homersapien 11,392 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it. If they rule based on anything other than what the law says, they are violating their oath and not doing their job. At that point, there is no rule of law; their is only Party. We are no different than Russia or China at that point. Totally agree. Well stated. Yes, BUT...The law will stand though they need to get going on fixing the thing.Said it before and i will say it again: FIX IT. The first person to take up FIXING IT not repealing it will be the next President. Well that eliminates the GOP. Because any Republican that proposes fixing rather than repealing it won't make it out of the primaries. Exactly. Thank you, gerrymandering. The chickens are coming home to roost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUTUmike 79 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it. If they rule based on anything other than what the law says, they are violating their oath and not doing their job. At that point, there is no rule of law; their is only Party. We are no different than Russia or China at that point. Totally agree. Well stated. Yes, BUT...The law will stand though they need to get going on fixing the thing.Said it before and i will say it again: FIX IT. The first person to take up FIXING IT not repealing it will be the next President. I agree with you. And I think that is somewhat true even for the Democratic candidate too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Trojan horse. I still contend it's meant to fail to usher in a call for single payer. we have a winner. That is the endgame. Democrats have had that as a goal for decades. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it. In the 2:1 ruling the two who voted against it were Republicans but I'm sure that had nothing to do with their political views :/ Deflection. The law was badly written and they didn't anticipate such a move by the states. Regardless of political party, those two judges ruled on the law as written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Trojan horse. I still contend it's meant to fail to usher in a call for single payer. we have a winner. That is the endgame. Democrats have had that as a goal for decades. Sadly, this law is so bad, single payer would be an improvement. It's as if they looked at the ideas from the left and right and somehow managed to only choose the worst of each for the ACA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RunInRed 16,433 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it. In the 2:1 ruling the two who voted against it were Republicans but I'm sure that had nothing to do with their political views :/ Deflection. The law was badly written and they didn't anticipate such a move by the states. Regardless of political party, those two judges ruled on the law as written. So when it's Republican justices, they are ruling in good faith as the law is written ... when it's Democratic justices, they are playing politics with disregard to the "facts." Got it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 The DC circuit may change this ruling but the truth of the matter, if Democrat supporters would admit it, is that the law was hastily and poorly written and they were blindsided by so many states choosing to opt out of the exchanges. They didn't expect that at all. If the judges rule based on what the law actually says, this 2-1 ruling will stand and have to be appealed to a higher court. If they judge based on what their political views make them wish it said, they'll reverse it. In the 2:1 ruling the two who voted against it were Republicans but I'm sure that had nothing to do with their political views :/ Deflection. The law was badly written and they didn't anticipate such a move by the states. Regardless of political party, those two judges ruled on the law as written. So when it's Republican justices, they are ruling in good faith as the law is written ... when it's Democratic justices, they are playing politics with disregard to the "facts." Got it. No...on THIS particular law, the law says something rather clearly. The judges in THIS case did indeed rule on the law as it was written. Don't take specific statements and turn them into blanket ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooltigger21 0 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Trojan horse. I still contend it's meant to fail to usher in a call for single payer. we have a winner. That is the endgame. Democrats have had that as a goal for decades. Sadly, this law is so bad, single payer would be an improvement. It's as if they looked at the ideas from the left and right and somehow managed to only choose the worst of each for the ACA. That is the whole point. The law was written and designed to bring about chaos and frustration, causing the people to demand the government come in and take over completely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TitanTiger 20,499 Posted July 23, 2014 Author Share Posted July 23, 2014 Trojan horse. I still contend it's meant to fail to usher in a call for single payer. we have a winner. That is the endgame. Democrats have had that as a goal for decades. Sadly, this law is so bad, single payer would be an improvement. It's as if they looked at the ideas from the left and right and somehow managed to only choose the worst of each for the ACA. That is the whole point. The law was written and designed to bring about chaos and frustration, causing the people to demand the government come in and take over completely I think it may be a side effect. But if that was the 'whole point' then a whole bunch of conservatives were complicit in it, perhaps by only going along with the crappy ideas in hopes it would fail and they'd get a shot in four years to rescue it with a more conservative-approved approach. What really happened is that our dysfunctional government, on both sides of the political aisle, have sown so much distrust in each other that they played a mutual game of "don't give an inch" on anything that mattered to the other side. What resulted is that most of the good ideas that each side had were the things that ended up getting scuttled and the only things that could be agreed on were things they thought weren't key for the other side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tigermike 3,039 Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 Harry Reid: ‘Absurd’ Obamacare Decision Vindicates ‘Nuclear Option’ (Video) link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.