Jump to content

Usa Thread


TroyinEwa/Perv
 Share

Recommended Posts

A child the age of 2 has no requirement at all to buy car insurance from anyone.

 

A child the age of two has a legal requirement to buy health insurance from a private company.

If a child aged 2 owned a car, then he would have to buy insurance...this isn't hard.

 

Hey, I don't like it too much either. I'm all for Medicare for Everyone, not this shit. But this is what y'all righties wanted, until now when you don't.

 

So instead of bitching, what is your proposal? Get care in the emergency room ala the GOP party line? That's so irresponsible, and is the absolute WORST way to use a finite and expensive resource, resulting in higher prices and less access for those who can pay. You are proposing that we the people take care of all the welfare cases out there instead of having them be responsible and getting insurance. Weird ass shit this is, GOPers *in favour* of welfare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LK...don't get your panties in a twist. As soon as the U.S. Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare, the GOP will be offering a better law. It will undoubedly be one not cobbled together in the same secretive, corrupt fashion that the Demo's threw it's together (killing entire forests to produce God only knows how many copies 2500 pages long). And, as a bonus, you won't have to watch and listen to that lying cunt Pelosi feed you shit about how great it is. :content: )

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP has nothing to offer. They have been asked for input for going on four years now. And, well....

 

If the SCOTUS invalidates the law, it will be a travesty as big as the stealing of the election in 2000. Of course, since we are ignoring the obvious politicization of the SCOTUS (Alito & Thomas going to Koch-fest, Thomas' wife getting paid by the TeaParty and him not disclosing it, etc,) with no resulting punishment, nothing would surprise me.

 

Hell, the USA's experiment with democracy ended with the CU ruling anyway. It is just smoke & mirrors now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That old Roman SCOTUS has ALWAYS been politicised. Never heard of the Dred Scott Decision?

 

------------------------------

 

News alert: Supreme Court decisions are inherently political

 

 

 

Did you watch the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on the nomination of Elena Kagan to be the newest Supreme Court justice? If you did, you may well have experienced déjà vu.

 

About the only thing that changes in these hearing is the nominee. The questions are all eerily familiar, as are most of the faces on the committee, which do not change a lot. Senators ask lots of probing questions that the nominee will tend to dodge. Most of them will be about controversial issues like gun control and abortion. The president’s party will generally throw softballs and be effusive with their praise for the nominee. The nominee will dodge most questions saying of course they cannot say how they will rule on hypothetical future cases. They will say that they will weigh the issues that come before them fair and impartially. Then, the Senators will generally vote the way their party leaders want them to vote because they are not jurists, they are politicians. This time around, since every Republican senator is scared that a vote for Kagan will inflame the Tea Party, only one or two Republicans will be brave enough to break ranks. The only real question is whether there is something about the nominee controversial enough for the opposition to attempt a filibuster.

 

The president and his staff are painfully aware of all this, which is why finding the right nominee is important. Diane Wood, for example, was probably crossed off because she was just a tad too liberal to escape a Republican filibuster. Kagan though was unusual because she had never been a judge. Her lack of a record was something of an asset. Senators were left to fume about minor actions she took while dean of the Harvard Law School. With Democrats in the majority and little in Kagan’s record to get bent out of shape over, Kagan seems likely to be confirmed by the Senate in about a month. But that’s okay. Obama was replacing a liberal justice with another liberal justice. Overall, the balance of power on the court was unlikely to change, with conservatives on the court tending to win most decisions. Expect a real brouhaha if a conservative justice retires and we have a liberal president, or visa versa.

 

What really annoys me is the elaborate pretense from both senators and the nominee that they will be impartial. What else is the nominee going to say, really? If a nominee were honest, they would admit that virtually all of the Supreme Court’s decisions are political. Senators claim they want impartiality when it is clear they really want a judge that will rule in a partisan matter aligned with their political ideology. When Chief Justice Roberts underwent his confirmation hearings, he went so far as to say that he saw the role of the justice to look at the law and the particulars of the case and then rule whether the case amounted to a ball or a strike. He seemed to be implying that any case could be rendered as either black or white.

 

As if it is ever that simple at the level of cases the Supreme Court deals with. If a case were easy to decide, it would not have gone through district and appellate courts first, nor would the Supreme Court have bothered to even hear the case. Any case the court agrees to take is going to be inherently squishy and political in nature. While everyone seems to understand this truth, no one will acknowledge it.

 

The reason you know I speak the truth is that everyone is deeply concerned about the nominee’s record of dealing with controversial or squishy cases. Why? Because these cases help disclose their tendency to apply their political ideology to actual cases. In Kagan’s case, along with many other nominees, their political ideology is hardly a secret. No president is going to nominate someone they think will be at odds with their ideology. Sometimes they don’t get the nominee they expected. Both recently retired justices Stevens and Souter were nominated by Republican presidents, but turned more liberal as they aged. Subsequent nominees have been much more ideological, as presidents worked hard to make sure their ideology rippled through the court long after their terms expired.

 

The result is a court that now renders a lot of near split decisions, generally on the most controversial political cases. Particularly with controversial cases, it’s not hard to figure out how justices will rule. While the rationale will differ, they will generally line up along their political ideology. Justice Kennedy is usually the only swing vote, and lately he has been trending more conservative. He may be the only impartial justice on the court.

