power, they say, so if Congress is not allowed to do it, it is no defense to say that it wouldn't do anything anyway.

    The second question is tricky in that the statute itself declares the mandate to be "essential" to the ACA's operations. In other words, the statute itself suggests the mandate is inseverable, and that finding the mandate unconstitutional renders the whole act unconstitutional. But the simple fact is that Congress considered repealing the entire act, and couldn't do it; then it dropped the tax penalty to zero. This suggests quite strongly that Congress considered the rest of the act as being able to stand on its own without the mandate. I think you could very well get a decision from the Court that says the mandate is unconstitutional absent some effective penalty provision, but that finding the mandate unconstitutional would not void the rest of the act.

    Note too that in January we will likely have a democratic president, house, and senate. It will be very easy for them to raise the tax from zero to something above zero and save the act, even if the Court decides the case in such a way that it would be necessary to do so.
    τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν

  8. #1898
    Senior Member UVACoug's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    SLC
    Posts
    2,207

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by All-American View Post
    The logic, as I understand it, is that under the NFIB v. Sebellius ruling, the mandate was constitutional because it was a tax. That holding meant that the Court did not have to consider the next step: if the mandate is unconstitutional, does the entire act fail, or can the mandate be stricken and the rest of the act preserved.

    Now the "tax" penalty has been repealed, leaving only the mandate. More precisely, the dollar amount of the penalty was reduced to $0; everything else about the act was left intact. The question now before the Court is whether (1) the mandate, absent the tax penalty, is unconstitutional, and (2) without the mandate the entire law is invalid.

    Here is a link to the briefs to the case now before the Court.

    https://www.scotusblog.com/case-file...ornia-v-texas/

    The first question is a little interesting, in my opinion, but the second one I think is quite clearly "no."

    The mandate is now a toothless provision, with effectively no consequences for failure to comply. For all intents and purposes, repealing the tax penalty killed the mandate. So does a toothless mandate violate the constitution? Can Congress pass a law saying everyone has to do something if it allows no means to enforce that provision? Challengers say yes; Congress cannot do anything without an enumerated power, they say, so if Congress is not allowed to do it, it is no defense to say that it wouldn't do anything anyway.

    The second question is tricky in that the statute itself declares the mandate to be "essential" to the ACA's operations. In other words, the statute itself suggests the mandate is inseverable, and that finding the mandate unconstitutional renders the whole act unconstitutional. But the simple fact is that Congress considered repealing the entire act, and couldn't do it; then it dropped the tax penalty to zero. This suggests quite strongly that Congress considered the rest of the act as being able to stand on its own without the mandate. I think you could very well get a decision from the Court that says the mandate is unconstitutional absent some effective penalty provision, but that finding the mandate unconstitutional would not void the rest of the act.

    Note too that in January we will likely have a democratic president, house, and senate. It will be very easy for them to raise the tax from zero to something above zero and save the act, even if the Court decides the case in such a way that it would be necessary to do so.
    The case won’t be decided before January either, so Democrats could moot the whole thing by reimposing the tax after they take office. Not sure they could do it without abolishing the filibuster though, which they’ll probably do regardless.

Posting Permissions

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