Health Bill Deemed Into Existance

And to reiterate, anyone dreaming that the Supreme Court will strike all this down, as some are relying on, even gleefully so, it needs to be remembered that virtually never does the Supreme Court throw out the entirety of a bill.

Only certain points will be argued in a given case, and only those certain points will be decided.

E.g., let’s say that in 2016 the Supreme Court rules that the Federal government cannot mandate purchase of health care insurance. Some states are already planning to sue on that ground. I don’t think that will happen because the counterargument is that it is not mandated: a person can choose not to and pay the “fee.” But let’s say the Supreme Court strikes that down.

EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING that you listed above would still remain.

Don’t look to the Supreme Court for salvation on this.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
And to reiterate, anyone dreaming that the Supreme Court will strike all this down, as some are relying on, even gleefully so, it needs to be remembered that virtually never does the Supreme Court throw out the entirety of a bill.

Only certain points will be argued in a given case, and only those certain points will be decided.

E.g., let’s say that in 2016 the Supreme Court rules that the Federal government cannot mandate purchase of health care insurance. Some states are already planning to sue on that ground. I don’t think that will happen because the counterargument is that it is not mandated: a person can choose not to and pay the “fee.” But let’s say the Supreme Court strikes that down.

EVERY SINGLE OTHER THING that you listed above would still remain.

Don’t look to the Supreme Court for salvation on this.[/quote]

How about the slaughter rule itself?

Article 1, Section 7.

Sue on that, the whole thing is GONE.

JeffR

Maybe.

You don’t seem to be counting that to the wise Latina woman and many others on the Supreme Court, the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” in which new things can constantly be found to meet the needs of the times as discerned by enlightened, socially-conscious judges such as herself.

I’m not too confident that the Supreme Court will overturn anything that happens here. Everything were talking about now started decades ago. We needed people to be awake then.

[quote]Bill Roberts wrote:
Maybe.

You don’t seem to be counting that to the wise Latina woman and many others on the Supreme Court, the Constitution is a “living, breathing document” in which new things can constantly be found to meet the needs of the times as discerned by enlightened, socially-conscious judges such as herself.[/quote]

Yes, I understand that. But, I just have a feeling that the SCOTUS will be looking to make a point.

After hearing Roberts, and assuming he’s as persuasive in private, I have to believe he can frame the argument to his colleagues as, “obama is attempting to undermine Representative Democracy. The blatant disregard for the will of the people and it’s founding document, puts our very framework of Government at risk.”

Not to mention, he could show a replay of the mouth breathers surrounding and laughing at the SCOTUS during the State of the Union.

It’s conjecture on my part, but, I think more than the Good Guys on the court are pissed.

Oh, not to mention, the slaughter rule IS a joke and absolutely Un-Constitutional.

Hell, I think I’d have a pretty good chance to win that case as a Prosecutor.

I’d just read the Constitution. Then follow up with something like, “What stops the majority from “deeming” things into existence at their pleasure? Was that the intent of our Founders? Did they put as many checks and balances in place so that a willful majority could pervert the will of the people?”

Finally, I know that this has been upheld at lower courts. But, the FLOODLIGHTS on the issue currently, would force the SCOTUS to act. I don’t think I’m being dramatic by saying that the slaughter rule is a direct threat to Representative Democracy.

JeffR

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I’m not too confident that the Supreme Court will overturn anything that happens here. Everything were talking about now started decades ago. We needed people to be awake then.[/quote]

True. But, as in other crises in our past, there is a tipping point.

I’d like nothing better than for this to be defeated. However, if it passes, some good MAY come from it. The dems will be out of power AND it I believe it harkens a return to our time honored mores.

JeffR

The SC can only look at the validity of the result, not how the result was obtained. That is the understanding I heard today .

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The SC can only look at the validity of the result, not how the result was obtained. That is the understanding I heard today .[/quote]

I agree with all here. I want it defeated. But, I’m reasonably confident that the SCOTUS gives it the axe.

JeffR

I would be very happy should I find myself wrong. Great find Jeff.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
<<< The dems will be out of power >>>[/quote]
I’m not even convinced of this which is why I haven’t really said it.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
AND it I believe it harkens a return to our time honored mores.
JeffR
[/quote]
I doubt this even more.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
<<< The dems will be out of power >>>[/quote]
I’m not even convinced of this which is why I haven’t really said it.

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
AND it I believe it harkens a return to our time honored mores.
JeffR
[/quote]
I doubt this even more.
[/quote]

Trib,

I simply disagree. They’ll get the House and the Senate is now in play.

If you are tempted to say, there’s a long time to November, realize the dems have this Health Bill around their neck either way. If it fails, they’ve wasted time/money. If successful, the Republicans will have that sucker on the front burner for MONTHS. They won’t allow them to change the subject.

As far as returning to values, in our history, we’ve had watershed moments. I view this as one of those.

JeffR

[quote]Jeff R wrote:
<<<
Trib,

I simply disagree. They’ll get the House and the Senate is now in play.

If you are tempted to say, there’s a long time to November, realize the dems have this Health Bill around their neck either way. If it fails, they’ve wasted time/money. If successful, the Republicans will have that sucker on the front burner for MONTHS. They won’t allow them to change the subject. >>>[/quote]

I’m just saying I’m unconvinced. Conventional wisdom is definitely what you say and could very well be right, but I’m not so sure. I also doubt if the Republicans will get it repealed even if they did.

Anyone who is entirely confident of massive turnover I think should consider that the great majority of registered Democrat voters vote Democrat pretty much no matter what (the same is true of registered Republicans, incidentally) and there are more registered Democrats than there are registered Republicans.

Further, districts are gerrymandered such that most seats enjoy a wide safety margin. There was a person here claiming that politicians don’t know how many registered voters of their party within given locales, but that is quite wrong.

Most seats, both for Democrats and Republicans, are quite safe.

Most Democrat Congressmen could urinate on the American flag and still safely win re-election, just to give one example. There are too many in their district that while perhaps disgusted and disagreeing with his act, are going to vote Democrat because that’s what they do, it’s what their daddy did, it’s what everyone in their union does, it’s what everyone of their race who isn’t a traitor does (they believe), etc.

I would not expect massive turnover. Many seats changing hands, yes, but not a massive turnover and most especially not in the Senate.

Rockstar,

Could you tell me where I can read this health care bill (the official text)?

On page 1 you wrote a list about this HC bill, and I really would like to check if what you wrote really is true (no disrespect intended).

If it is, there’s only 1 appropriate word: FUCK

EDIT: Sorry, I missed the link that somebody posted a bit later.