Obama Admits His Immigration Action is Unconstitutional

[BigBallinStalin]

Strong indication isn't much for evidence. I really don't think Roberts (or any of the justices) would succumb to political pressure, unless it was in the actual form of black mail or something.


--Andy

I don't see why party members would not just say, "way to go, Roberts. Real conservative of you, ya jerk." Maybe this holds some sway over his decision-making? Maybe not? If the justices and congress members go to the same parties, then there's plenty of opportunity to keep the justices loyal--directly or indirectly, through peer pressure.

[AndyDufresne]

All of the Justices throughout history have been pretty strong willed, probably more so than most politicians in Congress. I'd probably place odds on them resisting pressuring than succumbing to it. Plus, I think Scalia could beat anyone in a knife fight if he came to blows.


--Andy

[spurgistan]

Strong indication isn't much for evidence. I really don't think Roberts (or any of the justices) would succumb to political pressure, unless it was in the actual form of black mail or something.


--Andy

I don't see why party members would not just say, "way to go, Roberts. Real conservative of you, ya jerk." Maybe this holds some sway over his decision-making? Maybe not? If the justices and congress members go to the same parties, then there's plenty of opportunity to keep the justices loyal--directly or indirectly, through peer pressure.

My impression is that SC justices tend to avoid fraternizing with partisan officials to maintain the illusion of a non-partisan Supreme Court. Especially for somebody like Roberts who clearly cares a great deal for his reputation and position in history.

[AndyDufresne]

Strong indication isn't much for evidence. I really don't think Roberts (or any of the justices) would succumb to political pressure, unless it was in the actual form of black mail or something.


--Andy

I don't see why party members would not just say, "way to go, Roberts. Real conservative of you, ya jerk." Maybe this holds some sway over his decision-making? Maybe not? If the justices and congress members go to the same parties, then there's plenty of opportunity to keep the justices loyal--directly or indirectly, through peer pressure.

My impression is that SC justices tend to avoid fraternizing with partisan officials to maintain the illusion of a non-partisan Supreme Court. Especially for somebody like Roberts who clearly cares a great deal for his reputation and position in history.

This may be mostly true, at least in terms of partisan officials. However, I think within the last year or two Scalia has spoke at some private conventions hosted by the Koch brothers which other partisan officials may have attended. I remember reading an article about it, and perhaps some of the speaking engagements of other sitting Justices.


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Strong indication isn't much for evidence. I really don't think Roberts (or any of the justices) would succumb to political pressure, unless it was in the actual form of black mail or something.


--Andy

I don't see why party members would not just say, "way to go, Roberts. Real conservative of you, ya jerk." Maybe this holds some sway over his decision-making? Maybe not? If the justices and congress members go to the same parties, then there's plenty of opportunity to keep the justices loyal--directly or indirectly, through peer pressure.

My impression is that SC justices tend to avoid fraternizing with partisan officials to maintain the illusion of a non-partisan Supreme Court. Especially for somebody like Roberts who clearly cares a great deal for his reputation and position in history.

This may be mostly true, at least in terms of partisan officials. However, I think within the last year or two Scalia has spoke at some private conventions hosted by the Koch brothers which other partisan officials may have attended. I remember reading an article about it, and perhaps some of the speaking engagements of other sitting Justices.


--Andy

I also vaguely recall seeing Scalia inquire about the services of two shemales in downtown DC. I think Justice Roberts was there as well.

[spurgistan]

You get any idea on which committee they served on?

[Phatscotty]

It's time for The People to Stand, and use the Constitution for what it was intended...

I see, so never mind that the SUPREME COURT is the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Never mind that they AFFRMED Obama's actions were correct. It's still wrong and its Obama who is "destroying the constitution"... because Phattscotty says so!!!!
:roll::roll::roll:

Oh chill out Player. Yes the tax was upheld. Yes, we can overturn that tax. To overturn the tax, the People are going to have to rise up and do it ourselves. And that is exactly what we are going to do.

