Politics Ever since Trump became president...

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Denny Crane said:
He was on the side of unconstitutional all along, but at the last moment decided that the Court shouldn't decide.
Click to expand...

Yeah, sure. At the last moment, the chief justice decided that the Supreme Court shouldn't fulfill its main role--to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

Anyway, everyone knows that the decision ruled the mandate constitutional because it was a tax and the federal government has the power to tax. I just wondered how much you planned to embarrass yourself. Getting to the point where you're arguing that the chief justice of the Supreme Court doesn't care about constitutionality in cases he judges is probably as far as its possible to push you into silliness.
 
Minstrel said:
Supreme Court doesn't care about constitutionality in cases he judges is probably as far as its possible to push you into silliness.
Click to expand...

What? He doesn't care! Actually he was quite benevolent, the Legislation as passed, said "penalty", not Tax. They changed it to make it legal in the view of the court. But is that legal?
It would not have passed another vote in Congress with the word Tax.

It is an interesting concept, taxing a citizen for what he does not do but yet it is not a direct tax that only the citizen pays for not directly doing something.

Does anyone here thing with a straight face, no curl of the lip, that this is following the spirit of the Constitution?

Original Intent?
 
Minstrel said:
Yeah, sure. At the last moment, the chief justice decided that the Supreme Court shouldn't fulfill its main role--to rule on the constitutionality of laws.

Anyway, everyone knows that the decision ruled the mandate constitutional because it was a tax and the federal government has the power to tax. I just wondered how much you planned to embarrass yourself. Getting to the point where you're arguing that the chief justice of the Supreme Court doesn't care about constitutionality in cases he judges is probably as far as its possible to push you into silliness.
Click to expand...

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapo...anged-his-obamacare-vote-in-may/#1b43147ed701

The Inside Story on How Roberts Changed His Supreme Court Vote on Obamacare

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame...

On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the Court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.




 
To be clear, what I was ridiculing about your position, Denny, was that Roberts didn't care about constitutionality (considering that's the primary concern of the Supreme Court). Not that he changed his mind in the end.
 
Minstrel said:
To be clear, what I was ridiculing about your position, Denny, was that Roberts didn't care about constitutionality (considering that's the primary concern of the Supreme Court). Not that he changed his mind in the end.
Click to expand...

He didn't put the constitutionality question first.

If he did, there would have been no ObamaCare (mandate falls, the rest of the law is toast).

You were caught making a claim that simply isn't true. You've seen the facts. Feel free to try to weasel out of your position.
 
Can anyone name a tax you pay, anyone pays, for not doing something? A tax you owe for doing no more than breathing?
 
It's not really a tax but debit card fees are fees for customers to pay for your cost of doing your business....if you don't have the cash...less than 6 dollar purchase carries a 35 cent fee for nothing but breathing....my view...build the fee into your retail price to begin with and I won't have to hear a cashier explain to me why it costs me money to spend money at their establishment
 
Denny Crane said:
If he did, there would have been no ObamaCare (mandate falls, the rest of the law is toast).
Click to expand...

He ruled that the mandate was constitutional because it was a tax (even your fellow conservative Republican MarAzul admits that that was Roberts' ruling). I'm not sure how that equates to "he didn't judge the constitutionality." Supreme Court justices always place constitutionality first, if there's a constitutional challenge.
 
Minstrel said:
He ruled that the mandate was constitutional because it was a tax (even your fellow conservative Republican MarAzul admits that that was Roberts' ruling). I'm not sure how that equates to "he didn't judge the constitutionality." Supreme Court justices always place constitutionality first, if there's a constitutional challenge.
Click to expand...

He ruled what he had to, to allow the Court to not interfere with congress making law.

"Elections have consequences," not "we heartily support this law as constitutional, bring on more!"
 
Denny Crane said:
He ruled what he had to
Click to expand...

Exactly. Politically, he didn't like the law, but he had to rule in favor of upholding the ACA because he had to stick to the Constitution. Glad we agree.

Elections have consequences, courts can't invalidate constitutional laws.
 
Minstrel said:
Exactly. Politically, he didn't like the law, but he had to rule in favor of upholding the ACA because he had to stick to the Constitution. Glad we agree.

Elections have consequences, courts can't invalidate constitutional laws.
Click to expand...

LOL

You're just wrong. We can agree to agree on that.
 
Denny Crane said:
You're just wrong.
Click to expand...

Coming from a guy who thinks the Supreme Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of cases, it's a positive endorsement for me that you think I'm wrong. :)
 
As a former Scout and Scoutmaster, I'm a little torn on his Jamboree speech.

On one hand, yes, he should have just stuck with talking about the Boy Scout Motto and By-Laws, and how they have evolved over the years, and how boys can use those ideals and merits as guides to becoming a responsible adult.

On the other hand, it's like some people have said: exposing boys to the realities of politics is a part of life, and a part of growing up. This isn't 1910 anymore. And if you think Trump's speech was bad, how do you think it was during WWII, Korea, and Vietnam? (Or any other controversial time in the past 107 years). You wanna tell me there wasn't some speech using propaganda, politics, and hyper-patriotism during war-time at Jamborees past? I find that very hard to believe.
 
riverman said:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...r-scouts/ar-AAoPxWe?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp
His speech to the Boy Scouts of America was totally classless and devoid of inspiration to young americans....read this and tell me how it makes America great again......Trump only knows how to stir shit and point fingers at those who see him as unpopular...beyond that he has NO AGENDA!!!!
Click to expand...

