Gorsuch’s influence should be clear from those who followed his career; i.e. he will follow the rule of law, and apply well-established legal principles in determining the merits of each case set forth before SCOTUS. All such cases presented to, and accepted by, SCOTUS, are matters of determining if the facts presented indicate compliance with, or variance from, the subject, codified laws, or prior interpretations thereof. The SCOTUS does not, contrary to what Liberals believe, change laws according to an erroneously held belief that the US Constitution is a living, breathing document, open to change according to the whims of liberals, whether misguided or well-intended.
Libitterals are reminded to stay on-topic in these comments sections.
Further, I challenge thoughtful Liberals to provide supporting facts or logically constructed debate points in reply to my post above, rather than provide an vacuous thumbs down vote. It is a means of distinguishing themselves from a subset of Liberals; ‘Libitterals’.
Well, PolarBearTrumpRepeal, I see you and Stephen Miller have been consulting about how to influence people — in the worst possible way. Or is that off topic?
Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginzburg is coherent, unlike you Agent. You have probably been put out to pasture for some time. Step away from the keyboard and stop embarrassing yourself.
RBG doesn’t even know what freaking day it is, Celtica. Time for her to step down and open her seat for another Conservative on the SCOTUS!!!
April 11, 2017 at 6:00 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
9
6
Good “old” Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg called Lindsey Graham one of the women in the Senate. At least she got Diane Feinstein right. Graham is a weird dude, but he is definitely male. Time for Ruth Buzzi to go to the Nursing Home.
April 10, 2017 at 7:08 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
11
6
Celtica is a Libitteral.
See how easy it is to claim something, but not support it?
Well, I believe your post supports my claim, whether or not you agree to it.
Gorsuch is a legitimate Supreme Court Justice. There is no “stolen seat.” Why? Because the Constitution does not stipulate how long (days, weeks, months, years) the Senate has to accept (or reject) a POTUS nominee to the Supreme Court.
OMG. The Constitution gets in the way again of liberal wants and desires. Thankfully !!!
I think the interpretation of The Constitution as a living or static document is not one where one answer is correct and the other wrong, but one where both sides are merely an opinion with no intrinsic value other than the value of their outcomes. The sides of this debate also are not split perfectly along conservative and liberal with both sides picking and choosing their interpretation as fits their specific platform.
Nope. You believe wrongly. It is a static document. Each case decided by SCOTUS is merely a finding of facts regarding the Constitutional compliance of the case or issue being tested/ adjudicated.
Liberals believe so, and that explains why they try to abort it at every opportunity.
April 11, 2017 at 10:23 am
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
9
2
As previously advised, the Constitution is adaptable by any generation and amendments can be ratified, removed or added at any time. Because it can be edited and updated, by definition, that makes it a “living document.”
If you’d like to continue to argue it is not a living document, I respectfully ask you to please define how you are defining the term “living document” so we can have a ground-floor level understanding of where your argument begins.
April 11, 2017 at 12:41 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
8
9
Justices on SCOTUS cannot change it at whim. It does not live and breathe according to their whim. While it’s basic principles will NEVER change, some clarifications that are consistent with the basic tenets may be added by a Super Majority vote of Congress.
You’re welcome!
April 11, 2017 at 12:43 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
7
How many ‘significant changes’ to the basic tenets were made since the US Consitution was written
Answer: none. The basic tenets were NOT CHANGED by ANY Amendment. If you wish to debate that point, read ALL amendments before commencing such a foolish endeavor to waste the time of busy people to read such claims.
April 11, 2017 at 3:38 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
6
6
The Founding Fathers were divinely inspired when they set up the Republic, not the Democracy Democrats believe we have. Yes, it often moves slowly with three different branches which serve as checks and balances, but eventually things get straightened out. The country moved close to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat under the prior POTUS who thought he could rule by Executive Fiat, but he got stopped in his tracks.
April 11, 2017 at 6:19 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
7
5
Obama’s ‘Executive Fiat’ got a flat tire. And, that was not unexpected to those who are fed up with his divisive politics and tyrannical rule.
Obama’s ‘car loan’ amount doubled to almost $20 Trillion. He’s no longer responsible for determining how to pay for it. He almost ran it into the ditch, but Donald grabbed the steering wheel before Hillary grabbed it and caused a ‘Chappaquidick’ for the USA, a la Ted Kennedy.