[PLAYER57832]

well first of all, it's a bit of a stretch to say that scotty is "dependent on the government"

He lives in a an area without either police or fire protection? He does not use public roads. He doesn't benefit from the fact that we have not been attacked on our shores in -- oh, a "few" decades (and if you refer to effective attacks... quite a few!)?

He also gets no benefit from advances in medicine, technology, etc.. ALL of which at least partially, if not wholly, came about because of government education and research?

Apparently Phattscotty lives on an island offshore with no ties to the rest of the world.. because unless he does, he very much does depend on the government.

he benefits from the government. that doesn't mean he's dependent on it.

you do realize that less-evolved humans lived WITHOUT GOVERNMENT at some point in history... right player? we won't instantly cease to exist without government.

Actually, the times in which we really lived without government were remarkably small, indeed. We did go for a much longer time without large national governments, but there were not that many people back then.

[PLAYER57832]

I see, so never mind that the SUPREME COURT is the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Never mind that they AFFRMED Obama's actions were correct. It's still wrong and its Obama who is "destroying the constitution"... because Phattscotty says so!!!!

Actually, they unconstitutionally rewrote the law for Congress in order to persuade themselves that it was a tax and could stand (immediately after saying it wasn't a tax so they could actually rule on the case instead of throwing it out). Furthermore, there is a strong indication that Chief Justice Roberts actually changed his vote, which means someone used political pressure to get him to change his vote, which is completely antithetical to the role of the judiciary.

Seems like you need to reread the constitution, because that is how it has operated for a bit over 200 years.

Note.. agreeing, liking, disagreeing are all very different from saying "not constitutional". You are talking like a fanatic zombie, not an intelligent thinker.

[Night Strike]

I see, so never mind that the SUPREME COURT is the CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTOR OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Never mind that they AFFRMED Obama's actions were correct. It's still wrong and its Obama who is "destroying the constitution"... because Phattscotty says so!!!!

Actually, they unconstitutionally rewrote the law for Congress in order to persuade themselves that it was a tax and could stand (immediately after saying it wasn't a tax so they could actually rule on the case instead of throwing it out). Furthermore, there is a strong indication that Chief Justice Roberts actually changed his vote, which means someone used political pressure to get him to change his vote, which is completely antithetical to the role of the judiciary.

Seems like you need to reread the constitution, because that is how it has operated for a bit over 200 years.

Note.. agreeing, liking, disagreeing are all very different from saying "not constitutional". You are talking like a fanatic zombie, not an intelligent thinker.

So because I made a statement that "The Supreme Court cannot re-write a law for Congress" makes me a "fanatic zombie" who can't think intelligently? And how exactly are you more enlightened? Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court writes the laws?

[PLAYER57832]

So because I made a statement that "The Supreme Court cannot re-write a law for Congress" makes me a "fanatic zombie" who can't think intelligently? And how exactly are you more enlightened?

Because you consistantly, repeatedly refer to anything to which YOU, personally disagree as "unconstitutional" as your basic first argument.. yes.
And because you don't seem, despite repeated explanations, to understand that there IS room for disagreement and disagreement does not mean one is ignorant of the constitution, ignoring the law or partaking in other treasonous actions.
That you don't understand the distinction is part of why you think our arguments are just different sides of the same coin, instead of utterly different debates.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court writes the laws?

Try Article 3, sections 1 and 2, not to mention over 200 years of historical legal precedent and debate.

[BigBallinStalin]

NS, don't bother. PLAYER's getting significantly reduced rates with the recent legislation due to her and her family's pre-existing conditions. There's nothing you can do to sway her from her desire to defend crony capitalism whenever it benefits her directly. As Bastiat has said,

“Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else.”

There's absolutely nothing you can do to convince her otherwise.

[PLAYER57832]

NS, don't bother. PLAYER's getting significantly reduced rates with the recent legislation due to her and her family's pre-existing conditions.

No, not reduced rates. I am getting insurance.. period. Before I could not get it at all. Also, note that while many of you currently do have insurance, the old limits would quickly kick in should you or a family member get any significant illness.

But most people here don't even know what the lifetime limits were on their policies.. or how long it would take to reach those limits.

There's absolutely nothing you can do to convince her otherwise.

Convince me of what? That this is a big boon for insurance companies? No debate.. I fully agree.
That this is not a real solution? Again, no debate. I have said that all along.

That the real solution is to give the companies even more power, with no restrictions at all? Sorry, no. You have no leg to stand on for that argument.

That we need a truly comprehensive system, perhaps like Frances, perhaps like Germany or Switzerland? Yes.. I fully agree.

However, what we have now is better for almost all Americans.. To clarify: those who stay fully healthy for their entire lives and who's families all stay healthy for their entire lives AND who make over 250K a year.. they won't benefit. Everyone else will benefit in some way or another.

[john9blue]

That the real solution is to give the companies even more power, with no restrictions at all? Sorry, no. You have no leg to stand on for that argument.

isn't this what just happened?

[Night Strike]

So because I made a statement that "The Supreme Court cannot re-write a law for Congress" makes me a "fanatic zombie" who can't think intelligently? And how exactly are you more enlightened?

Because you consistantly, repeatedly refer to anything to which YOU, personally disagree as "unconstitutional" as your basic first argument.. yes.
And because you don't seem, despite repeated explanations, to understand that there IS room for disagreement and disagreement does not mean one is ignorant of the constitution, ignoring the law or partaking in other treasonous actions.
That you don't understand the distinction is part of why you think our arguments are just different sides of the same coin, instead of utterly different debates.

That is because I make sure my views align with the Constitution, that way they aren't simply my views. If a power is not outlined in the Constitution, then it is reserved for the states and is never reserved for the federal government to trample all over the states to force their agenda. The federal government is NOT all-powerful.

Where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court writes the laws?

Try Article 3, sections 1 and 2, not to mention over 200 years of historical legal precedent and debate.

Still not seeing it. The Supreme Court can only interpret the Constitutionality of the text in front of them. They cannot rewrite the text of the law in order to interpret it the way they want to interpret it.

[GreecePwns]

If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

[chang50]

If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

Hats off to you mate,what a brilliant question,my hunch is you wont get a straight answer..

[Woodruff]

If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

That's UNPOSSIBLE!

[Woodruff]

NS, don't bother. PLAYER's getting significantly reduced rates with the recent legislation due to her and her family's pre-existing conditions.

There's quite a difference between the "reduced rates" you're trying to claim here and being able to get health insurance at all.

[BigBallinStalin]

That the real solution is to give the companies even more power, with no restrictions at all? Sorry, no. You have no leg to stand on for that argument.

isn't this what just happened?

Not in PLAYER's world. If anything, the recent regulation constrained the evil capitalists!

[BigBallinStalin]

NS, don't bother. PLAYER's getting significantly reduced rates with the recent legislation due to her and her family's pre-existing conditions.

There's quite a difference between the "reduced rates" you're trying to claim here and being able to get health insurance at all.

Either way, all praise goes to PLAYER for rent-seeking.


The basic story is that people are used to getting "free" stuff from the government, and automatically assume that they couldn't get it without the government. Then, for this failure, blame is placed on the markets while regulation and legislation is completely ignored. This is the basic story of our times, and PLAYER is entirely drowning in that seemingly great tasting gravy. I can't wait to see this play out over 50 years.

[PLAYER57832]

That the real solution is to give the companies even more power, with no restrictions at all? Sorry, no. You have no leg to stand on for that argument.

isn't this what just happened?

No, they actually have to cover people now. Before, they did not. Coverage might be cut, but we still have all the other avenues we did before -- legislating basic coverage levels, etc. Nothing is taken away from what we had before, just added in.

ALSO, a very important part that has gotten little coverage is that there is now a new method for challenging insurance rulings. Before, most people, though many were ignorant of this, have had almost no recourse at all in dealing with the companies.
Put it another way, I have gone through 2 years of having every single charge put to Blue Cross refused, twice, for almost every petty reason imaginable. Most people just pay. Now, there is another option.(and I am very far from unique, but of course I am prohibited from giving out details on other people's medical issues).

