Supreme Court decides 6-3 ACA subsidies are legal

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i think the one slate article i posted gave the legal reasoning for them doing what they did....not sure it's an opinion piece. maybe it is.

Yes, it is.

[Danzig]

http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57647

here's this, regarding cruz


and something else he said:

"The court's views are radically out of step with public opinion," said Cruz. "The Supreme Court follows the opinions of Manhattan and Washington D.C., but it doesn't follow the opinions of America."

ted, same sex marriage was already legal in 37 states in this country. the majority of americans and the majority of states agree there should be same sex marriage. unlike you, ted, they understand what 'equal' means.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/ted-cruz-...and-lesbians-0

what these folks need to understand is their religious right isn't a greater right than another persons right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.


“Ours is a country that was built by men and women fleeing religious oppression,” Cruz told the newspaper, “and you look at the foundation of this country — it was to seek out a new land where anyone of us could worship the Lord God Almighty with all of our hearts, minds and souls, without government getting in the way.”

so, gay people wanting to be married are to be made to deal with religious oppression?! amazing thought process, ted.

[OldDog]

The topic I referenced was when supposedly Republicans "tried to make this (the South Carolina shooting) about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims."

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, i'm talking about the politicians who tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims.
[/url]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7616378.html

please consider the amount of stupid in the comments above when you enter the voting booth.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

The topic I referenced was when supposedly Republicans "tried to make this (the South Carolina shooting) about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims."

well, they did.
pols, pundits, using that attack at the church as a symbol of some crusade against religion, instead of the race of the victims. one even said something about not rushing into judgement til we got all the facts, when they already knew what the shooter had said.

it's my opinion they said stupid things. that might not be your opinion. no big deal

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, they did.
pols, pundits, using that attack at the church as a symbol of some crusade against religion, instead of the race of the victims. one even said something about not rushing into judgement til we got all the facts, when they already knew what the shooter had said.

it's my opinion they said stupid things. that might not be your opinion. no big deal

Where?

You're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. You referenced a link. Nowhere did they say that it had nothing due to race. Wishing it to be so, that you might make political hay of it, does not make it so.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Where?

You're entitled to your opinion, but not your facts. You referenced a link. Nowhere did they say that it had nothing due to race. Wishing it to be so, that you might make political hay of it, does not make it so.

oh, i'm soooo sorry that i encapsulated my anger at some peoples comments in the bottom of a post about that article with the stupid comments. next time i'll post a half dozen links to articles that i've read covering the subject.





hows this:

Fox & Friends guest Reverend E. W. Jackson, a failed former candidate for Virginia Lt. Governor and an African-American defender of segregation, was quick to dismiss the significance of race. Instead, he blamed the shooting on a war against Christianity. Jackson stated:


There does seem to be a rising hostility against Christians in this country because of our biblical views…Most people jump to conclusions about race. I long for the day when we stop doing that in our country. But we don’t know why he went into a church, but he didn’t choose a bar, he didn’t choose a basketball court, he chose a church, and we need to be looking at that very closely.


Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum also labeled the shooting as an assault on religious liberty, not a racially-motivated assault on people of color. Santorum stated:


This is one of those situations where you just have to take a step back and say we — you know, you talk about the importance of prayer in this time and we’re now seeing assaults on our religious liberty we’ve never seen before.

“We have no idea what’s in his mind. Maybe he hates Christian churches,” former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani said in reference to the white shooter.

South Carolina Senator and presidential candidate Lindsey Graham pointed out that it’s Christians who are the serial killer flavor of the month

while anchor Steve Doocy wondered aloud how people could “unbelievably” “call it a hate crime.”

Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said on Friday that "I don't know what was on the mind or the heart of the man who committed these atrocious crimes."

I just asked Jeb if the shooting was racially motivated. He said "I don't know"

"There are real people who are organized out there to kill people in religion and based on race, this guy's just whacked out," he said. "But it's 2015. There are people out there looking for Christians to kill them."


i will try to do better in future of limiting my comments only to linked articles in a particular post...i'll keep in mind that having a broader conversation is too difficult without posting links to support every sentence i write.
.
if you ever actually want to discuss the actual topic, old dog, you just let me know.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7616378.html

please consider the amount of stupid in the comments above when you enter the voting booth.

