Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a “troll” by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldn’t be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg “It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill,” is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points – Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

    Originally posted by reality View Post
    As shown what you stated is not what happened. To say nothing of the fact that simply because it comes into a state constitution does not mean it passes muster under the ultimate law of the land, the constitution. For instance: Prop 8 violated due process and equal protection.
    This was ruled upon by the court (district), coming from two people who were directly hindered by the law and thus had standing to challenge it, the state declined to pursue because it found the court's reasoning to be sound but and I QUOTE DIRECTLY: "The ruling was stayed pending appeal by the proponents of the initiative." a stay that was only removed in 2013, 3 years later after hitting scotus. So NO what you claimed is NOT what happened, legally speaking. How else might I illustrate that for you?

    Because the state, the party with standing, AGREED with the district court's reasoning, that's why it wasn't pursued. They saw that it was a non winner and they DECLINED TO WASTE MONEY PURSUING A LOSING BET. Holy shit they FINALLY show SOME FORM of fiscal responsibility and you won't give them credit for it!


    As to your last paragraph: This is EXACTLY what I said, quoted again for your ease of access with bolding added for emphasis "I'm not saying obama might not thumb his nose at the court when a final decision is eventually made or an injunction ordered (if there is one ordered). But that in no way shape or form is what has happened in this situation because a final decision HASN"T been made nor has an injunction been ordered.
    To thumb his nose at the court, the court must first make a final decision or order an injunction. They have to give a command for him to ignore a command"

    See how I'm agreeing with you that he HAS done such in the past and that he MIGHT do so again? See the rest of the part where I point out he's not able to thumb his nose at a court injunction because no such injunction exists in this case and no ruling has been made that is not in appeal already?
    Its not POSSIBLE at THIS MOMENT IN TIME for zero to thumb his nose at the courts: They haven't finished ruling yet, nor issued an injunction.
    He MIGHT thumb his nose IF they issue an injunction or finalize the decision against (IE in a year or so after scotus gets around to it)
    But that time is not NOW.
    Yawn .. time for you to catch up with the rest of us. Too many words to say what I've been saying all along.

    I didn't say an injunction has been ordered (don't they still have some kind of reading requirement for law school these days?)...

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

      Originally posted by Good1 View Post
      Thank you.

      that is what I'm saying... the Admin has "misbehaved" in the past and that leads me to believe they are misbehaving now. EVEN THOUGH this set-up is prior to SCOTUS hearing the case, I am saying they will find a way around a SCOTUS decision (if it goes against them) and all this smoke and mirrors is just setting that up.
      But they AREN'T misbehaving now. Have they before? Yes. Will they later? Maybe. But right now they're doing exactly what they should do in response to these rulings. And yet the Right is attacking them for it anyway.

      Can you see how that just gives credence to the administration's claims that the Right is just going to attack them no matter whether they're right or wrong? You can't keep crying wolf all the time, even when there manifestly isn't one, without people eventually starting to tune you out.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

        Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
        But they AREN'T misbehaving now. Have they before? Yes. Will they later? Maybe. But right now they're doing exactly what they should do in response to these rulings. And yet the Right is attacking them for it anyway.

        Can you see how that just gives credence to the administration's claims that the Right is just going to attack them no matter whether they're right or wrong? You can't keep crying wolf all the time, even when there manifestly isn't one, without people eventually starting to tune you out.
        Sigh. Pointless dissemination.

        my point is i don't trust Obama and i believe they are, right now, setting up the expectation that they will also ignore SCOTUS should that judgement not go their way

        You already agree with me they have ignored/circumvented in the past. You already agree with me about the liklihood they will similarly ignore/circumvent in the future.

        I see no purpose for you to continue to hammer your disagreement with my choice of words and my perception that they are setting us up for future misdeeds.

        You don't see it or don't believe it? I don't care. If you simply have to be "right" on that singular point, so what: Proclaim yourself right and move on.

