• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Obama says Supreme Court should never have taken up health law case

Greetings, Erik. :2wave:

I don't understand why Obama would publically question what cases the Supreme Court should hear in the first place. They don't report to him. Things are getting stranger by the day in DC! :shock:

Evening Pg :2wave: *hug*

I'm guessing to cover his own agenda so no one could blame him for not fighting. I wouldn't suspect political pressure as I'm sure the members of the SC are thick skinned and used to it.
 
It really is sad what Obama supporters have made this nation and their total ignorance as to the role of the Federal Govt. and where the money comes from for that govt. It is easy for them to ask for subsidies because they just don't get it, subsidies come from tax revenue paid for by actual taxpayers.

One of the worst things to ever happen in this country was LBJ creating the unified budget where all tax revenue from all tax sources goes into one pot regardless of what the tax was supposed to fund. That makes it easy for politicians to spend money and then when the item the taxes were to fund runs out of money simply say the program is broke and we need to tax the taxpayers more. Obama supporters have no problem taking from someone else and Obama has no problem promoting wealth redistribution.

I think it could be argued that the real wealth redistribution has been the slow climb of inflation along with 30+ years of wealth inequality that has taken place in this country not to mention no tax relief for working-class Americans. But let's save that for another thread.
 
Well, if my iffy memory of the past decade is any indication, various senators and congressman have been bitching about each other, the president, and the courts for years now.

And various presidents have been doing the same.

What the hell is new about this?

The case is important to someone, or the SCOTUS would not have been asked to rule on it. Obama stated they shouldn't even be hearing the case, and you don't find anything wrong with that? :shock:
 
The case is important to someone, or the SCOTUS would not have been asked to rule on it. Obama stated they shouldn't even be hearing the case, and you don't find anything wrong with that? :shock:
Well, if he stated it as an opinion, that's not really much of an issue, is it?

If he's trying to say "you shouldn't have done that" in the sense of "I'm telling you what to do", well he can't, so it's kinda moot.

What does it matter?

Maybe I'm missing what about it bugs you?
 
Sounds more like he's opposed to all tax revenue going into a single holding fund and then being distributed from there.

Perhaps he's suggesting that each bill/department/law/whatever be funded seperatly with it's own tax directly connected to it - as in, say we want to increase funding for weight loss efforts by the department of health or whatnot.

Impose a 2% tax on some specific food types and put the money into a fund which can only go towards that thing.

As an example, you understand.

I think it works that way in many local/state governments? Or some of em at least.

Yeah, I didn't take it that way based upon his comment that liberals have no problem in taking people's money and giving it to others as a form of redistribution of wealth. Perhaps you missed where he said that. I don't like my tax dollars being taken and given to Israel, or funding the militarization of our police departments, or endless wars, but I guess it is what it is!!
 
The more technical critique should have been directed towards the three judge panel for the DC Court of Appeals. At the same time that this decision was made in 2-1 verdict against the ACA, the 4th Circuit ruled 3-0 in favor of the ACA. If the conflict did not exist, then the Supreme Court would not have taken up the issue.

The implications of a negative ruling in this case are tremendous and should not be understated. The insurance markets in those states which do not run their own health insurance market places (thirty six states) will have hundreds of thousands of individuals instantly drop out of the insurance market. The remaining policies will almost certainly become non-profitable for the insurance companies. The new pricing will reflect the fact that potentially millions of individuals will no longer be able to take part in the market place and this will increase the risk and thus, the price.

What the finding will not do, despite the misunderstandings (and desires) of some conservatives, is destroy the Affordable Care Act. Subsidies for those individuals who are unable to afford the full cost of health insurance is one component (albeit important) of the ACA. The law, including the mandate that insurance companies not reject individuals based on pre-existing conditions will still exist. The tax penalty for those individuals who can afford health insurance, but choose not to purchase a qualifying plan, will still exist. The State and Federally run marketplaces will still exist.

actually it will undo the whole thing unless something changes it and here is the reason.

if no one is in the exchange or a few people then the cost of insurance on those people will skyrocket already.
the whole part of making obamacare work is that millions and millions of people are in the exchange.

if the amount of people aren't there then the thing will fall into a death spiral.
the state exchanges are in shambles and running liability issues already.

more people will fall under the tax penalty.

this is what happens when you have to pass a law to know what is in it.
the only reason they will be dropped is if they can't pay.
 
By that same token, federal tax dollars shouldn't go to states to fund their state highway/road repair/construction projects.

:shrug:

Exactly, and they don't, they fund the FEDERAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM that goes through the states. Keep digging to justify the 3.9 trillion dollar budget Obama wants. You people really are something else.
 
Evening Pg :2wave: *hug*

I'm guessing to cover his own agenda so no one could blame him for not fighting. I wouldn't suspect political pressure as I'm sure the members of the SC are thick skinned and used to it.

Greetings, JC. :2wave:

Well, that makes sense. :thumbs:
 
I think it could be argued that the real wealth redistribution has been the slow climb of inflation along with 30+ years of wealth inequality that has taken place in this country not to mention no tax relief for working-class Americans. But let's save that for another thread.

Tax relief isn't a problem, but when you have 47% that don't pay any Federal Income taxes giving them a cut is a welfare payment
 
Republicans want to steal 700 million dollars from Medicare to pay for retraining all those people that are going to loose there jobs due to that sorry TPP treaty. Where's that in the constitution?