I went back and looked ,and this was my post about that article. I said there was an amount of stupid in that article....nothing in what I said there about religion.
You, old dog, mentioned the headline. I didn't write that, take it up with Huffington. Christ.

[Danzig]

As for the aca and the court:


"T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]"

[Danzig]

It is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret that rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the courts must decide on the operation of each.


Thats from marbury vs madison

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

The Supreme Court's bad call on Affordable Care Act
"In King vs. Burwell, the Supreme Court ruled that the Affordable Care Act permits individuals who purchase insurance on the federal exchange to receive taxpayer subsidies. Though the King decision pleases the ACA’s ardent supporters, it undermines the rule of law, particularly the Constitution’s separation of powers..."
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...629-story.html

The problem with this OpEd piece is pretty well summed up in comments left after it. I'll just quote them:

"What's NOT mentioned in the opinion piece is that David Rifkin was hired by House Republicans less than a year ago (August 25, 2014), to provide the House with legal representation to sue President Obama over the Affordable Care Act. I wonder if he is billing the U.S. taxpayers for his time spent writing this article . . . ?"

And:
"What undermines the authors argument, is that in this case we know the intent of the legislators, who for the most part are alive and available. This intent is not an unknown or an issue for historical speculation."

The intent of the legislation is quite clear; the three Justices who dissented are just shouting Moops.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

I went back and looked ,and this was my post about that article. I said there was an amount of stupid in that article....nothing in what I said there about religion.
You, old dog, mentioned the headline. I didn't write that, take it up with Huffington. Christ.

Ha ha ha, oh, please stop!

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/0...n_7616378.html

please consider the amount of stupid in the comments above when you enter the voting booth.

Originally Posted by OldDog

You mean the comments posted by the readers at the bottom, right? Because the comments of "These Republicans" nowhere deny racism's role as the headline implies. They do express a desire for the process to work and call roof evil, twisted and depraved.

As opposed to the President's rush to judgement with regard to gun laws.

Originally Posted by Danzig

no, i'm talking about the politicians who tried to make this about an attack on religion, instead of what it was, an attack based purely on the race of the victims.

Originally Posted by OldDog

Interesting. And the one who said that it had nothing to do with race was...?

Originally Posted by Danzig

And then you changed the subject.
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57039
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally Posted by Danzig

i will try to do better in future of limiting my comments only to linked articles in a particular post...i'll keep in mind that having a broader conversation is too difficult without posting links to support every sentence i write.

So, a lot of people, asked in the dawn of the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, of which they did not know all the facts, speculated that a shooting at a church might have something to do with religion. Later, when it was reported with reliable sources that the shooter's motivation was to shoot blacks, everyone knew what sort of evil had reared its head. But of course you would have immediately known because of your sage, prescient nature, and of course with a lot of help from the media who never hesitate to jump to conclusions, which this time happened to be correct.

I'm not here to dissect your every phrase, but when you say something and then deny having said it, do you really think no one will notice? It's not like you're the President.

Originally Posted by Danzig

if you ever actually want to discuss the actual topic, old dog, you just let me know.

This is rich.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by Danzig

As for the aca and the court:


"T]he courts were designed to be an intermediate body between the people and the legislature, in order, among other things, to keep the latter within the limits assigned to their authority. The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges as, a fundamental law. It, therefore, belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents.[17]"

I'm glad you're familiar with the Federalist Papers. What you've cited continues

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .

[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . .

[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

Federalist No. 78 therefore indicates that the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether statutes are constitutional, and to find them invalid if in conflict with the Constitution, not to alter the words "by the States" to be interpreted as "by the States or the Federal government" in order to make the statute constitutional.

