|
|
| For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side (953358) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
| (953358) | |
For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Thu Jun 28 15:58:40 2012 In the process of siding with the Liberals on the court in casting the decisive vote upholding Obamacare, we need to remember that the entire Law wasn't up for review, just two provisions: (1) was the Individual Mandate constitutional and (2) could the Law withhold ALL Medicaid funds from states that refused to adopt the expanded Medicaid rules.To take the easy one first, he established that the Federal Government could not coerce the states in that fashion. Any state that refuses to expand Medicaid still gets its Medicaid money, just not ADDITIONAL money. But the Individual Mandate is the most interesting. Overthrowing the mandate would NOT have overthrown the Law, but it would have made the operation of its nearly impossible. Roberts bought the third-place argument that the Solicitor General advanced, that the penalty for disobeying the mandate was Constitutional because it was really a TAX, and the Federal Government can do that. BUT--- he put in a severe new limitation to the Commerce Clause, saying it isn't the Federal Government's prerogative to manipulate people's lives however they [they = liberals] like. Under the Commerce Clause the Individual Mandate would have been unconstitutional. This is what the court liberals signed on to. So now Obama is in an interesting position: OBAMACARE lives, but now he has to defend OBAMATAX. Don't Take My Word or the Talking Heads Analysts Spin, Read the Decision [PDF] |
|
|
| (953417) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Thu Jun 28 19:34:41 2012, in response to For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SLRT on Thu Jun 28 15:58:40 2012. Get insurance, pay no tax. Taxes like that aren't unpopular. |
|
|
| (953479) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by italianstallion on Thu Jun 28 23:44:22 2012, in response to For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SLRT on Thu Jun 28 15:58:40 2012. Maybe Roberts understood that the whole concept came from the right-wing Heritage Foundation . . . |
|
|
| (953550) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 29 06:12:29 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Thu Jun 28 19:34:41 2012. What do you think of John Roberts now, bingbong? |
|
|
| (953616) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 29 11:26:42 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SLRT on Fri Jun 29 06:12:29 2012. I think he's an ideologue who found a way to live with himself while doing essentially the right thing this one time through a different but equally valid rationale.There are Commerce Clause mandates throughout the nation's history and all have stood this test. It is only in this court have we seen this important Constitutional pillar being chipped away at. From someone who claims respect for "stare decrisis" (sp? I'm not a lawyer) his decision is a mockery of same. ACA is valid under the Commerce Clause. There is no argument there. ACA is a regulation of interstate commerce. I have no complaint WRT the result. However, by no means does it change my opinion of Roberts one iota. Broccoli, anyone? |
|
|
| (953830) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 30 03:40:14 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 29 11:26:42 2012. correct...i find him contemptible myself..and anyone who has half a brain can see this isnt a bone he threw..but a "political cats paw swipe" at the President to be played out later this year. |
|
|
| (953837) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 04:19:39 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 30 03:40:14 2012. Precisely! The "T-word" makes republicans moist. :) |
|
|
| (953840) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 30 06:32:25 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 04:19:39 2012. Lumpy,too! |
|
|
| (953881) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 11:43:25 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Fri Jun 29 11:26:42 2012. The difference between this and Wickard is that Wickard compelled an individual not to engage in an activity, whereas this compels one to engage in it. |
|
|
| (953900) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:12:15 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 11:43:25 2012. These precedents go back to the Militia Act of 1790. |
|
|
| (953906) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 12:26:49 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:12:15 2012. Before the 13th amendment. |
|
|
| (953908) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:38:19 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 12:26:49 2012. :-) That's what Luch probably thinks.Americans were pretty much against maintaining a standing army until the late 19th century. Before then they just drafted men as necessary. You were expected to bring your own gun, too. Thus the Militia Act of 1790. |
|
|
| (953909) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 12:39:44 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:38:19 2012. People should only be "drafted" of their own free will. The first compulsory draft was during the Civil War. |
|
|
| (953916) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:47:20 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 12:39:44 2012. Not exactly. The draft is written in the Constitution itself, and was used from the Whiskey Rebellion forward.It still IS in the Constitution, the current volunteer force is the result of legislation, not amendment, which is readily overturnable. |
|
|
| (953919) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 12:53:02 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:47:20 2012. Where is the draft written in the Constitution? Article, section and clause please. |
|
|