April 10, 2017 at 1:35 pm
Hmmmmm says:
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
19
0
The point of Trinity Lutheran case is interesting and one that I have followed. They have a good argument, but the point is that they are a private religious organization. If a Muslim school or a private school that supported only an atheist point of view, they would have access to this public program as well. There is a reason that religious organizations do not get access to public money. I would love to see Trinity improve their playground do to all of the good work that they do in low income community – but the point is that it is a religious organization and unless I am willing to also support religions that I don’t agree with, then I can’t support a Christian organization asking for public money either.
Hmmmm, using your logic in reverse, then the government should not be allowed to dictate birth control be part of the medical benefits for religious owned businesses that don’t condone birth control.
The idea there is the religious rights of the individual trumping the religious rights of the group. If you apply it to religious owned businesses it upholds the religious beliefs of the business over that of the individuals working for them.
A common criticism of Gorsuch is that he favors corporations over individuals. Though I did not support Gorsuch for various reasons, what that really means is that Gorsuch favors corporations over a legion of plaintiffs lawyers who fill their pockets with the wealth of others whilst creating no new wealth themselves. I do wish that certain persons would stop being the mouthpieces for the plaintiffs Bar, especially since it is so obvious to those in the know.
I think Gorsuch will make a GREAT justice. I am really sick of all the liberals getting onto the court and changing the direction of this amazing country to favor the few. Sotomayor; Kagan; Ginsberg; etc. make most peoples’ blood boil with the bad decisions they make. For someone to comment that the court is now 5 – 4 conservative, they are suggesting how little they know about Kennedy, Roberts, and Breyer who swing both ways. Conservatives can generally count on Thomas, Alito, Roberts but not always.
Agent, the ACA is still the law of the land, as evidenced by the 3 GOP houses of government UNABLE to repeal and replace due to severe incompetence. Even though they said they had a plan since 2010.
April 11, 2017 at 10:04 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
8
7
@Celtica; state two successes of ACA. Provide stats, pre-ACA and post-ACA, on any items you mention. Ready, steady, … GO!
April 11, 2017 at 10:59 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
6
10
on behalf of celtica, two successes of the ACA are keeping children on their parents insurance until they’re 26 and requiring insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions.
i’d argue another success is barring insurers from setting a limit on how much they have to pay to cover someone.
do you think any of those three items are good?
April 11, 2017 at 12:50 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
9
9
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
1. The 26 yo insurance coverage creates a crutch that removes incentives to work. Job creation by TrumPresident will prove my point shortly. But ask any person with course study in economics about efficient markets and labor market incentives, and ignore what your liberal teachers fed you.
2. Prexerisks can get insurance through pools and Medicaid.
3. If you translate this into intelligible English, I’ll promptly refute it. I strongly suspect you copied it from a page on Huff & Puff POSt, not knowing what you were reading and parroting.
April 11, 2017 at 6:03 pm
Celtica says:
Like or Dislike:
6
11
Thanks, Confused. PolarTrumpRepeal keep digging herself deeper into the Alt Right mindset. PolarTrumpRepeal speaks of knowledge she simply does not possess.
April 11, 2017 at 6:20 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
5
7
Another vacuous post ^ by Celtica.
April 14, 2017 at 7:16 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
@Celtica; you haven’t listed ANY successes of ACA.
I must conclude that, either you aren’t too smart or the ACA is a complete failure. Which is it?
April 10, 2017 at 7:14 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
6
8
…. and your law degree was issued by exactly which post-grad educational entity? Name your law school and the type of degree you received.
No law degree. I studied insurance laws and passed the accreditation exam in ’87.
Now, you… you vacuous post poster…. what are your legal credentials?
April 12, 2017 at 3:14 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
4
@Celtica; explain ‘respondeat superior’ in 6 words or less. Ready, steady, …. GO!
April 12, 2017 at 3:15 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
4
@Celtica: can you explain the significance of PL-15 to ACA?
ready, steady, …. GO!
April 12, 2017 at 4:02 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
4
4
@Agent: don’t discourage Celtica from posting vacuous stuff.. it proves Libitterals have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
OT: a joke going around in my circles:
Tillerson is going to solve a few problems with one ‘agent’; he will send a United plane to drag away Kim Jong Un and Assad from their thrones and fly them to Gitmo.