        Jeepers, I've not previously known you to be so tenaciously myopic.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

          SO, if you guys are finished with your short-sighted, myopic dispute with my word choices...

          can we get back to the most recent original post?

          AS was reported there, this will go to SCOTUS ... unless the Obama Administration (as their press secratary said in that video clip I also posted) have the full DC Circuit review this decision and, with 4 Obama appointees sitting on that court, there is a high liklihood it will be reversed and, if it agrees with the Virginia court's decision, there won't be any need for SCOTUS to review it.

          (which is what I was saying about them ignoring this decision ... because they know the DC Circuit is loaded in their favor)...

          Do you have anything salient to add to THAT discussion or would you prefer to take issue with more of my word choices?

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

            I'm sure that everyone realizes that should the federal subsidies be ruled as not within the law, Obama and the Democrats are going to have to go back to the House for a legislative drafting correction to include them. That seems like low probability to me.

            Without the federal subsidies, ObamaCare is likely to completely unravel.

            So we have the DC circuit court ruling they are not within the law, but a full hearing from all the Obama appointed judges will likely reverse that in a split decision.

            We also have another circuit court, in VA I think it was, ruling that the federal subsidies are within the law.

            Seems highly probable that this will end up in SCOTUS' laps, and it's about even there left/right, isn't it?

            Should SCOTUS rule that federal subsidies are not within the law, and ObamaCare unravels, seems likely in this case, what sort of healthcare system ARE we going to end up with? Will it be back to the ways of doing business before ObamaCare?

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

              With this decision(s) I think we are missing the more immediate picture, and that would be this decision's path up through the courts eventually making its way to the Supreme Court. The Obama Administration is correct in that for now, nothing changes and the assumption is for now 4.7 (more or less depending on source you like) are going to get insurance through Federal ran exchanges and get subsidies for those costs. You guys are on the right path in saying ACA is a bit useless if these 36 some States without State ran exchanges are excluded from the ACA subsidy program, but we are not there yet and even the 2-1 D.C. Circuit Court ruling suggests fast track to the Supreme Court.

              My suspicion is we will have multiple problems to contend with. Even if the Supreme Court backs the D.C. Court it means added pressure to get States to run their own exchanges before the ACA supporters wave a white flag. If that happens we will have a State vs. State issue to deal with, not a exactly an easy ordeal. Odds are the legislative mistake, for lack of a better way to put it, will end up as an argument and I suspect the Supreme Court will rule in favor of ACA. I doubt the actual intention was to have a Federal ran exchange excluded from the ACA subsidy program. Even though I may disagree with the practice, this is setting up to be a classic case of "legislative intention" vs. actual wording of the provisions of ACA.

              From my chair what this really tells me is all that effort to rush a huge ACA bill through speaks right to the heart of ole Pelosi... "We have to pass this bill so you can find out what is in it." Well, it turns out they did not even know as I am having a hard time seeing how this mistake made it out of committee. Perhaps the assumption was no State would put up a fight, or could be politically bought, to ensure total State ran exchange. What a mistake, regardless. This puts the courts in a terrible position, thanks to real legislative error probably made exclusively in haste.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                Jeepers, I've not previously known you to be so tenaciously myopic.
                If I'm tenacious about it it's because I think it matters that conservatives maintain the ability to differentiate between when their opponents doing the wrong thing and when they're not. In this case the administration isn't doing anything wrong and I find it distressing that so many prominent voices on the right are misleading their audience and pretending otherwise. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the ACA and Obama to go around. The fact that the Right now needs to make up misdeeds where, as of yet, there aren't any suggests that they've abandoned critical thinking and gone into a mode of always-attack, all-the-time, on-all-issues. I think that's unhealthy for the political process and ultimately, bad for conservativism in general. I find that worth commenting on.

                Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                SO, if you guys are finished with your short-sighted, myopic dispute with my word choices...

                can we get back to the most recent original post?

                AS was reported there, this will go to SCOTUS ... unless the Obama Administration (as their press secratary said in that video clip I also posted) have the full DC Circuit review this decision and, with 4 Obama appointees sitting on that court, there is a high liklihood it will be reversed and, if it agrees with the Virginia court's decision, there won't be any need for SCOTUS to review it.

                (which is what I was saying about them ignoring this decision ... because they know the DC Circuit is loaded in their favor)...

                Do you have anything salient to add to THAT discussion or would you prefer to take issue with more of my word choices?
                There's not a lot to say since nothing has really been determined.

                I suspect that either (A) it will eventually go before SCOTUS and the court will rule decisively (though probably not unanimously) in favor of the ACA, or (B) the full DC court will hear it, rule in favor of the ACA (thus bringing the DC court in line with that from Virginia) and SCOTUS will refuse to take the case. Either way, I'll be shocked if this ruling stands.

                In that case, however, the final two years of this administration should be...interesting.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                  Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                  Yawn .. time for you to catch up with the rest of us. Too many words to say what I've been saying all along.

                  I didn't say an injunction has been ordered (don't they still have some kind of reading requirement for law school these days?)...
                  You said obama was ignoring the courts on this issue, something that can only happen when the decision is final (its not) OR when an injunction has been issued. (one hasn't, as you freely admit). Ergo obama has not yet ignored the courts on this issue. You'll have to wait until he ACTUALLY DOES IT to call him on it for this particular case.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                    Originally posted by Good1 View Post
                    SO, if you guys are finished with your short-sighted, myopic dispute with my word choices...

                    can we get back to the most recent original post?

                    AS was reported there, this will go to SCOTUS ... unless the Obama Administration (as their press secratary said in that video clip I also posted) have the full DC Circuit review this decision and, with 4 Obama appointees sitting on that court, there is a high liklihood it will be reversed and, if it agrees with the Virginia court's decision, there won't be any need for SCOTUS to review it.

                    (which is what I was saying about them ignoring this decision ... because they know the DC Circuit is loaded in their favor)...

                    Do you have anything salient to add to THAT discussion or would you prefer to take issue with more of my word choices?
                    Dude.. you know that you can appeal an appellate verdict to scotus right? Even if they affirm? Scotus NEVER HAS to take a case. They CHOOSE to.
                    Both parties in an appellate verdict can appeal to the Scotus.
                    Is that salient enough?

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                      Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                      If I'm tenacious about it it's because I think it matters that conservatives maintain the ability to differentiate between when their opponents doing the wrong thing and when they're not. In this case the administration isn't doing anything wrong and I find it distressing that so many prominent voices on the right are misleading their audience and pretending otherwise. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the ACA and Obama to go around. The fact that the Right now needs to make up misdeeds where, as of yet, there aren't any suggests that they've abandoned critical thinking and gone into a mode of always-attack, all-the-time, on-all-issues. I think that's unhealthy for the political process and ultimately, bad for conservativism in general. I find that worth commenting on.



                      There's not a lot to say since nothing has really been determined.

                      I suspect that either (A) it will eventually go before SCOTUS and the court will rule decisively (though probably not unanimously) in favor of the ACA, or (B) the full DC court will hear it, rule in favor of the ACA (thus bringing the DC court in line with that from Virginia) and SCOTUS will refuse to take the case. Either way, I'll be shocked if this ruling stands.

                      In that case, however, the final two years of this administration should be...interesting.
                      Kennedy is the swing vote on the court. He usually goes with "will this cause massive political and social upheaval?" when making a decision. This would cause that. He'll turn it down more than likely. Though perhaps he'll see the need to do something about this.. I doubt it though.

                      ---------DOUBLE POST-----------

                      Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                      If I'm tenacious about it it's because I think it matters that conservatives maintain the ability to differentiate between when their opponents doing the wrong thing and when they're not. In this case the administration isn't doing anything wrong and I find it distressing that so many prominent voices on the right are misleading their audience and pretending otherwise. There is plenty of legitimate criticism of the ACA and Obama to go around. The fact that the Right now needs to make up misdeeds where, as of yet, there aren't any suggests that they've abandoned critical thinking and gone into a mode of always-attack, all-the-time, on-all-issues. I think that's unhealthy for the political process and ultimately, bad for conservativism in general. I find that worth commenting on.



