(10-16-2017 01:37 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.co...money.html

Of course they do. And the payments in question are either legal or illegal.

They've already been ruled illegal by a federal judge (see LAT article in post above). Either that decision will stand or it will be overruled.

But as of this moment, the subsidy payments are illegal.

(10-16-2017 01:31 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  It’s under review.

So its not under appeal then. Which means the payments are illegal.

(10-16-2017 01:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Judicial activism. You guys don’t even hide your bias anymore. Kind of like Executive orders. When Obama did them bad. Trump does them good.

Your 2nd graders in reasoning at this point.

Better reasoning than claiming a standing ruling isn't good law.

(10-16-2017 01:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Judicial activism. You guys don’t even hide your bias anymore. Kind of like Executive orders. When Obama did them bad. Trump does them good.

You’re 2nd graders in reasoning at this point.

Not at all. Following Constitutional law is not judicial activism. Congress controls the purse, Congress hasn't appropriated funds for the payments thus the payments would be illegal.

You must have failed Civics 101.

(10-16-2017 01:40 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Judicial activism. You guys don’t even hide your bias anymore. Kind of like Executive orders. When Obama did them bad. Trump does them good.

You’re 2nd graders in reasoning at this point.

Are you suggesting that judicial activism does indeed exist?

If so, are you willing to undo decades of legislation-from-the-bench when parties would shop around for judges favorable to their cause?


Executive orders in violation of law = bad.
Executive orders to restore law = good.

(10-16-2017 12:39 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  If Obamacare was working, why the illegal payments?

bump

(10-16-2017 12:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A couple of other things. The right has spent the last 30 years cutting govt. to the bone and then with the other hand points a finger and says.... look I told you it doesn't work. Take for instance weather models. The Europeans weather model kicks absolute ass compared to our weather models. They absolutely nailed the hurricane tracks in September. Today a major Physics announcement was made in Europe on gravitational waves. These are the things we used to do. Why are the Europeans jumping in front of us. Because we have convinced people that we need to give tax breaks to "job creators" at the expense of govt. I can show you by cutting govt. we are falling behind. Can anybody show me where tax cuts have led to job creations?

You guys create these scenarios in your minds and they are unhinged from reality.

1. Obamacare was not imploding. Trump's sabotage has that potential.

2. People who fund govts actually have better govts. Who would have thunk that?

3. The tax cuts are a gigantic give away to the Kochs and their ilk and will explode the budget. This from the "budget hawk" caucus.

Ummm....If Obamcare is a "success" then why does it need a huge illegal government bailout? I'll wait while you flip to MS-NBC for an answer.

Faster maga

(10-16-2017 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just want to point out. The payments are not illegal. One judges opinion said that they were and that case is being appealed.

I'll take the judge's opinion over yours (or mine), since they are the ones who ultimately decide what is and is not legal. I'll fully admit that until the SCOTUS decides, it's not decided.... but that judge's opinion DOES carry more weight than yours (or mine) and certainly shows that your opinion is not indisputable or without serious (and not chat room) disagreement.

(10-16-2017 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just want to point out. The payments are not illegal. One judges opinion said that they were and that case is being appealed.

I'll take the judge's opinion over yours (or mine), since they are the ones who ultimately decide what is and is not legal. I'll fully admit that until the SCOTUS decides, it's not decided.... but that judge's opinion DOES carry more weight than yours (or mine) and certainly shows that your opinion is not indisputable or without serious (and not chat room) disagreement.

If the government is appealing, why wouldn't Trump just drop the appeal and let the judges opinion stand?

(10-16-2017 04:10 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just want to point out. The payments are not illegal. One judges opinion said that they were and that case is being appealed.

I'll take the judge's opinion over yours (or mine), since they are the ones who ultimately decide what is and is not legal. I'll fully admit that until the SCOTUS decides, it's not decided.... but that judge's opinion DOES carry more weight than yours (or mine) and certainly shows that your opinion is not indisputable or without serious (and not chat room) disagreement.

If the government is appealing, why wouldn't Trump just drop the appeal and let the judges opinion stand?

That's the idea. Why waste taxpayer $s fighting for an unconstitutional appropriation of money that he doesn't want to put out there anyway?

Let it be known that giving people more consumer choice in their level of coverage is now... "Sabotage"

(10-16-2017 12:36 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  A couple of other things. The right has spent the last 30 years cutting govt. to the bone and then with the other hand points a finger and says.... look I told you it doesn't work. Take for instance weather models. The Europeans weather model kicks absolute ass compared to our weather models. They absolutely nailed the hurricane tracks in September. Today a major Physics announcement was made in Europe on gravitational waves. These are the things we used to do. Why are the Europeans jumping in front of us. Because we have convinced people that we need to give tax breaks to "job creators" at the expense of govt. I can show you by cutting govt. we are falling behind. Can anybody show me where tax cuts have led to job creations?

You guys create these scenarios in your minds and they are unhinged from reality.

1. Obamacare was not imploding. Trump's sabotage has that potential.

2. People who fund govts actually have better govts. Who would have thunk that?

3. The tax cuts are a gigantic give away to the Kochs and their ilk and will explode the budget. This from the "budget hawk" caucus.

(10-16-2017 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just want to point out. The payments are not illegal. One judges opinion said that they were and that case is being appealed.

I'll take the judge's opinion over yours (or mine), since they are the ones who ultimately decide what is and is not legal. I'll fully admit that until the SCOTUS decides, it's not decided.... but that judge's opinion DOES carry more weight than yours (or mine) and certainly shows that your opinion is not indisputable or without serious (and not chat room) disagreement.

In our legal system, it is good law *until* a higher court says not. So it actually should be stated as "until any other higher court says otherwise..... it stands as decided."

(10-16-2017 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:10 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just want to point out. The payments are not illegal. One judges opinion said that they were and that case is being appealed.

I'll take the judge's opinion over yours (or mine), since they are the ones who ultimately decide what is and is not legal. I'll fully admit that until the SCOTUS decides, it's not decided.... but that judge's opinion DOES carry more weight than yours (or mine) and certainly shows that your opinion is not indisputable or without serious (and not chat room) disagreement.

If the government is appealing, why wouldn't Trump just drop the appeal and let the judges opinion stand?

That's the idea. Why waste taxpayer $s fighting for an unconstitutional appropriation of money that he doesn't want to put out there anyway?

The suit is actually the House of Representatives suing the Executive Branch (at the time Obama).

Executive Branch lost and appealed.

Trump was then elected President.

During appeal, some states (NY and CA, and some others) moved to intervene as defendants, so that the Trump executive branch couldnt do a 'walk-away' win. In essence the states asked to be named co-defendants in order to be able to defend the payments. The motion was granted and those states are now co-parties with the Executive Branch.

At this point, the Executive branch *could* drop *their* appeal, but the suit would continue due to the presence of the states being named co-parties.

Easiest move is to EO and stop payments, which would moot the case.

But the states who intervened have said they will now sue in their own capacity to stop Trump's EO that ended the Obama EO-based payments.

(10-16-2017 04:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:10 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just want to point out. The payments are not illegal. One judges opinion said that they were and that case is being appealed.

I'll take the judge's opinion over yours (or mine), since they are the ones who ultimately decide what is and is not legal. I'll fully admit that until the SCOTUS decides, it's not decided.... but that judge's opinion DOES carry more weight than yours (or mine) and certainly shows that your opinion is not indisputable or without serious (and not chat room) disagreement.

If the government is appealing, why wouldn't Trump just drop the appeal and let the judges opinion stand?

That's the idea. Why waste taxpayer $s fighting for an unconstitutional appropriation of money that he doesn't want to put out there anyway?

The suit is actually the House of Representatives suing the Executive Branch (at the time Obama).

Executive Branch lost and appealed.

Trump was then elected President.

During appeal, some states (NY and CA, and some others) moved to intervene as defendants, so that the Trump executive branch couldnt do a 'walk-away' win. In essence the states asked to be named co-defendants in order to be able to defend the payments. The motion was granted and those states are now co-parties with the Executive Branch.

At this point, the Executive branch *could* drop *their* appeal, but the suit would continue due to the presence of the states being named co-parties.

Easiest move is to EO and stop payments, which would moot the case.

But the states who intervened have said they will now sue in their own capacity to stop Trump's EO that ended the Obama EO-based payments.

NY and cali.....there's a shocker....

let 'em sue and see how that works out....

when states decide they are robber barons in the back pocket of the executive pen, they will eventually feel the wrath like any other monopoly....

this is too much winning.....

(10-16-2017 04:55 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:16 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 04:10 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 03:50 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 01:18 PM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Just want to point out. The payments are not illegal. One judges opinion said that they were and that case is being appealed.