 

Of course, justices will be influenced at least to some extent based on their feelings and the way they were raised. When there is ambiguity and you have to make a decision, where else will you turn? At the Supreme Court’s level, where cases are inherently squishy, of course those factors are going to weigh more heavily than they will at a state or county court. In the lower courts, the judge is often required to interpret the law a certain way. At the level of the Supreme Court, as much as some on the court would say otherwise, they make the law by deciding the case.

 

The Second Amendment, for example, was genuinely ambiguous. Did it mean that everyone has a right to own a gun, or did it mean that people had the right to own a gun only because they might need to help support a militia someday? The Supreme Court in a number of recent rulings seems to be saying that the part of the amendment dealing with militias is interesting background history but irrelevant. Everyone has the right to own a gun. The court parsed the arguments and history of the Second Amendment and there was evidence of original intent in both directions. The court, based on its ideological leanings, made the political decision to interpret the amendment (yes) liberally. It could have said it was so ambiguous that Congress needed to pass a clarifying law. It did not.

 

[color:red]Often the Supreme Court will, by the narrowest of margins, overturn a ruling by an appeals court that was also decided on the narrowest of margins. That so many different “impartial†judges can see these murky cases in so many different ways and come to so many different conclusions just goes to prove that Robert’s “balls and strikes†argument is hollow.[/color]

 

[color:red]Everyone understands the reality, which is why the president is so careful not just with Supreme Court picks but also with picks for district and appellate courts. The more judges he can get confirmed that align with his ideology, the better the odds are that over time these jurists will issue rulings that also align with his ideology. This is also why senators, through the use of dubious tactics like secret holds, try to bottle up nominees for lower court judges that are the least bit controversial.[/color]

 

[color:red]At the federal level, all but the lowest courts decide cases that are inherently political. That’s the way it has been since the birth of our republic and the way it will be while our country exists.

 

It would be nice if we would stop pretending it is otherwise.

[/color]

 

 

Link

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dred Scott, very political. And caused a a huge change in the SCOTUS that lasted 100 years.

 

We are now more political than ever, without even so much as an attempt to pretend otherwise. Stuff that got a justice thrown off the court 40 years ago is now OK.

 

So I disagree with the thrust of that opinion article, saying it was always this bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP has nothing to offer. They have been asked for input for going on four years now. And, well....

 

If the SCOTUS invalidates the law, it will be a travesty as big as the stealing of the election in 2000. Of course, since we are ignoring the obvious politicization of the SCOTUS (Alito & Thomas going to Koch-fest, Thomas' wife getting paid by the TeaParty and him not disclosing it, etc,) with no resulting punishment, nothing would surprise me.

 

Hell, the USA's experiment with democracy ended with the CU ruling anyway. It is just smoke & mirrors now.

 

 

 

I heard something today on the radio that "Obama care" was basically the same plan Dole or some repuke came up with years back...wonder if it was socialist then..?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The GOP has nothing to offer. They have been asked for input for going on four years now. And, well....

 

If the SCOTUS invalidates the law, it will be a travesty as big as the stealing of the election in 2000. Of course, since we are ignoring the obvious politicization of the SCOTUS (Alito & Thomas going to Koch-fest, Thomas' wife getting paid by the TeaParty and him not disclosing it, etc,) with no resulting punishment, nothing would surprise me.

 

Hell, the USA's experiment with democracy ended with the CU ruling anyway. It is just smoke & mirrors now.

 

WHEN the Supreme Court invalidates Obamacare, it will demonstrate that the framers of the Constition brilliantly provided for checks and balances and that the system does occasionally work the way it was designed. The decision WILL draw a line in the sand and say that the Legislative and Executive branches can not dictate to individuals and states whatever they think they like.

 

LK, you keep saying the GOP didn't propose any plan for four years. That's a blatant falsehood. Further, as the process was hurried along, they were decidedly locked out of meetings in which the plan was put together. In the meantime, Pelosi et. al. were promising all sorts of special deals with members of their own party as they were needed to get enough votes from within. Even in face of polls which showed the majority of the public was against their legislation, the Demoncraps rammed it down our throats. 12 weeks ago, the public decisvely let them know what they thought about the plan and how it was concocted. And as the plan makes it way through the courts, Obamacare will have a wooden stake driven into it's heart. :up::up::up: Now stop your whimpering and live with it. I don't know why you really give a shit. You've stated that you don't plan to return to the U.S. Doesn't pertain to you. :content:

 

HH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does he have a problem with states requiring us to buy car insurance? There are a ton of things we have to buy as mandated by the government that would meet the same test as health insurance.

 

 

Actually next to nothing does. As to your example' date=' you have to own or drive a car to "have" to have ins., so there are millions of people that are exempt from it.

 

[b']With the new health care law.... you just have to be alive to have to buy insurance.[/b]

Exactly the same thing. If you have a car, you must buy insurance.

 

If you get sick, then you must buy insurance. Don't want to? Then prove to me you are not even going to get sick. No, your word is not good enough.

 

If we had the public option like most of us wanted, we would not be having this discussion. But the righties didn't like that, and wrote this mess instead (reference Heritage, Bob Dole, 1994) which the Dems picked up complete to pacify the GOP.

 

And there is precedent too: waaaayyyy back in 1798!

 

 

 

 

Excellent, and an interesting read. Seems even way back then the founders and others saw a need to have healthy citizens covered by a mandated tax and health coverage to have a healthy economy and a tax which made it possible to care for these citizens who for whatever reason became ill or injured in that job. Thanks for that link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...