                      There's not a lot to say since nothing has really been determined.

                      I suspect that either (A) it will eventually go before SCOTUS and the court will rule decisively (though probably not unanimously) in favor of the ACA, or (B) the full DC court will hear it, rule in favor of the ACA (thus bringing the DC court in line with that from Virginia) and SCOTUS will refuse to take the case. Either way, I'll be shocked if this ruling stands.

                      In that case, however, the final two years of this administration should be...interesting.
                      Kennedy is the swing vote on the court. He usually goes with "will this cause massive political and social upheaval?" when making a decision. This would cause that. He'll turn it down more than likely. Though perhaps he'll see the need to do something about this.. I doubt it though.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                        Originally posted by reality View Post
                        Kennedy is the swing vote on the court. He usually goes with "will this cause massive political and social upheaval?" when making a decision. This would cause that. He'll turn it down more than likely. Though perhaps he'll see the need to do something about this.. I doubt it though.
                        Honestly, I'd expect Roberts (and perhaps even more from the conservative wing) to side with the ACA as well if it came to SCOTUS. I don't think anyone dispute's Congress's intent and using the precise meaning of a poorly worded clause to prevent a piece of legislation from behaving as intended is just bad jurisprudence. It is, essentially, an argument for upholding the "original intent" of those who passed the law; I doubt the conservative justices would allow semantic technicalities to trump original intent.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                          Originally posted by reality View Post
                          Dude.. you know that you can appeal an appellate verdict to scotus right? Even if they affirm? Scotus NEVER HAS to take a case. They CHOOSE to.
                          Both parties in an appellate verdict can appeal to the Scotus.
                          Is that salient enough?

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                            Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                            Honestly, I'd expect Roberts (and perhaps even more from the conservative wing) to side with the ACA as well if it came to SCOTUS. I don't think anyone dispute's Congress's intent and using the precise meaning of a poorly worded clause to prevent a piece of legislation from behaving as intended is just bad jurisprudence. It is, essentially, an argument for upholding the "original intent" of those who passed the law; I doubt the conservative justices would allow semantic technicalities to trump original intent.
                            Obamacare has already caused a huge social upheaval. Actually the original intent was to force states to establish exchanges and for those which didn't would suffer the consequences. One of those consequences was to not get government subsidies.
                            Last edited by OldmanDan; 07-23-2014, 06:12 PM.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                              Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                              Obamacare has already caused a huge social upheaval. Actually the original intent was to force states to establish exchanges and for those which didn't would suffer the consequences. One of those consequences was to not get government subsidies.
                              for those which didn't would suffer the consequences.
                              And you complain about my typing.

                              The ACA is doing what it was supposed to do. Some unions are pissd about it becasue it gives the companies and out to screw them on their health care.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                                Originally posted by Dilettante View Post
                                Honestly, I'd expect Roberts (and perhaps even more from the conservative wing) to side with the ACA as well if it came to SCOTUS. I don't think anyone dispute's Congress's intent and using the precise meaning of a poorly worded clause to prevent a piece of legislation from behaving as intended is just bad jurisprudence. It is, essentially, an argument for upholding the "original intent" of those who passed the law; I doubt the conservative justices would allow semantic technicalities to trump original intent.
                                There are those, however, who do not see this as the original intent: That the original intent was to establish state exchanges and, with the legislation written the way it was, exclusing "Federal Exchange" participants from subsidies was purposeful.

                                As to Roberts, I gather he is jealously protective of the Supreme Court's reputation (for lack of a better word). My guess is, he voted with the liberal side on that previous case to shelter the court from criticism that it is just a partisan shill cover for this side or that. By supporting that the "fines" were, in fact, "taxes," he stopped that potential criticism in its tracks. I (hope I) am not seeing that decision as predictive of future decisions.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X