April 13, 2017 at 7:59 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
3
Trolltica won’t post again in this sub-thread because she has NO LEGAL BACKGROUND to opine on the issue as an ‘edified/ informed person’.
April 14, 2017 at 7:17 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
2
2
@CelTrolltica; I posted my legal background training.
Your turn, or be discredited on the issue.
April 10, 2017 at 7:17 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
8
6
I would categorize Robert’s assertion that ‘ACA is a TAX’ as a circumvention / evasion of the issue being argued before his Court. For that alone, he should have been demoted or removed and replaced by Thomas. Obama couldn’t do so, and Republican controlled Congress wouldn’t make such a risky political move that would forever have been condoned as politically motivated.
Correct Polar. I think Roberts and the Court were just washing their hands over this most divisive Progressive legislation. It was a very bad decision for America and we have been paying for it ever since.
April 12, 2017 at 3:27 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
I wouldn’t say they were washing their hands. Roberts was the coward among the better qualified Justices who didn’t want to erase an UNCONSTITUTIONAL social insurance program.
The four other Conservative Justices knew they must follow the law, and they did. Some of them perhaps realized that the health insurance market place would eventually be forced to fix their problems? But the dissenters could not and did not let the latter matter sway their judgment and duties as SCOTUS Justices.
In retrospect, Roberts must realize the great harm he has done to the US, in tacking away from the US Constitution. Let us all hope he has learned a valuable lesson.
April 14, 2017 at 8:23 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
PolarBearRepeal,
I find it ironic and hysterical that you believe we should take your word over Celtica based on your credentials, “I studied insurance laws and passed the accreditation exam in ’87.” Yet, we should also take your word over the opinions of 5 Supreme Court Justices whose credentials far outweigh yours.
Either credentials matter or they don’t. Pick a side.
The job of the Supreme Court is determine the constitutionality of laws, not whether or not they are good for the country and/or its citizens.
April 16, 2017 at 10:47 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Ron; Celtica has NO credentials wrt law. That’s much different than credentialed people having differing opinions. Poor try at spinning the facts!
April 16, 2017 at 10:50 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
@Ron; explain why the 4 dissenting SCOTUS Justices WITH CREDENTIALS are seated and not discredited simply because they were on the minority side. That is the argument you are making by implying MY credentials regarding the law are invalid because they are at variance with SCOTUS’ 5-4 ruling… Ready, steady,… GO!
Also, state YOUR credentials wrt the laws involved in ACA. Ready, steady, …. GO!
April 17, 2017 at 10:37 am
Ron says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
PolarBeaRepeal,
My point was that the PPACA was deemed to be constitutional by a majority of the most credentialed adjudicators this country has. If there is someone out there who believes the PPACA is unconstitutional, and has more credentials being a Supreme Court Justice than the 9 who were seated, please provide their name(s).
Since I have no credentials as an expert of the PPACA, does that mean my position being against the law is flawed?
April 12, 2017 at 11:34 am
Jadefox says:
Like or Dislike:
3
2
I find this discussion fascinating. This I know, what the SCOTUS does will always upset someone. It depends on whose ox is gored.
Just last week, Mark Levine exclaimed, ” There’s no way the Founding Fathers could have known about it.” This is the situation the SCOTUS finds itself, dealing with questions that were inconceivable back in the day. For example, the founding fathers did not deal with gay marriage. Why? Because it was a moral issue and government was established to execute the morals of the day. Here we are 250+ years and gay marriage is legal, why, because times have changed. Some conservatives say the Constitution does not address gay marriage and SCOTUS acted outside it’s mandate and made new law, especially since so many voted against it. Once again, the ox comes in. SCOTUS heard the arguments and ruled accordingly. Just because the Constitution is silent, doesn’t mean the Court must be likewise.
Polar, perhaps we will see a change in tone on the court now that we have Gorsuch in there to take the place of the late, great Scalia. We will allow Kagan and Sotomayer to write the dissenting opinion after the court does their Constitutional duty to uphold and defend the law.
Wrong conclusion. The SCOTUS acted as a 9 member panel whose moral judgement do not enter their rulings. The morals of the day are reflected in the population, which rejects gay marriage. The SCOTUS need not interject itself in such matters, but it had to since the issue moved up through LIBERAL lower court justices. Their conclusion was, indeed, reached based on the flawed arguments on BOTH sides.
