Judge may rule obamacare unconstitutional
0
-
We here have been saying all along that it's unconstitutional.
One of those liberals ever going to adhere to the Constitution??????!!!!0 -
Will they refund all the folks who had to pay for not complying? 0 -
Don't count on it 0 -
Wait for them to scream bloody murder about one judge upsetting things. When that's their #1 tactic. 0 -
funny lots of reports are saying only 10 million have Obamacare but listen to the left it must be 300 million.It seems to screw the working people and only helps the ones that don't work 0 -
Obamacare. It only works if you don't 0 -
Healthcare is not a constitutional right....but the right to keep and bear arms is!
So, any American that is eligible to own a gun but does not -- should be fined!!!!!
This makes more sense to me.0 -
SCOTUS already ruled. How can a lower court revisit it? 0 -
quote:Originally posted by Doc
SCOTUS already ruled. How can a lower court revisit it?
Guess you didn't see this part of the article,..........
"At the heart of the Texas v. Azar case is the so-called individual mandate?the requirement that all Americans have health insurance. Six years ago, Roberts held that Congress has no constitutional authority to impose such a requirement. But he sustained the mandate because it levied a tax on the uninsured. In his convoluted reasoning, Congress cannot require you to buy insurance, but it can tax you for not buying it.
Last December, congressional Republicans left the mandate on the books, but reduced the tax penalty to $0. Plaintiffs in Texas v. Azar argue that a tax of $0 is no tax at all. Citing Roberts? reasoning, they assert that the mandate without the tax is unconstitutional."
Basically,...things have changed since the original SCOTUS ruling.0 -
"Convoluted thinking" is what lawyers do. That's the bottom line, plain and simple - for those of us who aren't lawyers.
A lawyer can twist the plainest statement into exactly the opposite of what it seems to say. Then a judge can twist it back again. Finally, SCOTUS can twist it still more into something nobody at all can recognize.0 -
quote:Originally posted by bustedknee
Healthcare is not a constitutional right....but the right to keep and bear arms is!
So, any American that is eligible to own a gun but does not -- should be fined!!!!!
This makes more sense to me.
great point I agree0 -
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
"Convoluted thinking" is what lawyers do. That's the bottom line, plain and simple - for those of us who aren't lawyers.
A lawyer can twist the plainest statement into exactly the opposite of what it seems to say. Then a judge can twist it back again. Finally, SCOTUS can twist it still more into something nobody at all can recognize.
That's an X-ring right there.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Rocky Raab
"Convoluted thinking" is what lawyers do. That's the bottom line, plain and simple - for those of us who aren't lawyers.
A lawyer can twist the plainest statement into exactly the opposite of what it seems to say. Then a judge can twist it back again. Finally, SCOTUS can twist it still more into something nobody at all can recognize.
That's an X-ring right there.
absolutely0 -
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Doc
SCOTUS already ruled. How can a lower court revisit it?
Guess you didn't see this part of the article,..........
"At the heart of the Texas v. Azar case is the so-called individual mandate?the requirement that all Americans have health insurance. Six years ago, Roberts held that Congress has no constitutional authority to impose such a requirement. But he sustained the mandate because it levied a tax on the uninsured. In his convoluted reasoning, Congress cannot require you to buy insurance, but it can tax you for not buying it.
Last December, congressional Republicans left the mandate on the books, but reduced the tax penalty to $0. Plaintiffs in Texas v. Azar argue that a tax of $0 is no tax at all. Citing Roberts? reasoning, they assert that the mandate without the tax is unconstitutional."
Basically,...things have changed since the original SCOTUS ruling.
Given the other posts about convoluted thinking. I'm guessing the court will ultimately decide something like, "well, the tax rate is presently $0, but it could increase at some later date because the tax wasn't eliminated... it's just a rate change, not an elimination."
Don't know but that seems likely.0 -
quote:Originally posted by Mr. Perfect
quote:Originally posted by Marc1301
quote:Originally posted by Doc
SCOTUS already ruled. How can a lower court revisit it?
Guess you didn't see this part of the article,..........
"At the heart of the Texas v. Azar case is the so-called individual mandate?the requirement that all Americans have health insurance. Six years ago, Roberts held that Congress has no constitutional authority to impose such a requirement. But he sustained the mandate because it levied a tax on the uninsured. In his convoluted reasoning, Congress cannot require you to buy insurance, but it can tax you for not buying it.
Last December, congressional Republicans left the mandate on the books, but reduced the tax penalty to $0. Plaintiffs in Texas v. Azar argue that a tax of $0 is no tax at all. Citing Roberts? reasoning, they assert that the mandate without the tax is unconstitutional."
Basically,...things have changed since the original SCOTUS ruling.
Given the other posts about convoluted thinking. I'm guessing the court will ultimately decide something like, "well, the tax rate is presently $0, but it could increase at some later date because the tax wasn't eliminated... it's just a rate change, not an elimination."
Don't know but that seems likely.
My thinking as well,....FWIW.0 -
ONE liberal judge can change anything their way...one conservative decision will make the Mississippi river run north with barges full of wailing liberals 0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
16 comments