Judge clears the way for appeal of ruling against health law

[trouble13]

Your state legislature cannot FORCE you to get a driver's licence, and you do not HAVE TO have a driver's licence in order to drive a car. BUT your state legislature CAN penalize you if you drive a car without having a driver's licence.

I hear this analogy a lot and let me explain to you why I find it flawed and then you can tell me why its not.

Owning a care os optional. Operating a vertical on public funded roads is optional. You choose yo do those things and in doing so you agree to certain rules.

Having your body is not an option. They are regulating something your born with.

Also let me throw something else at you from a different perspective. Replace health insurance with firearms. Do you see any legal problem with the government passing a law mandating you own certain types of gun or pay a fine? They are not forcing you to buy a gun but if you chose not to own one they will charge you for that privilege than to add insult to injury they will use that collected revenue yo subsidize a poor persons gun.

In a nutshell that's the basic jist of my problem with the mandate

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[MTAtech]

It is unconstitutional but that does not matter to Roberts? Or does it now?

Let me get this. You are trying to tell us that your understanding of constitutional law is superior to that of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, who disagrees with your opinion?

Now, you didn't even give your reasoning for your opinion.

 

[MTAtech]

...

Also let me throw something else at you from a different perspective. Replace health insurance with firearms. Do you see any legal problem with the government passing a law mandating you own certain types of gun or pay a fine? They are not forcing you to buy a gun but if you chose not to own one they will charge you for that privilege than to add insult to injury they will use that collected revenue yo subsidize a poor persons gun.

In a nutshell that's the basic jist of my problem with the mandate

That would be legal, though unwise, presuming it meets the rational basis test.

 

[trouble13]

That would be legal, though unwise, presuming it meets the rational basis test.

We are not debating if it's a good idea or not, for the purpose of this exercise the only question is if it is legal.

I disagree but I do also concede that the majority of that bench agreed with you 5-4.

Let me ask you, does given the government that much authority concern you at all?

I used guns as s counter example as a trigger not to bait anyone but to contrast the same principle being applied on opposite political extremes.

You said you would not advise it. My question is why? If it's ok for health insurance why isnt it ok for self defense?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[MTAtech]

We are not debating if it's a good idea or not, for the purpose of this exercise the only question is if it is legal.

I disagree but I do also concede that the majority of that bench agreed with you 5-4.

Let me ask you, does given the government that much authority concern you at all?

I used guns as s counter example as a trigger not to bait anyone but to contrast the same principle being applied on opposite political extremes.

You said you would not advise it. My question is why? If it's ok for health insurance why isnt it ok for self defense?

Not at all. It's the same authority the government always had -- this is the government that can order someone into the armed forces, against their will, and have them risk their life in war.


Because I don't think it's a good idea. Ultimately, more people will be killed, IMO. But it would be legal to do so.

 

[trouble13]

Not at all. It's the same authority the government always had -- this is the government that can order someone into the armed forces, against their will, and have them risk their life in war.


Because I don't think it's a good idea. Ultimately, more people will be killed, IMO. But it would be legal to do so.

The draft is an interesting argument. I'm going to need to give that some thought. I think I know where I fall on it but it's an argument I have not encountered and want to think it through before going further.

Your 2nd part is a more argument. I could argue that I think forced healthcare kills more than it saves and I can fo it credibly.

I can also argue that guns save more lives then take them.

Thing is you can also counter my arguments with your own. It's just opinions. We should never let opinion supersede principles

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

What is kryptonite (your word) is the judge ruled that it is unconstitutional. The scotus will need to overturn his ruling.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

And they will. Because his ruling violates the precedent they already set.

Congress does not have the authority to force anyone to buy anything against their will

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Nobody is being forced to buy anything against their will. I take it you have abandoned the absurd idea that the entire bill rests on the taxation powers?

 

[Deuce]

This will go to the 5th circuit depending on how they rule it might go to the SCOTUS.

His law clerks didn't do anything he just knows it will go to a higher court and doesn't want to stop the ACA until the legation is complete. My guess is if it goes to the SCOTUS that the ACA is toast because Roberts ruled it was constitutional BECAUSE of the mandate which he ruled was tax. The Congress got rid of the mandate and that is why O'Connor ruled it unconstitutional.

It will be interesting to see which way the 5th rules. Keep in mind that O Connor is a solid jurist and his opinion is base on the law and not a partisan opinion. The ACA is in trouble.