What leftwing site did you get that jewel from? There isn't any money in Medicare that hasn't been committed, it is broke thanks to the Unified budget
 
The case is important to someone, or the SCOTUS would not have been asked to rule on it. Obama stated they shouldn't even be hearing the case, and you don't find anything wrong with that? :shock:

The only reason that the SCOTUS is hearing the case is that there is a conflict in federal appeals courts on the issue.
the DC court which is the higher ranked on ruled against the administration.

I think it was the 6th court that ruled in favor.
it will be a 5-4 split of course not sure which way it will go.

the DC court I think ruled the correct way. only state run exchanges were to qualify for the funds. the reason being is that it was another coercion attempt by the administration
to force states to sign on to obamacare.
 
If you look at the poll, Jimmy Carter is more popular than Bush. :lamo

not among anyone who was on the 1980 USA olympic team or an alternate
 
What leftwing site did you get that jewel from? There isn't any money in Medicare that hasn't been committed, it is broke thanks to the Unified budget

Are you denying that, hmm?
 
Well, if he stated it as an opinion, that's not really much of an issue, is it?

If he's trying to say "you shouldn't have done that" in the sense of "I'm telling you what to do", well he can't, so it's kinda moot.

What does it matter?

Maybe I'm missing what about it bugs you?

It's not that it bugs me, because the case being argued doesn't affect me one way or another. I guess it was more surprise on my part that he would voice his opinion as the POTUS, which is a little different than someone making the same statement while sitting at a diner having lunch with co-workers.
 
It's not that it bugs me, because the case being argued doesn't affect me one way or another. I guess it was more surprise on my part that he would voice his opinion as the POTUS, which is a little different than someone making the same statement while sitting at a diner having lunch with co-workers.

Hi Polgara :2wave: you think that, even after the many examples posted in this thread of other presidents doing the very same thing?
 
Heard rumors to the affect but nothing specific and since they didn't control the Congress, it is just that rumor. Show me the bill?

Since who doesn't control the congress? Democrats are working with republicans in that effort. So do you like that, or is that somehow different because you don't give a **** about Medicare anyway?
 
Hi Polgara :2wave: you think that, even after the many examples posted in this thread of other presidents doing the very same thing?

Greetings, Monte. :2wave:

I didn't say Obama was unique. You've known me for a while...I've always given credit where it's due but I have also questioned things that don't make sense, no matter who said them - both on here and in RL. I expect the same from others.
 
Just goes to show how stupid that "We have to pass it to see what's in it" crowd really was.
 
Last edited:
The op hasn't anything to do with a SOTU address. Funny, first it was just plain wrong for Obama to do this, I'm laughing how the goal posts have been moved now that nobody can hide from the fact it's pretty common for a president to do this, we'll have to pick on his time and place. It's the constant partisan bias at DP.

New information causes a change in posture of the position. That never happens to you?

Still consistent in that I think the SOTU speech isn't the right time nor place to do so.
 
Greetings, Monte. :2wave:

I didn't say Obama was unique. You've known me for a while...I've always given credit where it's due but I have also questioned things that don't make sense, no matter who said them - both on here and in RL. I expect the same from others.

Does that mean that you question the sense of all presidents that have criticized SCOTUS's? I just don't understand why a president can't do this. He's an American citizen before he's president. I criticize SCOTUS rulings I disagree with. Bush did as president, it just seems so natural and unimportant.
 
New information causes a change in posture of the position. That never happens to you?

Still consistent in that I think the SOTU speech isn't the right time nor place to do so.

But he didn't say this in a SOTU address!!!!!!??????? Why do you insist on bringing it into here? Oh, wait a minute, I know. Because you've been shown that all these other presidents have done so before him so we have to now make it about the venue, jump from the op to some other event. This is about Obama criticizing the SCOTUS ruling that you agree with, ha fancy that. Just like Bush did. Really, presidents have every right to do this, you should stop fretting over it.
 
But he didn't say this in a SOTU address!!!!!!??????? Why do you insist on bringing it into here? Oh, wait a minute, I know.

Steady there big fella.

You must have missed this earlier post of mine.

No, I'd be inclined to say that it's not appropriate. What would be more appropriate and good leadership, IMHO, would be to make a statement similar to 'the court has ruled and we all are bound by these rules, so let's move forward even though it may not be the decision we agree with' or something along that vein.

We already know that Obama's not bound by such decorum or solid leadership principals, as shown in how he criticized SCOTUS for the Citizens United v. FEC decision in the middle of SOTU address no less. Very poor form, if you ask me.

I can think of no harsher SCOTUS criticism that Obama delivered about SCOTUS, and yes, this was during a SOTU.

Because you've been shown that all these other presidents have done so before him so we have to now make it about the venue, jump from the op to some other event. This is about Obama criticizing the SCOTUS ruling that you agree with, ha fancy that. Just like Bush did. Really, presidents have every right to do this, you should stop fretting over it.

No, venue, decorum and leadership were all part of it from the beginning, and consistent from the onset. And I think think that a SOTU address isn't the time for any president to criticize SCOTUS or the other party either for that matter. It's not really the purpose of a SOTU, berate those with whom you disagree, now is it?
 
Steady there big fella.

You must have missed this earlier post of mine.



I can think of no harsher SCOTUS criticism that Obama delivered about SCOTUS, and yes, this was during a SOTU.



No, venue, decorum and leadership were all part of it from the beginning, and consistent from the onset. And I think think that a SOTU address isn't the time for any president to criticize SCOTUS or the other party either for that matter. It's not really the purpose of a SOTU, berate those with whom you disagree, now is it?

Will you please show me where a state of the union address has anything to do with the op, and the thread you're posting in?
 
Back
Top Bottom