| (953923) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:56:46 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 12:53:02 2012. Google it. I don't have time. |
|
|
| (953935) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 13:33:12 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:56:46 2012. You were the one who made the assertion. How could I possibly know what you're talking about? |
|
|
| (953940) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 13:41:09 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 12:56:46 2012. You can't keep posting bullshit and then run away from it, using the excuse that you don't have time to back it up. As to the issue of Conscription, you don't have your facts correct either. The Constitution only authorizes the Congress to "Raise and Support" an army. It neither embraces nor rejects the concept of conscription to that end. |
|
|
| (953941) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 13:44:04 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 13:33:12 2012. "You were the one who made the assertion. How could I possibly know what you're talking about? "You are making the assumption that she does. |
|
|
| (953969) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by DAND124 on Sat Jun 30 14:20:48 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 13:33:12 2012. I think courts have generally used the clause about raising an army or something to that effect, I’ll look it up in a little bit. |
|
|
| (953973) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 14:33:55 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 13:44:04 2012. The only assumption valid in your case is that you are a retired civilservant troll. I'd say go do something useful but you're not capable of that. |
|
|
| (954046) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 17:09:27 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by DAND124 on Sat Jun 30 14:20:48 2012. Don't waste your time. The clause gives congress the "authority to raise and support an army." It does not specify how that shall be done. |
|
|
| (954049) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 17:11:55 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 14:33:55 2012. Why don't you go feed your children? |
|
|
| (954052) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 17:14:25 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 17:09:27 2012. There was only one way in 1787 to raise an army. |
|
|
| (954055) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 17:15:18 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by bingbong on Sat Jun 30 17:14:25 2012. Yes, you would know. |
|
|
| (954094) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 18:25:35 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 30 06:32:25 2012. ... and not necessarily in that order. :) |
|
|
| (954100) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 18:33:33 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 17:11:55 2012. When are you going to stop raping yours? |
|
|
| (954111) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 19:02:59 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 18:33:33 2012. Are you making an allegation that you really want to defend? |
|
|
| (954115) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 19:18:10 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 19:02:59 2012. You're a republican. You vote for policies that are taking away your children's future. Look at all the butthurt when they were forced to vote to extend student loans just yesterday instead of raping the kids for double the interest rates starting tomorrow.Not my fault that you have no intellect for abstract thought. |
|
|
| (954128) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 20:02:03 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 19:18:10 2012. I think that you've accused me of a particularly vile criminal act. It's just a hunch but I really don't think that your explanation is going to fly in other venues. Do you want to stand by your comment? |
|
|
| (954135) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 20:15:36 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 20:02:03 2012. Geez, you're a fucking moron. Can't you READ? |
|
|
| (954137) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 20:17:27 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sat Jun 30 20:15:36 2012. So that's your final answer? |
|
|
| (954222) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:10:51 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by DAND124 on Sat Jun 30 14:20:48 2012. Rulings upholding the constitutionality of conscription are Butler v Perry, Arver v US and Rostker v Goldberg.More recent opinions even alluded that future drafts may have to include women. |
|
|
| (954232) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 23:22:31 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:10:51 2012. There are rulings upholding the constitutionality of segregation too. |
|
|
| (954236) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:25:07 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 23:22:31 2012. There are rulings upholding the constitutionality of segregation too.Those have been overruled. The Draft laws and the judicial rulings that followed are still the Law of the Land. |
|
|
| (954240) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jun 30 23:29:54 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:25:07 2012. Because there is no justiciable case any more. |
|
|
| (954243) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 23:31:05 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:25:07 2012. Laws upholding the constitutionality of the draft may, in fact, exist. The constitutionality of the draft is not at issue. Where is the draft mentioned in the constitution? What is so hard for you to understand? |
|
|