For the thousandth time, ONLY THE MANDATE rested upon the taxation powers. The entire bill does not go up in smoke based on a dumb accounting trick like this.

 

[Deuce]

If the mandate isnt a tax then mandate is unconstitutional which is what the last judge ruled

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

This would only hypothetically overturn the mandate, not the entire bill.

However, the tax is still there. President Ocasio-Cortez could order it raised back to its previous level. If the tax is zero, then there isn't a mandate and therefore there isn't anything to overturn. There's no injured party, so nobody should have been granted standing to bring this suit in the first place. This is just blatant judicial activism.

 

[trouble13]

And they will. Because his ruling violates the precedent they already set.



Nobody is being forced to buy anything against their will. I take it you have abandoned the absurd idea that the entire bill rests on the taxation powers?

Omg dude are we even speaking the same language. How can you possibly mangle what I said as badly as you have?

His ruling did not violate anything. A legal question was raised and he made a ruling. Your ride lost this round. Suck it up buttercup.

Secondly I never said the entire bill rested on taxation powers. The constitutionality of the mandate does.

If the scotus overturns this judge, I'm interested in knowing why. There are far reaching consequences attached to this

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Deuce]

Do what?

Overturn, with immediate effect, a major federal law affecting a hundred million people that has previously been upheld by the supreme court.

 

[Deuce]

Omg dude are we even speaking the same language. How can you possibly mangle what I said as badly as you have?

His ruling did not violate anything. A legal question was raised and he made a ruling. Your ride lost this round. Suck it up buttercup.

Secondly I never said the entire bill rested on taxation powers. The constitutionality of the mandate does.

If the scotus overturns this judge, I'm interested in knowing why. There are far reaching consequences attached to this

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

You're....aware this judge ruled the entire bill overturned, yes?


You're also aware that, yes, actually, you did say that?

Robert's will need to explain how its constitutional if it's not a tax

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

What is “it”?

The law

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[Perotista]

This means that this is going to go all the way to SCOTUS, where Justice Roberts will cast the deciding vote that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

We are not a banana republic, folks, and my prediction is that we are not going to act like one.

https://apnews.com/0185bce004a948328c2405b7b17a9ccb

Being we all knew this is going to the SCOTUS, staying his ruling until all appeals are done with and the SCOTUS rules, makes perfect sense. What we can't have is the ACA going into and out of effect depending on different rulings as this thing makes it up to the highest court in the land.

 

[jet57]

This means that this is going to go all the way to SCOTUS, where Justice Roberts will cast the deciding vote that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional.

We are not a banana republic, folks, and my prediction is that we are not going to act like one.

https://apnews.com/0185bce004a948328c2405b7b17a9ccb

Still looking, but - it's unconstitutional - because?

 

[Deuce]

Still looking, but - it's unconstitutional - because?

Because Obama bad!!

 

[roughdraft274]

If the mandate isnt a tax then mandate is unconstitutional which is what the last judge ruled

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

The mandate is a tax.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

 

[MTAtech]

The draft is an interesting argument. I'm going to need to give that some thought. I think I know where I fall on it but it's an argument I have not encountered and want to think it through before going further.

Your 2nd part is a more argument. I could argue that I think forced healthcare kills more than it saves and I can fo it credibly.

I can also argue that guns save more lives then take them.

Thing is you can also counter my arguments with your own. It's just opinions. We should never let opinion supersede principles

This is the first discussion in which there is actual a back-and-forth where differing points of view are being evaluated/considered.

 

[jet57]

Because Obama bad!!

Great non answer. The veritable pith of conservative thinking.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

The only thing I said is he will need to explain it. It quite uncommon for a judge to write an opinion right?

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

Not only is it NOT uncommon for a judge to write an opinion, it is actually required that the judge give one when handing down their decision. Sometimes this is done orally, and sometimes this is done in writing (but read into the record).

Once the Judge has handed down his opinion, then the Judge has no need to "explain" it - since the "explanation" is included in the opinion.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

I hear this analogy a lot and let me explain to you why I find it flawed and then you can tell me why its not.

Owning a care os optional. Operating a vertical on public funded roads is optional. You choose yo do those things and in doing so you agree to certain rules.

Having your body is not an option. They are regulating something your born with.

Your analogy is also a good one.

What you appear to be doing is confusing an analogy with reality.