I'll take the judge's opinion over yours (or mine), since they are the ones who ultimately decide what is and is not legal. I'll fully admit that until the SCOTUS decides, it's not decided.... but that judge's opinion DOES carry more weight than yours (or mine) and certainly shows that your opinion is not indisputable or without serious (and not chat room) disagreement.

If the government is appealing, why wouldn't Trump just drop the appeal and let the judges opinion stand?

That's the idea. Why waste taxpayer $s fighting for an unconstitutional appropriation of money that he doesn't want to put out there anyway?

The suit is actually the House of Representatives suing the Executive Branch (at the time Obama).

Executive Branch lost and appealed.

Trump was then elected President.

During appeal, some states (NY and CA, and some others) moved to intervene as defendants, so that the Trump executive branch couldnt do a 'walk-away' win. In essence the states asked to be named co-defendants in order to be able to defend the payments. The motion was granted and those states are now co-parties with the Executive Branch.

At this point, the Executive branch *could* drop *their* appeal, but the suit would continue due to the presence of the states being named co-parties.

Easiest move is to EO and stop payments, which would moot the case.

But the states who intervened have said they will now sue in their own capacity to stop Trump's EO that ended the Obama EO-based payments.

I’m curious as to how the Judiciary can compel payments from the treasury that are not authorized by Congress. They no more have that power than the excutive Branch. That’s like the executive branch declaring a law unconstitutional.

If ObamaCare is imploding... (which it is)

Why wait until complete and utter disaster mode to say "well, that didn't work. Now we're in a real bind".

Do we not build bunkers to prevent loss of life from tornadoes? Do we not board windows and save supplies when hurricanes are en route? Do we not send firefighters to put out house fires instead of just waiting for the fire to burn out?

WTF kind of thread is this?

Common sense and practical logic proves the point of this thread is a ridiculous notion at best.

(10-16-2017 05:31 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  If ObamaCare is imploding... (which it is)

Why wait until complete and utter disaster mode to say "well, that didn't work. Now we're in a real bind".

Do we not build bunkers to prevent loss of life from tornadoes? Do we not board windows and save supplies when hurricanes are en route? Do we not send firefighters to put out house fires instead of just waiting for the fire to burn out?

WTF kind of thread is this?

Common sense and practical logic proves the point of this thread is a ridiculous notion at best.

the dippos just don't understand how logic works.....

and they'll soon be up against a right that will fix it if it's broken......

ref: see how McConnell responded after having lunch with DJT today....

the #swamp is getting their nuts kicked in by the day......

isn't it lovely......

(10-16-2017 05:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:31 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  If ObamaCare is imploding... (which it is)

Why wait until complete and utter disaster mode to say "well, that didn't work. Now we're in a real bind".

Do we not build bunkers to prevent loss of life from tornadoes? Do we not board windows and save supplies when hurricanes are en route? Do we not send firefighters to put out house fires instead of just waiting for the fire to burn out?

WTF kind of thread is this?

Common sense and practical logic proves the point of this thread is a ridiculous notion at best.

the dippos just don't understand how logic works.....

and they'll soon be up against a right that will fix it if it's broken......

ref: see how McConnell responded after having lunch with DJT today....

the #swamp is getting their nuts kicked in by the day......

isn't it lovely......

That's exactly right. Trump is truly the swamp's nightmare.

(10-16-2017 05:44 PM)bubbapt Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:40 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  

(10-16-2017 05:31 PM)CoastGuardHawk06 Wrote:  If ObamaCare is imploding... (which it is)

Why wait until complete and utter disaster mode to say "well, that didn't work. Now we're in a real bind".

Do we not build bunkers to prevent loss of life from tornadoes? Do we not board windows and save supplies when hurricanes are en route? Do we not send firefighters to put out house fires instead of just waiting for the fire to burn out?

WTF kind of thread is this?

Common sense and practical logic proves the point of this thread is a ridiculous notion at best.

the dippos just don't understand how logic works.....

and they'll soon be up against a right that will fix it if it's broken......

ref: see how McConnell responded after having lunch with DJT today....

the #swamp is getting their nuts kicked in by the day......

isn't it lovely......

That's exactly right. Trump is truly the swamp's nightmare.

which is why DJT was the only pragmatic/logical choice last year......

it was a MONSTER win not only for the working class, but the unemployed that want to work instead of sitting on their arse in depression.....

it never ceases to amaze how the dippos continue to subsidize as their primary platform and ignore all versions of economic common sense......it's line 4 all day and the 8th one for them on the USD battlefield....