| (954246) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:33:40 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 23:31:05 2012. Are you saying that all those SCOTUS rulings throughout our history upholding the Draft were defective and erroneous? |
|
|
| (954249) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 23:36:08 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:33:40 2012. I said nothing of the sort. In fact I said the opposite. Now why will you not answer a simple question that this entire discussion is about? Where in the constitution is conscription mentioned? Just answer that simple question |
|
|
| (954255) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:41:55 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jun 30 23:36:08 2012. The powers to raise and call forth armies means "conscription" in case that's too hard for you to understand. |
|
|
| (954263) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 1 00:02:20 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SMAZ on Sat Jun 30 23:41:55 2012. Let me explain it for you in such simple terms that even bing-bong would understand it.The fact that the constitutionality of conscription laws have been challenged is proof that conscription is not provided for in the constitution. If conscription was in the constitution, how could its constitutionality be challenged? It couldn't. Once again, if it's in the constitution, then by definition, it is constitutional. A law's constitutionality can only be tested if it is not specifically discussed in the constitution. Get it? Now stop arguing the point and move on. |
|
|
| (954289) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 1 01:42:49 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 1 00:02:20 2012. The fact that the constitutionality of conscription laws have been challenged is proof that conscription is not provided for in the constitution.The fact that those challenges were unanimously laughed out of court in Arver v US and later draft laws subsequently reaffirmed in later cases proves just the opposite. The Constitution also says nothing about being conscripted into jury duty either. By exercising its powers under the Necessary and Proper Clause, Congress made the Seventh Amendment effective through such a means. Burn you SDS card. Stick to trains. |
|
|
| (954290) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 1 01:44:21 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 1 01:42:49 2012. That case is weak. It used a state case and even worse, foreign law and a philosophical tract to prove its point. |
|
|
| (954292) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 1 01:55:51 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Jul 1 01:44:21 2012. That case was reaffirmed in later cases including those related to the current post-Vietnam Selective Service System.That makes Arver a so-called "Super Precedent". Recent court decisions have even taken it further by alluding that females would not be excluded from a future Draft were there ever to be one. |
|
|
| (954365) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 1 09:19:54 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SMAZ on Sun Jul 1 01:42:49 2012. Hey, dumb-ass, stick to the issue at hand. You continue to try to change the argument because you and big-bung have been shown to be wrong and neither of you is sufficiently man enough to admit it. |
|
|
| (954441) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 1 17:36:41 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Train Dude on Sun Jul 1 09:19:54 2012. What an INTERESTING statement ... so your idea of women is that they have dangly things in their pants? Hmmmm ... DO tell us more ... it would explain many of your interesting statements indeed. :) |
|
|
| (954455) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Avid Reader on Sun Jul 1 18:39:55 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Edwards! on Sat Jun 30 03:40:14 2012. I agree with the later part of your statement, but disagree about being contemptible.I find extremely clever. a) out goes the Commerce Clause arguement. b) The Act has now become a giant TAX, and an albatros around all of the Democrates that voeted for it , and are up for re-election this November. c) By agreeing , Roberts, Ha ha, got to write the "Majority interpretation, and Solitio does the Minority Interpretation. Ginsburg got to whine, piss, and moan in the corner gargoling her bile. The Left Minority were muffled! d) The Right wing Court gives Obama a 5 month hollow victory. 5 Months to sweat, and try to not make it a crapper full of taxes. TAXES, TAXES, TAXES, all over the the middle class INDEPENDANTS! |
|
|
| (954456) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 1 18:44:32 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Avid Reader on Sun Jul 1 18:39:55 2012. Yep ... that's the game. McConnell in the Senate is primed and ready too since the plan now is to only require 51 votes over there based on this being a "tax" instead of "commerce" which then means that the whole law can be trashed on a basis of a "reconciliation" bill.Roberts IS evil. |
|
|
| (954457) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sun Jul 1 18:46:54 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by Avid Reader on Sun Jul 1 18:39:55 2012. And shitstain AmeriKKKa slides deeper into the toilet. Unfortunately for YOU NAZIS, most opposition to BOCare is based on the desire to ERADICATE private insurance companies and have a Government run system with all new employees. |
|
|
| (954460) | |
Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side |
|
|
Posted by Rockparkman on Sun Jul 1 18:51:34 2012, in response to Re: For those of you who think Roberts has gone over to the [bright/dark] side, posted by SelkirkTMO on Sun Jul 1 18:44:32 2012. I just can't wait. The Nazi criminals and their idiot stooges can then have their party. Shitstain AmeriKKKa doesn't deserve independence. |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|