He hijacked it. Said he wasn't goung to speak about politics. Those were boys, not voters. How low can you go.
 
Chris Craig said:
He hijacked it. Said he wasn't goung to speak about politics. Those were boys, not voters. How low can you go.
Click to expand...

Come on. Let's not pretend like Hillary wouldn't have had her own agenda if she was up there as President. Do you honestly expect me to believe that she wouldn't have brought up feminism and gay rights?

Again, I stick by what I said in the first part of my last post: he should have stuck with just talking about the Scout Way and how it pertains to becoming an adult. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that the other candidate, who ran her campaign on feminism, gun control, and ultra-liberal views, wouldn't have had her own way of saying things if she were up there.

I'm not trying to deflect. I'm simply encouraging folks here to keep things in perspective, that's all.
 
Jade Falcon said:
Come on. Let's not pretend like Hillary wouldn't have had her own agenda if she was up there as President. Do you honestly expect me to believe that she wouldn't have brought up feminism and gay rights?

Again, I stick by what I said in the first part of my last post: he should have stuck with just talking about the Scout Way and how it pertains to becoming an adult. But let's not fool ourselves into believing that the other candidate, who ran her campaign on feminism, gun control, and ultra-liberal views, wouldn't have had her own way of saying things if she were up there.

I'm not trying to deflect. I'm simply encouraging folks here to keep things in perspective, that's all.
Click to expand...

If Clinton had won and had done that I would have been equally appalled. But, she didn't win and we aren't talking about her. We are talking about Trump and his actions. I don't care for the "its ok because the other party would have done it excuse". Its wrong regardless.
 
Minstrel said:
Coming from a guy who thinks the Supreme Court doesn't rule on the constitutionality of cases, it's a positive endorsement for me that you think I'm wrong. :)
Click to expand...

Let's agree that you might have learned something about how the Court actually works. These days, anyhow.
 
riverman said:
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/tr...r-scouts/ar-AAoPxWe?li=AA4ZnC&ocid=spartanntp
His speech to the Boy Scouts of America was totally classless and devoid of inspiration to young americans....read this and tell me how it makes America great again......Trump only knows how to stir shit and point fingers at those who see him as unpopular...beyond that he has NO AGENDA!!!!
Click to expand...
And they stood and cheered for him and what he said, the whole time.

What a sick bastard! He told the kids to find something they love and make money at it, or else work really becomes work.

CNN showed almost the whole thing.
 
Denny Crane said:
Let's agree that you might have learned something about how the Court actually works. These days, anyhow.
Click to expand...

Oh, certainly, I learned a lot about how the Court actually works--in class and from seeing the SCOTUS operate for many years. You might try both school and paying attention, then you might also learn this stuff, rather than rely on me. :)
 
Minstrel said:
Oh, certainly, I learned a lot about how the Court actually works--in class and from seeing the SCOTUS operate for many years. You might try both school and paying attention, then you might also learn this stuff, rather than rely on me. :)
Click to expand...
It wasn't you that remembered how Roberts changed his mind near the end. You missed that in school.

SCOTUS is an appeals court, not a legislative body.

One of us knows what that means. It's not you ;)
 
Denny Crane said:
And they stood and cheered for him and what he said, the whole time.
Click to expand...
Read the backlash from the Boy Scouts and the parents and Scout Masters after the speech and get back to me....this was like most things...a speech about him and how unfairly America is to him...then go make money kids.....be like me...sure
 
riverman said:
Read the backlash from the Boy Scouts and the parents and Scout Masters after the speech and get back to me....this was like most things...a speech about him and how unfairly America is to him...then go make money kids.....be like me...sure
Click to expand...

You mean there are sore losers who have kids who are boy scouts?

The video does not lie.
 
Minstrel said:
Oh, certainly, I learned a lot about how the Court actually works--in class and from seeing the SCOTUS operate for many years. You might try both school and paying attention, then you might also learn this stuff, rather than rely on me. :)
Click to expand...

Just think how much more clear the court will be, with one more appointment.
:tongue:
 
MarAzul said:
Just think how much more clear the court will be, with one more appointment.
:tongue:
Click to expand...

Scalia was on the court when they judged Obamacare to be constitutional. Sorry, man, that's not the crushing blow you seem to think it is.
 
Denny Crane said:
It wasn't you that remembered how Roberts changed his mind near the end. You missed that in school.
Click to expand...

Neither of us remembered or forgot it. You chose to post a news article about that to prove that Roberts doesn't consider the Court's role to judge constitutionality.

But what I like about you is that you're proud of how you humiliated yourself!
 
Minstrel said:
Scalia was on the court when they judged Obamacare to be constitutional. Sorry, man, that's not the crushing blow you seem to think it is.
Click to expand...

Yes he was. But not together with Gorsuch to help Roberts with backbone. One more and we have Clarity & Courage.
 
MarAzul said:
Yes he was. But not together with Gorsuch to help Roberts with backbone.
Click to expand...

....you do know Scalia died, right? You still don't have him together with Gorsuch. The Court today is basically identical to the Court that judged the ACA to be constitutional.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top