A different set of 9 Justices of SCOTUS may arrive at a different conclusion, based on law, not personal preferences or ‘morals of the day’ (which could change every day).
There is a valid and vital distinction between the Constitutionality of the definition of marriage VERSUS the rights of individuals to equal protection. Learn that distinction to understand why your narrative/ presumption is deeply flawed.
Gallup website shows May 2016 as their LAST poll on the issue. Not current and not very much over 50%.
The trend is flattening after the last state to approve such laws enacted its law. The respondents are responding to the current laws, NOT their WILL on the issue. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, causing bias in, and confusion about, the poll results.
So, what OTHER irrelevant issues do you have IRRELEVANT and INCONCLUSIVE stats on?
Finally, who gives a rodents’-behind about GM? IT IS NOT the topic of this thread. Stay on topic, or you will be ignored.
Go to Gallup’s website and search “gay marriage”. Then click on the most recent poll. It will show you that 61% of Americans are in favor.
For the record, you replying to Captain Planet’s post is evidence that you are willing to discuss unrelated topics, making you a hypocrite.
April 14, 2017 at 8:43 am
Confused says:
Like or Dislike:
2
1
You didn’t even click the link, Yogi.
It works fine. Stop lying.
April 14, 2017 at 1:42 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
All he does is lie, Confused. It’s all his side is doing in general right now. They are trying to wear us out with lying and manipulation. It’s their strategy. Stay strong!
April 14, 2017 at 1:46 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
1
It’s right from Gallup’s website and does load just fine. No phishing scams coming from me, Yogi is just severely allergic to truth and honesty. It’s his kryptonite. It’s his vampire’s sun.
April 16, 2017 at 10:52 pm
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
IT DIDN’T LOAD.
May 2016 is their LAST poll on the issue. Get over it and stick to the topic of the thread, snowflake!
April 13, 2017 at 12:00 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
5
3
Polar, did you see where “some” students at Duquesne didn’t want to have Chik Fil A on their campus because it would violate their safe space. They are sure afraid of a lot of things, aren’t they?
I wonder why Chik Fil A keeps growing, adding new stores all the time while Chipotle’s is going down, down, down. Must be something to explain these phenomenons.
April 13, 2017 at 3:48 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Who cares, it’s all awful and horrible for one’s health.
Gorsuch’s influence should be clear from those who followed his career; i.e. he will follow the rule of law, and apply well-established legal principles in determining the merits of each case set forth before SCOTUS. All such cases presented to, and accepted by, SCOTUS, are matters of determining if the facts presented indicate compliance with, or variance from, the subject, codified laws, or prior interpretations thereof. The SCOTUS does not, contrary to what Liberals believe, change laws according to an erroneously held belief that the US Constitution is a living, breathing document, open to change according to the whims of liberals, whether misguided or well-intended.
Libitterals are reminded to stay on-topic in these comments sections.
Further, I challenge thoughtful Liberals to provide supporting facts or logically constructed debate points in reply to my post above, rather than provide an vacuous thumbs down vote. It is a means of distinguishing themselves from a subset of Liberals; ‘Libitterals’.
Well, PolarBearTrumpRepeal, I see you and Stephen Miller have been consulting about how to influence people — in the worst possible way. Or is that off topic?
Yawn!
Gorsuch is an illegitimate Supreme Court judge.
Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg is an illegitimate Supreme Court judge and should retire and move to New Zealand. She can’t stay awake for oral arguments anyway.
Supreme Court Ruth Bader Ginzburg is coherent, unlike you Agent. You have probably been put out to pasture for some time. Step away from the keyboard and stop embarrassing yourself.
RBG doesn’t even know what freaking day it is, Celtica. Time for her to step down and open her seat for another Conservative on the SCOTUS!!!
Good “old” Ruth Buzzi Ginsberg called Lindsey Graham one of the women in the Senate. At least she got Diane Feinstein right. Graham is a weird dude, but he is definitely male. Time for Ruth Buzzi to go to the Nursing Home.
Celtica is a Libitteral.
See how easy it is to claim something, but not support it?
Well, I believe your post supports my claim, whether or not you agree to it.
Patticake, good one. Now Celtica can insult you. Isn’t she fun? Gets all her news from the Fake Media like HuffPo or Media Matters.
Gorsuch is a legitimate Supreme Court Justice. There is no “stolen seat.” Why? Because the Constitution does not stipulate how long (days, weeks, months, years) the Senate has to accept (or reject) a POTUS nominee to the Supreme Court.
OMG. The Constitution gets in the way again of liberal wants and desires. Thankfully !!!
I think the interpretation of The Constitution as a living or static document is not one where one answer is correct and the other wrong, but one where both sides are merely an opinion with no intrinsic value other than the value of their outcomes. The sides of this debate also are not split perfectly along conservative and liberal with both sides picking and choosing their interpretation as fits their specific platform.
Nope. You believe wrongly. It is a static document. Each case decided by SCOTUS is merely a finding of facts regarding the Constitutional compliance of the case or issue being tested/ adjudicated.
Have you ever studied law?
I thought not.
“It is a static document.”
Divinely inspired.
Just like the Bible.
“It is a living, breathing document.”
Liberals believe so, and that explains why they try to abort it at every opportunity.
As previously advised, the Constitution is adaptable by any generation and amendments can be ratified, removed or added at any time. Because it can be edited and updated, by definition, that makes it a “living document.”
If you’d like to continue to argue it is not a living document, I respectfully ask you to please define how you are defining the term “living document” so we can have a ground-floor level understanding of where your argument begins.
Justices on SCOTUS cannot change it at whim. It does not live and breathe according to their whim. While it’s basic principles will NEVER change, some clarifications that are consistent with the basic tenets may be added by a Super Majority vote of Congress.
You’re welcome!
How many ‘significant changes’ to the basic tenets were made since the US Consitution was written
Answer: none. The basic tenets were NOT CHANGED by ANY Amendment. If you wish to debate that point, read ALL amendments before commencing such a foolish endeavor to waste the time of busy people to read such claims.
The Founding Fathers were divinely inspired when they set up the Republic, not the Democracy Democrats believe we have. Yes, it often moves slowly with three different branches which serve as checks and balances, but eventually things get straightened out. The country moved close to a Dictatorship of the Proletariat under the prior POTUS who thought he could rule by Executive Fiat, but he got stopped in his tracks.
Obama’s ‘Executive Fiat’ got a flat tire. And, that was not unexpected to those who are fed up with his divisive politics and tyrannical rule.
Obama’s ‘car loan’ amount doubled to almost $20 Trillion. He’s no longer responsible for determining how to pay for it. He almost ran it into the ditch, but Donald grabbed the steering wheel before Hillary grabbed it and caused a ‘Chappaquidick’ for the USA, a la Ted Kennedy.
The point of Trinity Lutheran case is interesting and one that I have followed. They have a good argument, but the point is that they are a private religious organization. If a Muslim school or a private school that supported only an atheist point of view, they would have access to this public program as well. There is a reason that religious organizations do not get access to public money. I would love to see Trinity improve their playground do to all of the good work that they do in low income community – but the point is that it is a religious organization and unless I am willing to also support religions that I don’t agree with, then I can’t support a Christian organization asking for public money either.
Hmmmm, using your logic in reverse, then the government should not be allowed to dictate birth control be part of the medical benefits for religious owned businesses that don’t condone birth control.
The idea there is the religious rights of the individual trumping the religious rights of the group. If you apply it to religious owned businesses it upholds the religious beliefs of the business over that of the individuals working for them.
A common criticism of Gorsuch is that he favors corporations over individuals. Though I did not support Gorsuch for various reasons, what that really means is that Gorsuch favors corporations over a legion of plaintiffs lawyers who fill their pockets with the wealth of others whilst creating no new wealth themselves. I do wish that certain persons would stop being the mouthpieces for the plaintiffs Bar, especially since it is so obvious to those in the know.
I think Gorsuch will make a GREAT justice. I am really sick of all the liberals getting onto the court and changing the direction of this amazing country to favor the few. Sotomayor; Kagan; Ginsberg; etc. make most peoples’ blood boil with the bad decisions they make. For someone to comment that the court is now 5 – 4 conservative, they are suggesting how little they know about Kennedy, Roberts, and Breyer who swing both ways. Conservatives can generally count on Thomas, Alito, Roberts but not always.
Roberts messed in his kit on Obamacare, didn’t he?
No, Roberts did not mess up.
We know what a rousing success Obamacare has been, don’t we? Should already be gone, but the Supremes did not do their job.
