• 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!

Justices, Seeking Compromise, Return Contraception Case to Lower Courts

radcen said:
Didn't the government get around the unconstitutionality by arguing that the mandate was actually a tax? Taxes being kosher, of course.
Click to expand...

No, John Roberts stopped being a justice and became a legislator long enough to change the wording of the law.
 
apdst said:
You buy it, or get fined. That's being forced.
Click to expand...

You're correct about the fine. That's all you're correct about, however.
 
danarhea said:
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.

This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?

Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

How is a unanimous decision a deadlock?
 
Napoleon said:
Really? Is the IRS lying when they offer deductions for home owners, parents, and bondholders?
Click to expand...

Tax deductions don't cause taxes to increase.
 
danarhea said:
Another day, another 4-4- deadlock in the Supreme Court. This time, instead of making a decision, they punted the ball back to the lower courts, in an attempt to avoid yet another deadlock.

This case involves an employer not wanting to even sign a paper stating that contraception violates their religion, because signing the paper saying that contraception violates their religion violates their religion. How freaking convoluted is that bit of pretzel logic?

Now that Scalia has been dead a while, I feel free to state that Scalia's death is a good thing for America. Scalia was not only an extremist ideologue, but at the time of his death, he was taking a vacation paid for by a man who had a case before the Supreme Court. That, of course, gives an appearance of taking a bribe, even if he didn't take one. Not too smart. Legislators have gone to prison for doing the exact same thing. And, had he still been alive, he would have been free to continue waging his "culture war" for the Republican Party, which he was a shill for. Good riddance.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'm afraid I'm going to have to call bull caca on the vacation thing. He took a vacation at a place where the Supreme Court refused to intervene and the same result happened at the district level. The plaintiff in the case did not even have prima facie evidence to meet the burden of proof. So, its no surprise certiorari was denied at the appellate and SCOTUS levels. I wont say Scalia wasn't partisan, I will say your attempt to smear his ethics is a pretty far reach.
 
Moon said:
How is a unanimous decision a deadlock?
Click to expand...

They were going to have a 4-4 deadlock, so they made the unanimous decision to send it back down.
 
apdst said:
Tax deductions don't cause taxes to increase.
Click to expand...

If you don't buy a house, or have children, or buy bonds then your taxes will be higher than those who do. Same with medical insurance.
 
apdst said:
You buy it, or get fined. That's being forced.
Click to expand...

domer76 said:
You're correct about the fine. That's all you're correct about, however.
Click to expand...
No - he's not right about that, either.

No one *has* to buy anything; but they need be insured.

MedicAid, MediCare, Employer, VA, Government Employee Health Plans, Railroad Retirement Health Plans, Private pension Health Plans, etc., are all valid.

My Mom is on MediCare, and she qualifies for the ACA exemption. She buys nothing.

But I don't want to get myself into the position of defending the ACA itself - it sucks! I wanted (and still want) single-payer for all, not just some.
 
Chomsky said:
No - he's not right about that, either.

No one *has* to buy anything; but they need be insured.

MedicAid, MediCare, Employer, VA, Government Employee Health Plans, Railroad Retirement Health Plans, Private pension Health Plans, etc., are all valid.

My Mom is on MediCare, and she qualifies for the ACA exemption. She buys nothing.

But I don't want to get myself into the position of defending the ACA itself - it sucks! I wanted (and still want) single-payer for all, not just some.
Click to expand...

So go on welfare or buy insurance? Ummm..

What if someone doesn't want either?
 
Napoleon said:
Do higher tax rates for renters, non-parents, and non-bond holders sound like fines to you too?
Click to expand...

What we are speaking about is a penalty.
 
Napoleon said:
Do higher tax rates for renters, non-parents, and non-bond holders sound like fines to you too?
Click to expand...

The government doesn't take money away from you for failure to have children, but lets you keep more for having children. It's a completely different thing.
 
Napoleon said:
Yes, and it is a tax. I'm not sure why anyone would say that a 2.5% tax on income to be collected by the IRS is anything other than a tax.
Click to expand...
Income, rental housing, house, etc.. those are commodities people want and willingly purchase them. ACA, however, unless you're getting it free (paid for by other wage earners who subsidize you for free), most do not want it but are forced to pay for it. However you want to spin it, the word "tax" is just a rabbit the obama administration drew it out of a hat.
 
dolphinocean said:
Income, rental housing, house, etc.. those are commodities people want and willingly purchase them. ACA, however, unless you're getting it free (paid for by other wage earners who subsidize you for free), most do not want it but are forced to pay for it. However you want to spin it, the word "tax" is just a rabbit the obama administration drew it out of a hat.
Click to expand...

He is basically saying you're not being forced to buy insurance, but just penalized if you don't. :lamo
 
Henrin said:
He is basically saying you're not being forced to buy insurance, but just penalized if you don't. :lamo
Click to expand...

I'm telling ya, in this day and age logic is a thing of the past. Or at least a rare commodity.
 
dolphinocean said:
I'm telling ya, in this day and age logic is a thing of the past. Or at least a rare commodity.
Click to expand...

Remember what one of the liberal SC justices said during the Hobby Lobby case?

"But can't they just pay the penalty?"

Or in other words, can't they just break the law?
 
apdst said:
Prove me wrong. You saying it doesn't make it a fact.
Click to expand...

You don't HAVE to purchase insurance. Plenty of people don't. That's the proof right there.
 
Republicans once again failing to understand even the basic of logical thought. If someone has a child(good for society) they are given a tax break which is an incentive to have that child or have more children. If someone is insured(good for society) they are given a tax break which is an incentive to stay insured. They are in fact, the same thing. Both are incentives that allow you to keep more of your income come tax time, because the government decided that having kids, or being insured, is good for society as a whole. If the right religious Republicans that have 15 kids want to get rid of their tax deductions for having kids, then we can argue about the ACA tax incentive. Till then, stop talking about things you clearly have no idea about. The ACA is not going anywhere. People that are much more intelligent than you that actually know the constitution have agreed on this. While I would prefer single payer, this is the best that Obama could get at the time.
 
Chomsky said:
No - he's not right about that, either.

No one *has* to buy anything; but they need be insured.

MedicAid, MediCare, Employer, VA, Government Employee Health Plans, Railroad Retirement Health Plans, Private pension Health Plans, etc., are all valid.

My Mom is on MediCare, and she qualifies for the ACA exemption. She buys nothing.

But I don't want to get myself into the position of defending the ACA itself - it sucks! I wanted (and still want) single-payer for all, not just some.
Click to expand...

What do you call it when you comply, or get fined by the government? Do you know what, "mandate", means?
 
domer76 said:
You don't HAVE to purchase insurance. Plenty of people don't. That's the proof right there.
Click to expand...

Do you know what "mandate" means? As in, "mandatory"?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom