Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 738
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This country... can't even mourn an American Icon without fighting over her body and her seat. We are pathetic.

The ACA is the Republican health bill from the 90s. It's Mitt Romney's Republican law from Massachusetts in the early 00s.    Yet when Obama brought up the same law, suddenly it became a "go

I actually think it could be a good idea. The life time appointments were supposed to depolitize the Judiciary assuming both parties would use the powers of congress to vet potential judges and ensure

Posted Images

6 hours ago, Titans279 said:

In 2018 there were 15.5 million people who get Medicaid from the ACA due the the expansion. That number has only increased. If the ACA is struck down 15-20 million lose their Medicaid.

 

That's 5.3 millions people in red or swing states!

 

3.3 million across

 

Arizona

Iowa

Michigan

Minnesota

Montana

Nevada

New Hampshire

Ohio

Pennsylvania

 

This is not even counting the people who get it from the market places, and everyone has the pre-existing conditions protections that they will lose.

 

That doesn't matter much anymore.  Any hralthcare bill written and passed that helps people will be run up to the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS as quickly as possible.  

 

Outside an amendment to the Constitution, which isn't happening, they will have a hard time getting any meaningful healthcare law passed. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Rogue said:

 

That doesn't matter much anymore.  Any hralthcare bill written and passed that helps people will be run up to the 6-3 conservative SCOTUS as quickly as possible.  

 

Outside an amendment to the Constitution, which isn't happening, they will have a hard time getting any meaningful healthcare law passed. 


Medicare has been around for decades and is constitutional...

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Starkiller said:


Medicare has been around for decades and is constitutional...

 

True, for now anyways.  MFA, especially the measures it would take to pass it, if somehow passed would be pushed right up there.  

 

It could jeopardize Medicare.  Unlikely, but possible.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, oldschool said:

 

They need 2 more. I think Romney joins them so that leaves one of the vulnerable senators. I also think McConneel cares more about pushing this appointment through than he does winning the presidential election or keeping the senate. Pushing it through means a huge conservative slant on the court for decades or generations. He'll gladly give up the short term gains that come with this election cycle if it means cementing control of the Judiciary long term.

They need more than that if they only vote present instead of no. It isn’t happening. The replacement will be voted through. I bet Romney will be the only no vote. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it’s actually ideal for them to wait until the potential lame duck. If they push it thru fast I think that’ll look worse for them overall. 
 

If they win then they can claim a mandate, if they lose then it’ll be 2 years before more elections and everyone will have forgotten. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, OILERMAN said:

 

Thinking about this a bit, as long as we can get the fat fuck out of office the world is certainly going to look at us as the country not to fuck with. We are obviously crazy as all hell. From the geopolitical standpoint we can salvage this if we get him peacefully out of office. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, oldschool said:

 

I was wrong. Its 11/10 so the week after the election. either way the ACA is dead with only 8 justices. If Roberts sides with the liberals its a 4-4 split and the lower court ruling that threw out the ACA is held up. This is what democrats should be talking about from now until the minute the polls close. If they want any chance to save the ACA o pass another version of it they must take the Senate away from McConnell. I'd focus on that rather than the hypocrisy of the GOP moving forward with a supreme court nominee.

I hate to say this but it should be thrown out. They passed it on the interstate commerce clause saying it wasn’t a tax. They passed it through the Supreme Court through the taxation clause. You can’t tax people for breathing unless it’s ubiquitous. It should be overturned and hopefully move the country forward with real healthcare. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, IsntLifeFunny said:

I hate to say this but it should be thrown out. They passed it on the interstate commerce clause saying it wasn’t a tax. They passed it through the Supreme Court through the taxation clause. You can’t tax people for breathing unless it’s ubiquitous. It should be overturned and hopefully move the country forward with real healthcare. 


That part was already found constitutional once though...

Link to post
Share on other sites

2. In NFIB, this Court addressed whether the indi- vidual mandate was a valid exercise of Congress’s legis- lative authority. A majority of the Court concluded that the individual mandate could not be sustained as a valid exercise of Congress’s authority under the Constitu- tion’s Commerce Clause, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 3, or Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, § 8, Cl. 18. NFIB, 567 U.S. at 547-561, 574 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.); id. at 649-660 (Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, JJ., dissenting (joint dissent)); see id. at 572 (opinion of the Court). As the Chief Justice explained, “the power to regulate” commerce “assumes there is already something to be regulated.” Id. at 550 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.). But “[t]he individual mandate,” he observed, “does not reg- ulate existing commercial activity”: it “compels individ- uals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product.” Id. at 552; see id. at 548-558. And although the Court’s “jurisprudence under the Necessary and Opinion of the Court). As the Chief Justice explained, “the power to regulate” commerce “assumes there is already something to be regulated.” Id. at 550 (opinion of Roberts, C.J.). But “[t]he individual mandate,” he observed, “does not reg- ulate existing commercial activity”: it “compels individ- uals to become active in commerce by purchasing a product.” Id. at 552; see id. at 548-558. And although the Court’s “jurisprudence under the Necessary and Proper Clause * * * been very deferential to Con- gress’s determination that a regulation is ‘necessary,’ ” the Chief Justice explained that the individual mandate could not be sustained under that Clause because it pur- ported to “create the necessary predicate to the exer- cise of an enumerated power.” Id. at 559-560; see id. at 558-561.

If it was a solid law it wouldn’t so easily be fundamentally dissected. It was a bad law passed through the SCOTUS on shaky grounds that allowed it to be dismantled. 

Edited by IsntLifeFunny
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...