Agent, the ACA is still the law of the land, as evidenced by the 3 GOP houses of government UNABLE to repeal and replace due to severe incompetence. Even though they said they had a plan since 2010.
@Celtica; state two successes of ACA. Provide stats, pre-ACA and post-ACA, on any items you mention. Ready, steady, … GO!
on behalf of celtica, two successes of the ACA are keeping children on their parents insurance until they’re 26 and requiring insurers to cover people with preexisting conditions.
i’d argue another success is barring insurers from setting a limit on how much they have to pay to cover someone.
do you think any of those three items are good?
Wrong, wrong, and wrong.
1. The 26 yo insurance coverage creates a crutch that removes incentives to work. Job creation by TrumPresident will prove my point shortly. But ask any person with course study in economics about efficient markets and labor market incentives, and ignore what your liberal teachers fed you.
2. Prexerisks can get insurance through pools and Medicaid.
3. If you translate this into intelligible English, I’ll promptly refute it. I strongly suspect you copied it from a page on Huff & Puff POSt, not knowing what you were reading and parroting.
Thanks, Confused. PolarTrumpRepeal keep digging herself deeper into the Alt Right mindset. PolarTrumpRepeal speaks of knowledge she simply does not possess.
Another vacuous post ^ by Celtica.
@Celtica; you haven’t listed ANY successes of ACA.
I must conclude that, either you aren’t too smart or the ACA is a complete failure. Which is it?
…. and your law degree was issued by exactly which post-grad educational entity? Name your law school and the type of degree you received.
{Crickets chirping in the distance}
You first, PolarizingTrumpRepeal.
No law degree. I studied insurance laws and passed the accreditation exam in ’87.
Now, you… you vacuous post poster…. what are your legal credentials?
@Celtica; explain ‘respondeat superior’ in 6 words or less. Ready, steady, …. GO!
@Celtica: can you explain the significance of PL-15 to ACA?
ready, steady, …. GO!
@Agent: don’t discourage Celtica from posting vacuous stuff.. it proves Libitterals have nothing to contribute to the discussion.
OT: a joke going around in my circles:
Tillerson is going to solve a few problems with one ‘agent’; he will send a United plane to drag away Kim Jong Un and Assad from their thrones and fly them to Gitmo.
Trolltica won’t post again in this sub-thread because she has NO LEGAL BACKGROUND to opine on the issue as an ‘edified/ informed person’.
@CelTrolltica; I posted my legal background training.
Your turn, or be discredited on the issue.
I would categorize Robert’s assertion that ‘ACA is a TAX’ as a circumvention / evasion of the issue being argued before his Court. For that alone, he should have been demoted or removed and replaced by Thomas. Obama couldn’t do so, and Republican controlled Congress wouldn’t make such a risky political move that would forever have been condoned as politically motivated.
Correct Polar. I think Roberts and the Court were just washing their hands over this most divisive Progressive legislation. It was a very bad decision for America and we have been paying for it ever since.
I wouldn’t say they were washing their hands. Roberts was the coward among the better qualified Justices who didn’t want to erase an UNCONSTITUTIONAL social insurance program.
The four other Conservative Justices knew they must follow the law, and they did. Some of them perhaps realized that the health insurance market place would eventually be forced to fix their problems? But the dissenters could not and did not let the latter matter sway their judgment and duties as SCOTUS Justices.
In retrospect, Roberts must realize the great harm he has done to the US, in tacking away from the US Constitution. Let us all hope he has learned a valuable lesson.
PolarBearRepeal,
I find it ironic and hysterical that you believe we should take your word over Celtica based on your credentials, “I studied insurance laws and passed the accreditation exam in ’87.” Yet, we should also take your word over the opinions of 5 Supreme Court Justices whose credentials far outweigh yours.
Either credentials matter or they don’t. Pick a side.
The job of the Supreme Court is determine the constitutionality of laws, not whether or not they are good for the country and/or its citizens.
@Ron; Celtica has NO credentials wrt law. That’s much different than credentialed people having differing opinions. Poor try at spinning the facts!
@Ron; explain why the 4 dissenting SCOTUS Justices WITH CREDENTIALS are seated and not discredited simply because they were on the minority side. That is the argument you are making by implying MY credentials regarding the law are invalid because they are at variance with SCOTUS’ 5-4 ruling… Ready, steady,… GO!
Also, state YOUR credentials wrt the laws involved in ACA. Ready, steady, …. GO!
PolarBeaRepeal,
My point was that the PPACA was deemed to be constitutional by a majority of the most credentialed adjudicators this country has. If there is someone out there who believes the PPACA is unconstitutional, and has more credentials being a Supreme Court Justice than the 9 who were seated, please provide their name(s).
Since I have no credentials as an expert of the PPACA, does that mean my position being against the law is flawed?
I find this discussion fascinating. This I know, what the SCOTUS does will always upset someone. It depends on whose ox is gored.
Just last week, Mark Levine exclaimed, ” There’s no way the Founding Fathers could have known about it.” This is the situation the SCOTUS finds itself, dealing with questions that were inconceivable back in the day. For example, the founding fathers did not deal with gay marriage. Why? Because it was a moral issue and government was established to execute the morals of the day. Here we are 250+ years and gay marriage is legal, why, because times have changed. Some conservatives say the Constitution does not address gay marriage and SCOTUS acted outside it’s mandate and made new law, especially since so many voted against it. Once again, the ox comes in. SCOTUS heard the arguments and ruled accordingly. Just because the Constitution is silent, doesn’t mean the Court must be likewise.
Polar, perhaps we will see a change in tone on the court now that we have Gorsuch in there to take the place of the late, great Scalia. We will allow Kagan and Sotomayer to write the dissenting opinion after the court does their Constitutional duty to uphold and defend the law.
Wrong conclusion. The SCOTUS acted as a 9 member panel whose moral judgement do not enter their rulings. The morals of the day are reflected in the population, which rejects gay marriage. The SCOTUS need not interject itself in such matters, but it had to since the issue moved up through LIBERAL lower court justices. Their conclusion was, indeed, reached based on the flawed arguments on BOTH sides.
A different set of 9 Justices of SCOTUS may arrive at a different conclusion, based on law, not personal preferences or ‘morals of the day’ (which could change every day).
There is a valid and vital distinction between the Constitutionality of the definition of marriage VERSUS the rights of individuals to equal protection. Learn that distinction to understand why your narrative/ presumption is deeply flawed.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/191645/americans-support-gay-marriage-remains-high.aspx
That poll wouldn’t load. Phishing link.
Gallup website shows May 2016 as their LAST poll on the issue. Not current and not very much over 50%.
The trend is flattening after the last state to approve such laws enacted its law. The respondents are responding to the current laws, NOT their WILL on the issue. THAT IS AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION, causing bias in, and confusion about, the poll results.
So, what OTHER irrelevant issues do you have IRRELEVANT and INCONCLUSIVE stats on?
Finally, who gives a rodents’-behind about GM? IT IS NOT the topic of this thread. Stay on topic, or you will be ignored.
PolarBeaRepeal,
Go to Gallup’s website and search “gay marriage”. Then click on the most recent poll. It will show you that 61% of Americans are in favor.
For the record, you replying to Captain Planet’s post is evidence that you are willing to discuss unrelated topics, making you a hypocrite.
You didn’t even click the link, Yogi.
It works fine. Stop lying.
All he does is lie, Confused. It’s all his side is doing in general right now. They are trying to wear us out with lying and manipulation. It’s their strategy. Stay strong!
It’s right from Gallup’s website and does load just fine. No phishing scams coming from me, Yogi is just severely allergic to truth and honesty. It’s his kryptonite. It’s his vampire’s sun.
IT DIDN’T LOAD.
May 2016 is their LAST poll on the issue. Get over it and stick to the topic of the thread, snowflake!
Polar, did you see where “some” students at Duquesne didn’t want to have Chik Fil A on their campus because it would violate their safe space. They are sure afraid of a lot of things, aren’t they?
I wouldn’t want it just because it’s gross. In fact, keep all fast food off my plate. It all sucks!
I wonder why Chik Fil A keeps growing, adding new stores all the time while Chipotle’s is going down, down, down. Must be something to explain these phenomenons.
Who cares, it’s all awful and horrible for one’s health.
Yum, Chik-Fil-a! Tastes just like fish!
Keep on eating your Vegan diet and we will stick to our balanced diet of all major food groups.
I don’t eat a Vegan diet, or even a vegetarian one. Quit lying out here, it’s getting out of hand.