Also let me throw something else at you from a different perspective. Replace health insurance with firearms. Do you see any legal problem with the government passing a law mandating you own certain types of gun or pay a fine? They are not forcing you to buy a gun but if you chose not to own one they will charge you for that privilege than to add insult to injury they will use that collected revenue yo subsidize a poor persons gun.

There is absolutely no LEGAL (or even "constitutional") problem with the government requiring you to own a gun.

In fact, since every male between the age of 17 and 45 IS, AT LAW, a member of "The Militia", and since an unarmed militia is pretty useless, you might even consider that such a law is REQUIRED in order to make the 2nd Amendment function as the Founding Fathers has as their Original Intent.

In a nutshell that's the basic jist of my problem with the mandate

I quite understand "I don't like it." as a reason.

PS - Mite eye suggest thad ewe enstill eh gramma choker inn ewer mable fine?

 

[trouble13]

You're....aware this judge ruled the entire bill overturned, yes?


You're also aware that, yes, actually, you did say that?

Not sure what your not getting

In his ruling, Judge Reed O’Connor of the Federal District Court in Fort Worth said that the individual mandate requiring people to have health insurance “can no longer be sustained as an exercise of Congress’s tax power.”
Accordingly, Judge O’Connor, a George W. Bush appointee, said that “the individual mandate is unconstitutional” and the remaining provisions of the Affordable Care Act are invalid.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/14/health/obamacare-unconstitutional-texas-judge.html

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

The mandate is a tax.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G920A using Tapatalk

Not in the judges opinion

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Not only is it NOT uncommon for a judge to write an opinion, it is actually required that the judge give one when handing down their decision. Sometimes this is done orally, and sometimes this is done in writing (but read into the record).

Once the Judge has handed down his opinion, then the Judge has no need to "explain" it - since the "explanation" is included in the opinion.

Now the case is headed to the scotus where they will make a ruling and read their opinion into the record. Maybe I'm being presumptuous assuming its Robert's who will be the one who writes the courts opinion but considering the circumstances I dont think it's a huge leap to think that he will be the one.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

Your analogy is also a good one.

What you appear to be doing is confusing an analogy with reality.



There is absolutely no LEGAL (or even "constitutional") problem with the government requiring you to own a gun.

In fact, since every male between the age of 17 and 45 IS, AT LAW, a member of "The Militia", and since an unarmed militia is pretty useless, you might even consider that such a law is REQUIRED in order to make the 2nd Amendment function as the Founding Fathers has as their Original Intent.



I quite understand "I don't like it." as a reason.

PS - Mite eye suggest thad ewe enstill eh gramma choker inn ewer mable fine?

I appologize about all the typos I need to turn off auto spell it really butchers my posts and when I'm drinking it's even worse.

Btw I see your side of the argument too. I dont think your entirely wrong either, I like you just dont like it.

A concern I have with government being too involved in peoples health is it invites them to make laws that serve their best interests over peoples.

For example say the government determines that they can save mass amounts of money if caffeine were removed from our diet. What's to prevent them from making caffeine a controlled substance? If we do go down this road it will need to be done cautiously

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk

 

[ecofarm]

There is absolutely no LEGAL (or even "constitutional") problem with the government requiring you to own a gun.

In fact, since every male between the age of 17 and 45 IS, AT LAW, a member of "The Militia", and since an unarmed militia is pretty useless, you might even consider that such a law is REQUIRED in order to make the 2nd Amendment function as the Founding Fathers has as their Original Intent.



I quite understand "I don't like it." as a reason.

1. "Militia" in the 2nd does not refer to whom. We already know the Bill of Rights are individual rights. The purpose of the Bill is to protect free men from government tyranny.

"Militia" in the 2nd refers to what. The right to keep and bear arms. What arms? Well, the founders found a way to transcend time in their delineation between weapons of self defense (the realization of the natural right to self defense) and those of national defense (the realm of the State). Militia arms. Today, infantry arms. The 2nd deems these weapons of self defense and thereby the realization of the natural right to self defense.

Taking the 2nd in my view, your "required" argument falls flat.


2. Further, and this kills your argument no matter any debate about the intentions of the 2nd, all rights are a choice. One is not required to express oneself or defend oneself, nor live. When a soldier sacrifices in battle, they are not giving up their right to life, they're exercising it. Rights are always a choice, never an obligation.


Thus, from an interpretation standpoint (1) and from a philosophical standpoint (2) your "required" argument fails.