[OldDog]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

The problem with this OpEd piece is pretty well summed up in comments left after it. I'll just quote them:

"What's NOT mentioned in the opinion piece is that David Rifkin was hired by House Republicans less than a year ago (August 25, 2014), to provide the House with legal representation to sue President Obama over the Affordable Care Act. I wonder if he is billing the U.S. taxpayers for his time spent writing this article . . . ?"

And:
"What undermines the authors argument, is that in this case we know the intent of the legislators, who for the most part are alive and available. This intent is not an unknown or an issue for historical speculation."

The intent of the legislation is quite clear; the three Justices who dissented are just shouting Moops.

Well, USA Today is no Slate, that's true.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

I'm glad you're familiar with the Federalist Papers. What you've cited continues

"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body. If there should happen to be an irreconcilable variance between the two, that which has the superior obligation and validity ought, of course, to be preferred; or, in other words, the Constitution ought to be preferred to the statute, the intention of the people to the intention of their agents. . . .

[W]here the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental. . . .

[W]henever a particular statute contravenes the Constitution, it will be the duty of the judicial tribunals to adhere to the latter and disregard the former."

Federalist No. 78 therefore indicates that the federal judiciary has the power to determine whether statutes are constitutional, and to find them invalid if in conflict with the Constitution, not to alter the words "by the States" to be interpreted as "by the States or the Federal government" in order to make the statute constitutional.

so, altho the legislature meant for the people to get subsidies by going thru an exchange, they didn't really mean that? they voted on and passed it, but they didn't want what was in the law to be the law? seriously?

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Ha ha ha, oh, please stop!











And then you changed the subject.
http://www.derbytrail.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57039
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



So, a lot of people, asked in the dawn of the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, of which they did not know all the facts, speculated that a shooting at a church might have something to do with religion. Later, when it was reported with reliable sources that the shooter's motivation was to shoot blacks, everyone knew what sort of evil had reared its head. But of course you would have immediately known because of your sage, prescient nature, and of course with a lot of help from the media who never hesitate to jump to conclusions, which this time happened to be correct.

I'm not here to dissect your every phrase, but when you say something and then deny having said it, do you really think no one will notice? It's not like you're the President.



This is rich.

everyone knew other than haley when she first spoke, when the subject was broached to them, that the shooter had said what he said.
you'll note that the article says about haley, something along the lines of she 'can be forgiven because it was so soon after'.

that's why it was notable, their comments-because everyone already knew what he'd said.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

Well, USA Today is no Slate, that's true.

It was actually comments posted on the LATimes- or whatever the direct link you posted was from. (See? I really do read links people post. With the possible exception of TownHall and RedState because you gotta draw a line somewhere).

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by OldDog

So, a lot of people, asked in the dawn of the immediate aftermath of a horrific event, of which they did not know all the facts, speculated that a shooting at a church might have something to do with religion. Later, when it was reported with reliable sources that the shooter's motivation was to shoot blacks, everyone knew what sort of evil had reared its head. But of course you would have immediately known because of your sage, prescient nature, and of course with a lot of help from the media who never hesitate to jump to conclusions, which this time happened to be correct.

I would actually assume Danzig was drawing on the long history of American whites attacking black churches via shootings, arson, and vandalism as a means of terrorizing and subjugating African Americans, as opposed to the very sparse history of Americans shooting Christians in church, or vandalizing Christian churches or torching them due to issues with the Christian religion. This has nothing to do with her being prescient, and everything to do with her having a solid knowledge of American history.

[Danzig]

and now there have been several arsons in the last few days of black churches in tennesse and north carolina, and a fire at a church in south carolina is being investigated.

http://www.npr.org/2015/06/29/418490...outhern-states

[Danzig]

another fire, at an SC church that suffered a previous arson by members of the kkk.
it's under investigation, they aren't sure yet what caused it.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/emergency...arolina-church

[OldDog]

bsnbc selectively quotes the Post & Courier -- color me shocked.

http://www.postandcourier.com/articl...PC16/150709967

"Why isn't this the lead story?"

Just a guess, but perhaps because it wasn't arson?

These network participants are either willingly duplicitous race baiters pandering to morons, or morons themselves.