(07-22-2014 12:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This will go to the Supreme Court, which will decide the issue. How do you think that will turn out?

Just like last time...Roberts smacked you guys back into reality.

Actually, having created the legal fiction of a tax that is not a tax in order to uphold the mandate, Roberts has created some latitude to take a different tack on this one. He may well be brighter than we all realize, and may have figured all along that something like this was a better route to attack the law. Then again, maybe not.

I'm pretty sure we will get to find out.

I doubt it...they'll punt IMHO...they may do like Prop 8...hear the case, fall back on the DC en banc ruling.

(07-22-2014 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:55 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:46 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Just like last time...Roberts smacked you guys back into reality.

Remind me, how did Roberts vote in the Hobby Lobby ruling?

ApplesRight and Oranges Wrong sitting in the ACA shopping bag.

Fixed it for you.

So HL was right and this ruling was wrong? Thanks for coming to the right side!

P.S.: Editing other peoples words is childish and weak.

No, what I'm telling you is that it's not about apples and oranges, it's about right and wrong. The HL case was justifiable, the ACA has been f*cking America since it's first failed release.

(07-22-2014 12:59 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:57 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:55 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:51 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:28 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  I don't get the excitement...the government will request an en banc hearing where 7 of 11 DC judges are liberals, appointed by liberals...you think the Republican 2-1 ruling will survive an 11 judge panel with 7 liberals?

Ah yes, you've got it all right there in your hands... No chance of losing. But if the panel goes in favor of the Republicans, then we'll certainly have activists and there will need to be a rehearing. But only because you disagree with it. You're so predictable, I'm sure you'll even come tell me that I'm wrong and if it passes the 11 judge panel then you'll be done with it.

I haven't given my opinion of the ruling...but nice try.

I'm just looking at the facts, predicting an outcome.

"7 liberal judges" will predict the outcome in your favor almost every time. Facts are irrelevant to liberals.

That's a fact, not an opinion...

Indeed

(07-22-2014 11:52 AM)Ole Blue Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 11:49 AM)jh Wrote:  However, in an even less-publicized case, the Fourth Circuit upheld the same subsidies today.

True.

I wonder if the Supreme Court would want to hear this.

they don't in my opinion. They will hope that the DC appeals and the other courts appeals agree in the end one way or the other.

(07-22-2014 12:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This will go to the Supreme Court, which will decide the issue. How do you think that will turn out?

Just like last time...Roberts smacked you guys back into reality.

Actually, having created the legal fiction of a tax that is not a tax in order to uphold the mandate, Roberts has created some latitude to take a different tack on this one. He may well be brighter than we all realize, and may have figured all along that something like this was a better route to attack the law. Then again, maybe not.
I'm pretty sure we will get to find out.

Possibly, although with the way he sidestepped the direct tax problem I have a hard time believing this is all part of a master plan. Or maybe he's just waiting for Sissel (the origination clause suit) to roll through.

I agree this will probably make its way to the Supreme Court. It only takes four justices to agree to a cert petition, so even if Roberts isn't on board one of the dissenters in the original case would have to switch sides. Certainly possible, but I don't know how likely. And given the importance of the issue, even if the en banc DC Circuit reverses I would not be surprised for the Supreme Court to still take up the case.

Obamacare will have this and the origination case go before SCOTUS. The first effectively destroys the law ... the second could outright repeal it if Roberts believes in no severance like the other 4 did in dissent.

(07-22-2014 01:03 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:55 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:46 PM)EagleRockCafe Wrote:  Remind me, how did Roberts vote in the Hobby Lobby ruling?

ApplesRight and Oranges Wrong sitting in the ACA shopping bag.

Fixed it for you.

So HL was right and this ruling was wrong? Thanks for coming to the right side!

P.S.: Editing other peoples words is childish and weak.

No, what I'm telling you is that it's not about apples and oranges, it's about right and wrong. The HL case was justifiable, the ACA has been f*cking America since it's first failed release.

Except for the fact...you know...that it hasn't. Much less has it been released more than once as you claim, probably just incorrectly. But I would be interested to know exactly what evidence you're using to come to that conclusion. I love a good bit of fiction now and then.

(07-22-2014 01:21 PM)jh Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:56 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:45 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:43 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This will go to the Supreme Court, which will decide the issue. How do you think that will turn out?

Just like last time...Roberts smacked you guys back into reality.

Actually, having created the legal fiction of a tax that is not a tax in order to uphold the mandate, Roberts has created some latitude to take a different tack on this one. He may well be brighter than we all realize, and may have figured all along that something like this was a better route to attack the law. Then again, maybe not.
I'm pretty sure we will get to find out.

Possibly, although with the way he sidestepped the direct tax problem I have a hard time believing this is all part of a master plan. Or maybe he's just waiting for Sissel (the origination clause suit) to roll through.

In my opinion, I still think this is what Roberts was ruling toward. Sissel (again, just my opinion) will end up getting the entire law tossed. Once he ruled the mandate was a tax, every opinion that I saw was leaning toward that case.

(07-22-2014 12:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Why did they write things that contradict itself? Didn't they read it... Wait I know this answer.

(07-22-2014 02:36 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Why did they write things that contradict itself? Didn't they read it... Wait I know this answer.

+3 for actually getting the quote right. I think this might be a first for this quote!

4th circuit court already voted in reverse of the the DC circuit court decision. THat one didn't take long.

So now it'll definitely end up the SC docket... and due to the different circuit court decisions, they'll have to make a decision. (otherwise, we'd have different situations in different circuits)

(07-22-2014 01:38 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 01:03 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:57 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:55 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:48 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  ApplesRight and Oranges Wrong sitting in the ACA shopping bag.

Fixed it for you.

So HL was right and this ruling was wrong? Thanks for coming to the right side!

P.S.: Editing other peoples words is childish and weak.

No, what I'm telling you is that it's not about apples and oranges, it's about right and wrong. The HL case was justifiable, the ACA has been f*cking America since it's first failed release.

Except for the fact...you know...that it hasn't. Much less has it been released more than once as you claim, probably just incorrectly. But I would be interested to know exactly what evidence you're using to come to that conclusion. I love a good bit of fiction now and then.

Besides 70% of those currently on subsidies, nobody is interested in this crap. They are unhappy. Nothing fiction about that.

(07-22-2014 03:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:36 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Why did they write things that contradict itself? Didn't they read it... Wait I know this answer.

+3 for actually getting the quote right. I think this might be a first for this quote!

Why? I thought the actual words of our lawmakers didn't matter to you.

(07-22-2014 03:42 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 03:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:36 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Why did they write things that contradict itself? Didn't they read it... Wait I know this answer.

+3 for actually getting the quote right. I think this might be a first for this quote!

Why? I thought the actual words of our lawmakers didn't matter to you.

PHEW! That is one ugly biotch!

(07-22-2014 03:42 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 03:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:36 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Why did they write things that contradict itself? Didn't they read it... Wait I know this answer.

+3 for actually getting the quote right. I think this might be a first for this quote!

Why? I thought the actual words of our lawmakers didn't matter to you.

What in creation are you talking about?

(07-22-2014 03:46 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 03:42 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 03:16 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 02:36 PM)Stick4489 Wrote:  

(07-22-2014 12:08 PM)gdunn Wrote:  Why did they write things that contradict itself? Didn't they read it... Wait I know this answer.

+3 for actually getting the quote right. I think this might be a first for this quote!

Why? I thought the actual words of our lawmakers didn't matter to you.

PHEW! That is one ugly biotch!

But I'm the woman hater.

It's not like anyone here has misquoted Palin either...