Page 87 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3777858687888997 ... LastLast
Results 861 to 870 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #861
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The context here is that Scalia talked about about the "cornhusker kickback" in oral arguments, when there is no cornhusker kickback in the bill.
    No, the context is he referred to what was commonly called the "cornhusker kickback," which did survive in expanded form into the law, and because he used those two words, you claim he gets his information from Fox News instead of from the law itself. I suspect YOU did not know it survived in that expanded form.

    FYI, it isn't necessarily a bad thing if the federal government does something that all the states like.
    FYI, I never said it was or wasn't and this is the latest in a long, long line of silly strawmen and red herrings from you.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #862
    Sage
    jet57's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    not here
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:59 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    24,761

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    So you think because a justice will not read the whole bill, he is not 'dedicated' to the Constitution.

    But legislators who do not read the whole bill, but pass it, and a president that does not read the whole bill but signs it into law ARE 'dedicated' to the constitution?

    Pretty amazing spin.
    I'm sorry; spin? Politicains and the carrying impplimentation of the law and deciding what is and is not constitutional are and should remain two separate things.

    And no, if Scalia won't take the time to comprehend what he's ruling on then he's not as dedicated to the constitution as he would have everyone belive; is he . . . of course not.
    “The people do no want virtue; but they are the dupes of pretended patriots” : Elbridge Gerry of Mass; Constitutional Convention 1787

  3. #863
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    No, the context is he referred to what was commonly called the "cornhusker kickback," which did survive in expanded form into the law, and because he used those two words, you claim he gets his information from Fox News instead of from the law itself. I suspect YOU did not know it survived in that expanded form.

    FYI, I never said it was or wasn't and this is the latest in a long, long line of silly strawmen and red herrings from you.
    The context of the quote is that Scalia was suggesting that the provision might be struck down on the basis of venality, so he was obviously implying that it was put in to bribe Nelson for his vote.

    "If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" asked Scalia, talking to Paul Clement. "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right."

    So what it means, again, is that he was talking about something that wasn't even in the bill, but that still gets a lot of airplay on conservative media outlets.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  4. #864
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:24 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,607

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The context of the quote is that Scalia was suggesting that the provision might be struck down on the basis of venality, so he was obviously implying that it was put in to bribe Nelson for his vote.

    "If we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what's it called, the Cornhusker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" asked Scalia, talking to Paul Clement. "When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the Cornhusker kickback is bad. That can't be right."

    So what it means, again, is that he was talking about something that wasn't even in the bill, but that still gets a lot of airplay on conservative media outlets.
    Siiiiigh.

    No, it's still in there, just in expanded form. Congress DID pass it with it pertaining only to Nebraska; it was changed to all the states in reconciliation at Nelson's request, probably because he was embarrassed by it (and being booed out of a restaurant by your own constituents had to be rough). So, the venality, if it were such, was spread everywhere, not expunged.

    Of course, it won't stop you from thinking Scalia only gets his information from Fox News, a conclusion you reached because you thought the provision was removed.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  5. #865
    Sage

    Join Date
    May 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:36 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    8,180
    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    What kind of a misreading of the English language is that? Where did I say that the supremecourt as to disect a bill and put it back together making it constitutional?
    Another member posted the opinion that the court should not do this, and you accused him of spewing political propaganda. So given your response I had to assume you were of the opposite opinion.

    I must say that I don't get your argument: the Supreme Court of the United States should do things on the cheap, and just skate decisions on The Constitution . . .
    If the FedGov cannot constitutionally compel commerce to be entered into between private individuals/organizations, and cannot constitutionally levy a direct tax on individuals on the condition of engaging in a certain type of commerce, then the thousands of pages of other bull**** in the bill are irrelevant. You're basically saying "read harder and closer" in order to try to weave together some reaching rationalization for something ridiculously unconstitutional.
    Last edited by Neomalthusian; 04-03-12 at 08:28 PM.

  6. #866
    Conservative Independent
    DarkWizard12's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Tyler TX
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,562

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I'm sorry; spin? Politicains and the carrying impplimentation of the law and deciding what is and is not constitutional are and should remain two separate things.

    And no, if Scalia won't take the time to comprehend what he's ruling on then he's not as dedicated to the constitution as he would have everyone belive; is he . . . of course not.
    If Scalia isn't, based on that simple, flawed, reasoning, then so are...ohh...all 4 of the liberal justices!

    I think all 4 of the liberal justices are not dedicated to the constitution, because they never read the health care bill.

  7. #867
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Kal'Stang View Post
    I already answered that here in my post to Born Free....Basic answer though...History and current events.
    You did not respond to my post. Perhaps you didn't read it.

  8. #868
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by winston53660 View Post
    For people like me and people in emergency situations health care is not a free market. W/O it I would die a slow miserable death as my heart slow gave out.
    For people like you? So the free market does not offer goods and services for people like you? And yet the free market has provided more goods and services to more people with a wide variety of prices every time it has been tried.

    Even if you should die a slow, miserable death, and who does not, why do you believe your neighbor should pay for your health care?

  9. #869
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Siiiiigh.

    No, it's still in there, just in expanded form. Congress DID pass it with it pertaining only to Nebraska; it was changed to all the states in reconciliation at Nelson's request, probably because he was embarrassed by it (and being booed out of a restaurant by your own constituents had to be rough). So, the venality, if it were such, was spread everywhere, not expunged.

    Of course, it won't stop you from thinking Scalia only gets his information from Fox News, a conclusion you reached because you thought the provision was removed.
    Seriously, are you not able to read Scalia's quote and put together the words to form actual thoughts? If you could you would realize that he wasn't talking about a provision that affects all states. He was obviously under the impression that Nelson's vote was bought with a Nebraska-only provision. The fabric of reality is not sufficiently flexible to wrap around your contorted pretzel logic.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  10. #870
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Last Seen
    03-03-17 @ 10:28 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    13,813

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by jet57 View Post
    I see your point, however I have countered that with the Californai statute that requires drivers to buy liability insurance if tehy wish to legally operate a vehicle in the state.
    One can, and I did, escape from California intact some half dozen or so years ago. It is far harder to escape from the US. California does not have the same Constitution as the US.

    I should also add here that the Act may well serve everybody by bringing down the cost of care . . .
    Except that the price tag has roughly doubled in the two years we have had the law shoved, by the Democrats and the One term Flexible Marxist president Barack Hussein Obama. And, in my opinion it cannot possibly do anything other than go up until death panels ration care. Then Winston dies a slow, miserable death, because the government won't see any reason for keeping him alive and plenty of economic reasons for easing him into death. We don't really want that, do we?

Page 87 of 122 FirstFirst ... 3777858687888997 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •