Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 3/30/2012 8:16:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2012 12:56:54 PM EDT by TwoDogKnight]
I sure hope not. Fuck obama

Edit -Rush is talking about a theory out today by a liberal writer
Edit update- Rush explained how Justice Kennedy has said he's willing to go along with constitutionality so Chief Justice Roberts will join him to write the opinion and then say the government is limited to just mandate we buy health care and nothing else.

More interested in their image and being PC than the Law.

But Roberts will 'swing ' the other way if the vote today is 5-3 against (need a lib justice to vote unconstitutional)then he be able to write that decision. He wants a 6-3 or better decision on such an important matter. Doesn't matter which way.

Sadly it could be so.


Edit Link to Rush's site

RUSH: I'm not saying this is going to happen, by the way. The fact that it's so widely being predicted now, if it becomes conventional wisdom it could very well be like most conventional wisdom, and that is wrong. There's a very, very left-wing blog called the SCOTUS blog, and the guy there is predicting 6-3 for the whole thing being found constitutional, 6-3.... If it happens, and if it happens the way the theory explains it, we don't have a court looking at the law anymore. We have a fully politicized third branch of government.

... but this theory's way, requires that the judges look at things that they consider more important than the law. Such as the reputation of the court. Such as desire for there not to be so many 5-4 decisions, particularly on matters of such great importance.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:26:42 AM EDT
Nolo thinks they will find some reason to rule it Constitutional.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:34:53 AM EDT
I am an attorney and work with a bunch of attorneys (super-libs here is MD). I overheard a gaggle of the others talking and they ALL thought it would be upheld, except one who thought that the SCOTUS would pass the buck and avoid making a big decision. Again, I think this is wishful liberal thinking because I can't see how you can listen to the arguments and the comments made by the justices and come to the conclusion that you are going to get a 6-3 decision upholding the law.

Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:37:02 AM EDT
The liberal mind doesn't work logically.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:40:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By fishyjoe:
I am an attorney and work with a bunch of attorneys (super-libs here is MD). I overheard a gaggle of the others talking and they ALL thought it would be upheld, except one who thought that the SCOTUS would pass the buck and avoid making a big decision. Again, I think this is wishful liberal thinking because I can't see how you can listen to the arguments and the comments made by the justices and come to the conclusion that you are going to get a 6-3 decision upholding the law.



That's the 'theory' out there today, because it's a closed vote only the justices will know -we wait. Rush is going through the theory now on the air. see my update summery.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:40:55 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The liberal mind doesn't work logically.


fify

Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:41:26 AM EDT
5-4 against.

That's my call.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:42:08 AM EDT
Rush is off his meds to even discuss that crap.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:42:12 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The liberal mind doesn't work logically.


Truth this man speaks it
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:44:15 AM EDT
That's why I've been saying that we shouldn't count the chickens before the eggs hatch, and with the news coming out of the SCOTUS earlier in the week seeming like the Solicitor General was getting worked, I suggested they've done that before and came out on the other side. If in fact they do rule it that way, I think it will work better in the general election as it will re-awaken the Tea Party, the same Tea Party we saw going into the midterms. It really may be a win/win regardless of which way they go?
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:44:35 AM EDT
Originally Posted By stickfigure:
5-4 against.

That's my call.


That's what I'm thinking.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:44:58 AM EDT
If this thing is ruled Constitutional then the Republic is essentially over.

Consider this, we’ve already apparently decided that the President, excuse me, the Emperor can decree that health insurance must cover certain things like birth control and abortion as long as some tenuous link can be made to health. So, where’s the limit?

Can the Emperor mandate that health care must cover the cost of a fleshlight for patients with an injured right wrist? How about vitamins, gym memberships, warm clothing, etc.? The Emperor can simply decree that anything has to be covered and then the insurance companies have to pass the costs on to the people and the people must pay. It’s the ultimate redistribution of wealth scheme.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:45:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WGPKlaus:
That's why I've been saying that we shouldn't count the chickens before the eggs hatch, and with the news coming out of the SCOTUS earlier in the week seeming like the Solicitor General was getting worked, I suggested they've done that before and came out on the other side. If in fact they do rule it that way, I think it will work better in the general election as it will re-awaken the Tea Party, the same Tea Party we saw going into the midterms. It really may be a win/win regardless of which way they go?


Even if theoretically we win and repeal it(haha), the precedent will still be there to fuck us later in the future.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:46:27 AM EDT
With 100% certainty, I will be able to predict the outcome sometime in June.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:46:33 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
Originally Posted By fishyjoe:
I am an attorney and work with a bunch of attorneys (super-libs here is MD). I overheard a gaggle of the others talking and they ALL thought it would be upheld, except one who thought that the SCOTUS would pass the buck and avoid making a big decision. Again, I think this is wishful liberal thinking because I can't see how you can listen to the arguments and the comments made by the justices and come to the conclusion that you are going to get a 6-3 decision upholding the law.



That's the 'theory' out there today, because it's a closed vote only the justices will know -we wait. Rush is going through the theory now on the air. see my update summery.


Also, as Rush said, in order to believe this theory you have to believe that the SCOTUS justices are more concerned with appearances than the actual law. Which I do not believe of the 5 reasonable justices.

Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:46:47 AM EDT
Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
I sure hope not. Fuck obama


Edit update- Rush explained how Justice Kennedy has said he's willing to go along with constitutionality so Chief Justice Roberts will join him to write the opinion and then say the government is limited to just mandate we buy health care and nothing else.

More interested in their image and being PC than the Law.

But Roberts will 'swing ' the other way if the vote today is 5-3 against (need a lib justice to vote unconstitutional)then he be able to write that decision. He wants a 6-3 or better decision on such an important matter. Doesn't matter which way.

Sadly it could be so.


You should have been paying attention. He was talking about what some Libtard predicted. Explaining what the Libturd was thinking. IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA OF HOW IT WILL GO.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:48:45 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Warrior102:
Rush is off his meds to even discuss that crap.


See my earlier post. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT WILL GO THIS WAY. HE WAS EXPLAINING WHAT A LIBTURD WAS DESCRIBING HOW IT WILL GO> >>>>NOT HIS IDEA!!!
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 8:48:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By WGPKlaus:
That's why I've been saying that we shouldn't count the chickens before the eggs hatch, and with the news coming out of the SCOTUS earlier in the week seeming like the Solicitor General was getting worked, I suggested they've done that before and came out on the other side. If in fact they do rule it that way, I think it will work better in the general election as it will re-awaken the Tea Party, the same Tea Party we saw going into the midterms. It really may be a win/win regardless of which way they go?


Even if theoretically we win and repeal it(haha), the precedent will still be there to fuck us later in the future.


given the court recently, that could happen regardless of what they had before them? There are only two members of that court that I would trust to adhere to law, Scalia and Roberts.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:02:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JeepCommando401:
Originally Posted By TwoDogKnight:
But Roberts will 'swing ' the other way if the vote today is 5-3 against (need a lib justice to vote unconstitutional)then he be able to write that decision. He wants a 6-3 or better decision on such an important matter. Doesn't matter which way.

Sadly it could be so.


You should have been paying attention. He was talking about what some Libtard predicted. Explaining what the Libturd was thinking. IT WAS NOT HIS IDEA OF HOW IT WILL GO.



My bad not to make that clear. will edit post.



Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:05:41 AM EDT
Originally Posted By JeepCommando401:
Originally Posted By Warrior102:
Rush is off his meds to even discuss that crap.


See my earlier post. HE DOES NOT BELIEVE IT WILL GO THIS WAY. HE WAS EXPLAINING WHAT A LIBTURD WAS DESCRIBING HOW IT WILL GO> >>>>NOT HIS IDEA!!!


People who never listen to Rush or only listen to maybe 10 minutes per month always seem to not like/agree with Rush or think he is a blowhard.

Listen to the entire show and you will agree with Rush 100% and even understand the subtle things he does and why. That is if you are a Conservative.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:11:19 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Keith_J:
The liberal mind doesn't work logically.


This
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:11:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Thuban:
If this thing is ruled Constitutional then the Republic is essentially over.

Consider this, we’ve already apparently decided that the President, excuse me, the Emperor can decree that health insurance must cover certain things like birth control and abortion as long as some tenuous link can be made to health. So, where’s the limit?

Can the Emperor mandate that health care must cover the cost of a fleshlight for patients with an injured right wrist? How about vitamins, gym memberships, warm clothing, etc.? The Emperor can simply decree that anything has to be covered and then the insurance companies have to pass the costs on to the people and the people must pay. It’s the ultimate redistribution of wealth scheme.


Hail Emperor Zero! We who are about to go broke salute you!
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:12:59 AM EDT
Originally Posted By Thuban:
If this thing is ruled Constitutional then the Republic is essentially over.

Consider this, we’ve already apparently decided that the President, excuse me, the Emperor can decree that health insurance must cover certain things like birth control and abortion as long as some tenuous link can be made to health. So, where’s the limit?

Can the Emperor mandate that health care must cover the cost of a fleshlight for patients with an injured right wrist? How about vitamins, gym memberships, warm clothing, etc.? The Emperor can simply decree that anything has to be covered and then the insurance companies have to pass the costs on to the people and the people must pay. It’s the ultimate redistribution of wealth scheme.


Agreed.

Whether or not the wealth is redistributed, it's clearly the underpinning of a massive wealth confiscation scheme. I've believed for some time that the government has no choice but to transition from income taxation to wealth confiscation. Forcing people to buy something is essentially wealth confiscation. Not that it's the right or legal thing to do, but the system and the expectations of too many of the citizens will not allow a retreat to smaller government. They will do everything possible to ride this horse for as long as possible, until the horse collapses and dies. It's human nature, and it's unstoppable.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:19:15 AM EDT

Originally Posted By WGPKlaus:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By WGPKlaus:
That's why I've been saying that we shouldn't count the chickens before the eggs hatch, and with the news coming out of the SCOTUS earlier in the week seeming like the Solicitor General was getting worked, I suggested they've done that before and came out on the other side. If in fact they do rule it that way, I think it will work better in the general election as it will re-awaken the Tea Party, the same Tea Party we saw going into the midterms. It really may be a win/win regardless of which way they go?


Even if theoretically we win and repeal it(haha), the precedent will still be there to fuck us later in the future.


given the court recently, that could happen regardless of what they had before them? There are only two members of that court that I would trust to adhere to law, Scalia and Roberts.


Really? I don't trust Roberts in this regard. Scalia, perhaps. Thomas, most definitely. The others, not really.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:19:26 AM EDT
Originally Posted By WGPKlaus:
Originally Posted By Top_Secret:
Originally Posted By WGPKlaus:
That's why I've been saying that we shouldn't count the chickens before the eggs hatch, and with the news coming out of the SCOTUS earlier in the week seeming like the Solicitor General was getting worked, I suggested they've done that before and came out on the other side. If in fact they do rule it that way, I think it will work better in the general election as it will re-awaken the Tea Party, the same Tea Party we saw going into the midterms. It really may be a win/win regardless of which way they go?


Even if theoretically we win and repeal it(haha), the precedent will still be there to fuck us later in the future.


given the court recently, that could happen regardless of what they had before them? There are only two members of that court that I would trust to adhere to law, Scalia and Roberts.


Thomas?
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:22:32 AM EDT
It's not going anywhere.

Too much money and too much power. Get used to it. Nothing spectacular is going to come of this.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:22:44 AM EDT
I don't think they'll find that it's a constitutional law. But they'll rule that an unconstituional law is constitutional because it's for the children.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:26:18 AM EDT
Originally Posted By PantherArms762:
It's not going anywhere.

Too much money and too much power. Get used to it. Nothing spectacular is going to come of this.


Oh contrare, mon frare.

The final nail in the coffin of the Republic will be most spectacular.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:26:48 AM EDT
Originally Posted By HarryStone:
I don't think they'll find that it's a constitutional law. But they'll rule that an unconstituional law is constitutional because it's for the children.


That was Kagan's point.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:28:21 AM EDT
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:42:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By alphajaguars:
Originally Posted By HarryStone:
I don't think they'll find that it's a constitutional law. But they'll rule that an unconstituional law is constitutional because it's for the children.


That was Kagan's point.


Yup. One way or the other the supreme court will end up ruling that their function isn't to rule on the constitutionality of a law, but to have the final say on validity of a law. They're part of the way there already but I think before it's all over (it meaing the country) they'll explicitly rule that they no longer have to abide by the consitution.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 9:57:59 AM EDT
For you bedwetters, Reason has an interesting analysis:

http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/30/how-will-scotus-rule-on-obamacare-the-an

Based on the number of questions asked to the opposing lawyers, it looks like ObamaCare is going down.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 10:05:46 AM EDT
Didn't realize Rush was sitting in with their delibeartions.

Predicting how the supremes will rule is a fools errand. It is a notoriously difficult body to read just from oral arguements.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 10:15:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 3/30/2012 10:16:09 AM EDT by magnum_99]
Originally Posted By Thuban:
If this thing is ruled Constitutional then the Republic is essentially over.

Consider this, we’ve already apparently decided that the President, excuse me, the Emperor can decree that health insurance must cover certain things like birth control and abortion as long as some tenuous link can be made to health. So, where’s the limit?

Can the Emperor mandate that health care must cover the cost of a fleshlight for patients with an injured right wrist? How about vitamins, gym memberships, warm clothing, etc.? The Emperor can simply decree that anything has to be covered and then the insurance companies have to pass the costs on to the people and the people must pay. It’s the ultimate redistribution of wealth scheme.



Yep. The communists know that once the government controls health care, it can control everything esle.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 10:28:08 AM EDT
I dont trust any branch of government....whether they wear robes or suits

Link Posted: 3/30/2012 12:59:49 PM EDT
What troubled me most was this part. I musta missed this yesterday.

From Rush's site linked in last edit in OP

...The chief justice, John Roberts, gets to decide who should write the opinion when he is in the majority. He assigns it. This theory holds that he'll write it himself. But before we get there, let's review where we are. Anthony Kennedy made it clear for all this talk about a plane wreck and a train wreck, ...., he was open to the idea that the mandate is constitutional. Remember his phrase, "You have a heavy burden to prove here."

If the government, in his mind, has made the case that this law is necessary and proper, he's indicated he could find the whole thing constitutional.

This whole thing hinges on a wishy washy Justice Anthony Kennedy . Don't like our chances here.
Link Posted: 3/30/2012 1:07:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Ameshawki:
Didn't realize Rush was sitting in with their delibeartions.

Predicting how the supremes will rule is a fools errand. It is a notoriously difficult body to read just from oral arguements.


This. It's their job to be devil's advocate during oral arguments, even when they don't agree with it.
Top Top