[PLAYER57832]

NS, don't bother. PLAYER's getting significantly reduced rates with the recent legislation due to her and her family's pre-existing conditions.

There's quite a difference between the "reduced rates" you're trying to claim here and being able to get health insurance at all.

Either way, all praise goes to PLAYER for rent-seeking.


The basic story is that people are used to getting "free" stuff from the government, and automatically assume that they couldn't get it without the government. Then, for this failure, blame is placed on the markets while regulation and legislation is completely ignored. This is the basic story of our times, and PLAYER is entirely drowning in that seemingly great tasting gravy. I can't wait to see this play out over 50 years.

Not even close.

I NEVER got free health care. My KIDS have gotten free healthcare for the past 4 years, because the insurance companies refused to cover them. Even when we had "insurance", we wound up paying over $5000 for one child.. when the family salary was just over $30,000 a year. Now, they get subsidies for their co-payments. They got covered because kids under 18 with disabilities (my kids' are thankfully minor ones). I have had no insurance because adults have ONLY gotten covered when they have very, very low incomes. That changed in 2 ways. First, PA created a Fair pay program, which was a subsidized program of very minimal insurance for people insurance companies refused to cover. You have to be off insurance for over 6 months. By that time, I was within a couple months of going back onto my husband's insurance.

HOWEVER, the cruel part was that until Jan 2012, I paid for coverage, but was not really covered except for injuries. Almost any illness or problem was denied as being a "pre-existing condition", something allowed under the old rules because I had a gap in insurance (if there had been no gap, the insurance company would have been forced to cover me).

And, per the "blame". I blame the insurance company and a system of employer-based insurance for the mess. I certainly don't consider the current rules a "fix". I consider it better than what we had before.

But.. keep on. You could care less about truth, it seems.

[Night Strike]

If there is a contradiction between the Constitution and the Bible, which side do you take?

The Bible is The Truth, so of course it takes moral precedence. But as far as legal aspects of this country goes, the Constitution comes before any other law or executive order.

No, they actually have to cover people now. Before, they did not.

Why do you have the ability to dictate what products a company sells? Where is any person other than the owner of the company given that ability?

[BigBallinStalin]

NS, don't bother. PLAYER's getting significantly reduced rates with the recent legislation due to her and her family's pre-existing conditions.

There's quite a difference between the "reduced rates" you're trying to claim here and being able to get health insurance at all.

Either way, all praise goes to PLAYER for rent-seeking.


The basic story is that people are used to getting "free" stuff from the government, and automatically assume that they couldn't get it without the government. Then, for this failure, blame is placed on the markets while regulation and legislation is completely ignored. This is the basic story of our times, and PLAYER is entirely drowning in that seemingly great tasting gravy. I can't wait to see this play out over 50 years.

Not even close.

I NEVER got free health care. My KIDS have gotten free healthcare for the past 4 years, because the insurance companies refused to cover them. Even when we had "insurance", we wound up paying over $5000 for one child.. when the family salary was just over $30,000 a year. Now, they get subsidies for their co-payments. They got covered because kids under 18 with disabilities (my kids' are thankfully minor ones). I have had no insurance because adults have ONLY gotten covered when they have very, very low incomes. That changed in 2 ways. First, PA created a Fair pay program, which was a subsidized program of very minimal insurance for people insurance companies refused to cover. You have to be off insurance for over 6 months. By that time, I was within a couple months of going back onto my husband's insurance.

HOWEVER, the cruel part was that until Jan 2012, I paid for coverage, but was not really covered except for injuries. Almost any illness or problem was denied as being a "pre-existing condition", something allowed under the old rules because I had a gap in insurance (if there had been no gap, the insurance company would have been forced to cover me).

And, per the "blame". I blame the insurance company and a system of employer-based insurance for the mess. I certainly don't consider the current rules a "fix". I consider it better than what we had before.

But.. keep on. You could care less about truth, it seems.

Wow, player. Learn what rent-seeking means, before you respond.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking