View Poll Results: Predicting the final verdict of the supreme court

Voters
144. You may not vote on this poll
  • 6-3 in favor of the law

    79 54.86%
  • 5-4 in favor of the law

    48 33.33%
  • 5-4 againist the law

    6 4.17%
  • 6-3 againist the law

    2 1.39%
  • Some other combination.

    9 6.25%
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 37

Thread: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Sorry for the double posting--couldn't remove it.

  2. #22
    User
    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Last Seen
    05-21-17 @ 05:15 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    67

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The case is complete nonsense. No one writing the law intended it to function the way whiny Republicans are saying it does. There is no legal justification to enforce their partisan tantrum as law.
    So very true, my friend. What's more, how in the hell do the plaintiffs have standing?????? !!!!! But then the Robert's SCOTUS has never let a trifle like the law and precedent get in the way of their right wing activism....

    However, the fact that the Roberts neoliberal, corporatist court even took the case is indeed cause for concern......as it most assuredly would have been laughed off into the nearest trashbin were not for the court's five right wing extremists in robes.....

  3. #23
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,593

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    And unless you were actually part of the writing process, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
    Those who actually did write it are still alive. We don't need to guess their intent.

    This interpretation is wrong. As members of Congress who shaped and debated the legislation, we want to set the record straight. . .

    None of us contemplated that the bill as enacted could be misconstrued to limit financial help only to people in states opting to directly run health insurance marketplaces. In fact, as chairs of the three House committees that collectively authored the health-care reform legislation (Ways and Means, Energy and Commerce, and Education and the Workforce), three of us issued a joint fact sheet in March 2010 reflecting our intention that financial help would be available to consumers in the state marketplaces, whether the state were to run it directly or via the federal government.

    On the Senate side, provisions from the bill reported by Sen. Harkinís Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee were combined with provisions from the bill reported by the Finance Committee, of which the current chairman, Sen. Wyden, was a senior member. There, too, the final bill embodied our universal understanding that financial assistance would be available in every state.

    The respected, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office came to the same conclusion.

    When we asked it to estimate the cost of our legislation, the CBO understood our intent and repeatedly provided fiscal projections based on the availability of financial help in every state and the District. Even though early political opposition to the Affordable Care Act made it apparent that some governors might refuse to directly run their own marketplaces, thereby delegating such administration to the federal government, the CBOís projections always correctly assumed that financial help would be available to qualifying individuals and families regardless.

  4. #24
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,266

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    Those who actually did write it are still alive. We don't need to guess their intent.
    Ah. Greenbeard is here. I was afraid you might actually miss a conversation on Obamacare. As to what liberals are saying now about what they meant back then--liberals lie. They would be saying the exact opposite if it meant saving Obamacare. Honesty isn't a virtue to the left. Ends justify the means, so lying to achieve their end goals is almost a reflex for them at this point.

  5. #25
    Sage
    Greenbeard's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Cambridge, MA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:39 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    5,593

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    Ah. Greenbeard is here. I was afraid you might actually miss a conversation on Obamacare. As to what liberals are saying now about what they meant back then--liberals lie. They would be saying the exact opposite if it meant saving Obamacare. Honesty isn't a virtue to the left. Ends justify the means, so lying to achieve their end goals is almost a reflex for them at this point.
    I can't imagine those words didn't ring hollow even to you while you were typing them.

    There is no real argument that anyone intended to deny people in red states financial assistance (there's not even internal consistency within this alternate history conspiracy theory the anti-ACA opportunists have concocted), nor is there any evidence--in fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary, like the CBO score and the GOP's pay-fors in some of their repeal bills.

    And so you're left with this nonsense, having to actively ignore the people who wrote it telling you what they wrote. Such contortions!

  6. #26
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    This is only about predicting the number of judges who will vote to uphold governments position or will go along with the plantiffs arguements againist the affordable care act.

    The choices are

    5-4 uphold the law

    5-4 rule againist the law

    6-3 in favor of the law

    6-3 againist

    Or some other combination.
    I read the entire transcript, and there is no doubt that the majority of the court seemed to accept that the language was clear, state exchange means state exchange. The concern was the effect that such a ruling would have. I think the majority will strike down the use of federal exchanges, and stay their own decision for a time to allow congress to adjust.
    "It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

  7. #27
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    12-07-17 @ 07:30 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,266

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Greenbeard View Post
    I can't imagine those words didn't ring hollow even to you while you were typing them.

    There is no real argument that anyone intended to deny people in red states financial assistance (there's not even internal consistency within this alternate history conspiracy theory the anti-ACA opportunists have concocted), nor is there any evidence--in fact there's plenty of evidence to the contrary, like the CBO score and the GOP's pay-fors in some of their repeal bills.

    And so you're left with this nonsense, having to actively ignore the people who wrote it telling you what they wrote. Such contortions!
    Not at all. Liberals will lie to get what they want, why deny that? And they will lie to protect it. You don't expect me to believe that these leftists would stand up and say anything that would harm ACA do you? Sorry, but I will trust my own judgment, not what liberals say.

  8. #28
    Professor

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    11-27-17 @ 09:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,907

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    The case is complete nonsense. No one writing the law intended it to function the way whiny Republicans are saying it does. There is no legal justification to enforce their partisan tantrum as law.
    Of course they did. It was written that way to compel participation, while avoiding the political pitfall of the appearance of a federal takeover of all health care dollars. It is unreasonable to think that the legislation read as the government claims after the fact, because that would be an unconstitutional "do it or we'll do it for you" type mandate. The proverbial offer you can't refuse.
    "It is only when men contemplate the greatness of God that they can come to realize their own inadequacy." Jean Calvin

  9. #29
    Sage
    sangha's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Lower Hudson Valley, NY
    Last Seen
    09-17-17 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    59,990

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    I agree. They should take the law as they find it. Out of respect for the Constitution's separation of powers, the justices should not take it upon themselves to put words into the mouth of Congress.

    On a related note, I would like to see the impeachment of Supreme Court justices taken seriously again. Only one has ever been impeached (he escaped conviction in the Senate trial) and the consensus seems to be that that was a one-time thing from Jefferson's day that is unthinkable today. But why the hell shouldn't it be?

    The people of the states are the final arbiter of what the Constitution means, despite the Court's long campaign to arrogate that authority entirely to itself. Aside from impeaching justices, there are several other ways for the other two branches to nullify the effect of Supreme Court decisions. None of this things should ever be done lightly, but that does not mean they should never be done. Recall, for example, that President Lincoln just declined to enforce parts of the Dred Scott decision. If we the people don't like something, we don't have to live with it.

    Congress was always meant to be the most powerful of the three branches of the federal government. Anyone who thinks Congress can't tell the Supreme Court what to do, when the will of the people is strong enough, should read Ex Parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506 (1869). Congress passed a law that stripped the Court of jurisdiction to decide the McCardle case after it had already heard oral arguments. The Court said this in concluding its opinion:

    "Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause . . . ."

    Congress's power to limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Court is the key to McCardle:

    "The Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." U.S.C. Art. III, sec. 2, cl. 2.
    Impeachment?

    I detect the characteristic overheated tone of someone who is worried about the outcome.
    Quote Originally Posted by matchlight View Post
    Justice Thomas' opinions consistently contain precise, detailed constitutional analyses.
    Quote Originally Posted by jaeger19 View Post
    the vast majority of folks that need healthcare are on Medicare.. both rich and poor..

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2014
    Location
    Los Angeles area
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 01:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    9,868

    Re: Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    Impeachment?

    I detect the characteristic overheated tone of someone who is worried about the outcome.
    I've wanted to see impeachment of federal judges, including Supreme Court justices, considered more seriously for years. It has nothing to do with how this case is decided. There are several other ways to frustrate Supreme Court decisions, and those should also be used more.

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 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
  •