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 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 37

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

  1. #1
    Sage
    Unitedwestand13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Sunnyvale California
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:44 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    14,985

    Predicting the supreme court verdict of King v. Burrell

    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.
    "If you can't stand the way this place is, Take yourself to higher places!"
    Break, By Three days grace

    Hilliary Clinton/Tim Kaine 2016

  2. #2
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    12-13-17 @ 11:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    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.
    It would help if you provided a link or a brief synopsis of this case, since I frankly have never heard of it.

    Edit: especially since you apparently got the goddamn name wrong: King v. Burwell - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  3. #3
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    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.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #4
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,277

    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.
    That's why the case made it to the supreme court...
    And unless you were actually part of the writing process, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

  5. #5
    Sage
    Fletch's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Mentor Ohio
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:13 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    15,277

    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.
    Personally, I see no reason for the court to uphold ambiguous language. They should rule as the law is written. If congress wants to rewrite the law, they can. The SC should not be fixing it or deciding what they think congress meant or what congress should have written in hindsight. The 4 liberal justices will vote in lock step in support of the law of course and the conservatives likely against it. Chances are it comes down to Roberts and/or Kennedy and I have given up guessing how either of them will vote on things. I hope they rule against it, but probably wont, so 5-4 in support.

  6. #6
    Guru
    1750Texan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Southcental Texas
    Last Seen
    10-14-17 @ 02:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    3,569

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

    9-0 in favor of the law.

    PPACA is not up for scrutiny. IRS regulation is.

    The Supreme Court will rule if Congress intended that the Federal government give subsidies after the states did not set up the exchanges and whether Congress intended that the subsides be given by either the state or the federal government.

    the Supreme Court will rule 5-4 that Congress did intend that low income residents receive the subsidies whether it was the state or the federal government that set up and managed the exchanges.

    The Supreme Court will side with me in saying that it makes no freaking sense that Congress should want subsidies for low income persons in states where the state set up the exchange...but not in states where the state did not. No freaking sense.


  7. #7
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

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

    Quote Originally Posted by Fletch View Post
    That's why the case made it to the supreme court...
    And unless you were actually part of the writing process, you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
    You mean how the circuit court ruled unanimously against the Republicans and the 4 partisan supreme court judges granted cert in the hopes of convincing Roberts to change his position? Yeah, it's so legit.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #8
    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

    I predict the Court's vote in this cases will be one a lot of people did not predict.

  9. #9
    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 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.
    I detect the characteristic overheated tone of someone who is worried about the outcome.

  10. #10
    Sage
    pbrauer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    Oregon
    Last Seen
    11-27-15 @ 03:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    25,394

    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.
    Anonymous polls suck.


Page 1 of 4 123 ... 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
  •