Rand Paul to SC: DROP DEAD [W:53]

[washunut]

You making personal attacks and insults against me because I have an honest job working for the people of my state hardly gives you any credibility in defending yourself.

You attacking me and laying personal blame for any problems that Detroit or Michigan may have is absurd, ridiculous, and outright silly. Do I also get credit for any good things here as well? :roll:

I am not an expert on the state. Probably are good things, but they don't get national attention.

 

[JayDubya]

The ruling opinion seems to be this:


Explaining the Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare - The Daily Beast

What I don't understand is that the mandate is considered constitutional as a tax, but unconstitutional through the commerce clause, and therefore, it can be constitutional. So the unconstitutional part is now constitutional even though its unconstitutional?

What is there to understand about John Roberts losing his mind?

 

[StillBallin75]

Moderator's Warning:

Wash and Hay, cut it out or else infractions will be forthcoming.

 

[Thunder]

What is there to understand about John Roberts losing his mind?

just because he voted in a way that you disagree with, doesn't mean he lost his mind.

are you calling for his impeachment?

 

[haymarket]

No, he wasn't.

You are judging according to your shared worship before the same altar worshipping the same gods. I am happy to discuss the topic. The point is that one should be able to discuss the comments of Paul WITHOUT having to discuss any comparison to the other side that are made to deflect from the position of Paul.

I believe that is fair.

 

[StillBallin75]

The ruling opinion seems to be this:


Explaining the Supreme Court Ruling on Obamacare - The Daily Beast

What I don't understand is that the mandate is considered constitutional as a tax, but unconstitutional through the commerce clause, and therefore, it can be constitutional. So the unconstitutional part is now constitutional even though its unconstitutional?

What's so hard to understand? Roberts is saying that in his view, Congress's power to implement the Minimum coverage provision (aka individual mandate) is not justified under the commerce clause. This is irrelevant, however, as it is allowable under the tax and spend clause.

 

[Kal'Stang]

Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so.

Actually this part is correct. SCOTUS has overturned previous decisions from other SCOTUS judges before. Regardless of who's saying it you should really keep that in mind.

 

[Goshin]

Rand Paul is the gift that just keeps on giving to those who despise his politics.

Rand Paul to Supreme Court: Drop dead - latimes.com



The Senator who is two full sandwiches short of a picnic now tells the world that it does not matter what the Supreme Court says regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Law.

Amazing.

Are you suggesting the Supreme Court is infallible? Interesting. I'll have to remember that the next time you don't like an SC ruling.

The Supremes have the power of judicial review but are not the absolute final word. Congress has the power to remove specific items from the SC purview, though this power has been almost never exercised. Also, just because something has been ruled "constitutionally permissible" does not mean it cannot be repealed.

 

[haymarket]

Are you suggesting the Supreme Court is infallible? Interesting. I'll have to remember that the next time you don't like an SC ruling.

The Supremes have the power of judicial review but are not the absolute final word. Congress has the power to remove specific items from the SC purview, though this power has been almost never exercised. Also, just because something has been ruled "constitutionally permissible" does not mean it cannot be repealed.

What I am saying is that Rand Paul is a freakin idiot who apparently does not know the difference between his own opinion and that of the US SUpreme Court who are paid to give theirs.

I have no problem with anyone saying they disagree with a decision of the Court. Fine and dandy. that includes the Affordable Care Act, Citizens United, Roe v. Wade or any other decision. That is our right as Americans.

Rand Paul said the law was unconstitutional (a statement of fact) when it had just been deemed as constitutional. He made a statement of fact that is flat our wrong.

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,” Paul said in a statement. “While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our healthcare right.”

Tell you what Rand - lets make a wager on if the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. We each put up a significant sum of money. Guess who in our system of government are the only ones to determine that question?

The answer would be the US Supreme Court and Senator Paul would lose his money because he is factually wrong.

 

[washunut]

What's so hard to understand? Roberts is saying that in his view, Congress's power to implement the Minimum coverage provision (aka individual mandate) is not justified under the commerce clause. This is irrelevant, however, as it is allowable under the tax and spend clause.

What is not hard to understand is that many on this site a week ago were saying that Roberts was a political hack and the supreme court was just another political institution. Now as if by magic, Roberts and his court are the super voices of reason.

 

[Bigfoot 88]

Rand is right. The court was wrong and ACA is illegal.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Rand Paul is the gift that just keeps on giving to those who despise his politics.

Rand Paul to Supreme Court: Drop dead - latimes.com





The Senator who is two full sandwiches short of a picnic now tells the world that it does not matter what the Supreme Court says regarding the constitutionality of the Affordable Health Care Law.

Amazing.

Not a fan of Paul, but what I took from it is while the SC has the authority to rule something constitutional, under the law, that their arguments and logic, that such a ruling was based on, were wrong.

After all, I doubt you, or anyone, sees the SC as some grand arbiter of truth

 

[MadLib]

I am not an expert on the state. Probably are good things, but they don't get national attention.

Good news doesn't get nearly as much attention as bad news.

 

[Matt Foley]

lol, I keep reading Ron Paul to South Carolina, drop dead. Every time I read the title that's what I think.

 

[JayDubya]

What I am saying is that Rand Paul is a freakin idiot who apparently does not know the difference between his own opinion and that of the US SUpreme Court who are paid to give theirs.

I have no problem with anyone saying they disagree with a decision of the Court. Fine and dandy. that includes the Affordable Care Act, Citizens United, Roe v. Wade or any other decision. That is our right as Americans.

Rand Paul said the law was unconstitutional (a statement of fact) when it had just been deemed as constitutional. He made a statement of fact that is flat our wrong.

No, the entire bill is unconstitutional (a statement of fact).

Over half the Supreme Court is grossly incompetent and functionally illiterate (a statement of fact).

 

[Redress]

No, the entire bill is unconstitutional (a statement of fact).

Over half the Supreme Court is grossly incompetent and functionally illiterate (a statement of fact).

Yeah, I am sure you know better than people who have actually spent a lifetime on their profession.

Libertarians, always good for a laugh.

 

[JayDubya]

Yeah, I am sure you know better than people who have actually spent a lifetime on their profession.

Well for starters I can read a plain English document, which is more than one can say for those clowns.

 

[Redress]

Well for starters I can read a plain English document, which is more than one can say for those clowns.

I can too. Congress has the power to tax. Article 1, section 8.

 

[JayDubya]

I can too. Congress has the power to tax. Article 1, section 8.

Uh-huh. Only it "wasn't a tax" as written, whenever convenient, whenever voting on it, whenever talking to the American people about it, and the bill started in the Senate (see Article I, Section 7).

Now it's magically a tax, except for when it isn't, and despite all the above, because judicial fiat says so, that's why.



Now tell me the part of Article I, Section 8 that talks about mandating health exchanges. Note: the entire bill is unconstitutional.

 

[haymarket]

No, the entire bill is unconstitutional (a statement of fact).

Over half the Supreme Court is grossly incompetent and functionally illiterate (a statement of fact).

And how does one determine the FACT of the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a law in the USA today? That is up to the Supreme Court. They have decided that the health care law is indeed CONSTITUTIONAL.

You are confusing your own opinion with what is fact. You do NOT get to determine that - the Supreme Court does.

 

[Redress]

Uh-huh. Only it "wasn't a tax" as written, whenever convenient, whenever voting on it, whenever talking to the American people about it, and the bill started in the Senate (see Article I, Section 7).

Now it's magically a tax, except for when it isn't, and despite all the above, because judicial fiat says so, that's why.



Now tell me the part of Article I, Section 8 that talks about mandating health exchanges. Note: the entire bill is unconstitutional.

You are painfully unaware of events. In point of fact, only one instance of Obama referring to it as not a tax, and 5 of his cabinet not referring to it as a tax have been found last I checked(yesterday). That is hardly "whenever talking to the american people about it". The bill that was passed was H.R. 3590, introduced in the House. If you read 26 USC § 5000A, you will notice that it is very hard not to make the argument it is in fact a tax. Roberts wrote:

The payment is not so high that there is really no choice but to buy health insurance; the payment is not limited to willful violations, as penalties for unlawful acts often are; and the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation

In other words if it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, tastes like a tax, it is a tax. What some politician said once has no bearing on what the law actually says, which is what SCOTUS rules on.

 

[JayDubya]

And how does one determine the FACT of the CONSTITUTIONALITY of a law

Step 1) Read the law.
Step 2) Read the U.S. Constitution.


Nope, doesn't jive.

 

[VanceMack]

You are painfully unaware of events. In point of fact, only one instance of Obama referring to it as not a tax, and 5 of his cabinet not referring to it as a tax have been found last I checked(yesterday). That is hardly "whenever talking to the american people about it". The bill that was passed was H.R. 3590, introduced in the House. If you read 26 USC § 5000A, you will notice that it is very hard not to make the argument it is in fact a tax. Roberts wrote:



In other words if it looks like a tax, smells like a tax, tastes like a tax, it is a tax. What some politician said once has no bearing on what the law actually says, which is what SCOTUS rules on.

A week ago, before the SCOTUC ruling, would you have described it as a 'tax'? It is interesting to consider something MANY if not the majority of Americans have already paid willingly a 'tax'. Personally...I think calling it a 'tax' was Roberts way to bailout the legislation. The individual mandate was indeed ruled unconstitutional. The workaround is to say that congress can call it a tax and achieve the same goals.

Intent aside...it is now 'right' because the Supreme Court SAYS it is right. So now, we have a new tax...that will only affect people that werent already paying for insurance. Im just interested in seeing how this declaration impacts tax write-offs.

 

[Redress]

A week ago, before the SCOTUC ruling, would you have described it as a 'tax'?

I would really have to dig around, but I did refer to it as a tax before that point, in a discussion about the arguments in front of SCOTUS.

It is interesting to consider something MANY if not the majority of Americans have already paid willingly a 'tax'. Personally...I think calling it a 'tax' was Roberts way to bailout the legislation. The individual mandate was indeed ruled unconstitutional. The workaround is to say that congress can call it a tax and achieve the same goals.

Actually his reasoning is pretty sound. It is paid with your taxes, collected by the IRS, from people referred to in the law as "taxpayers".

Intent aside...it is now 'right' because the Supreme Court SAYS it is right. So now, we have a new tax...that will only affect people that werent already paying for insurance. Im just interested in seeing how this declaration impacts tax write-offs.

Actually, it will probably not effect most people who are not already paying for insurance.

 

[VanceMack]

Step 1) Read the law.
Step 2) Read the U.S. Constitution.


Nope, doesn't jive.

I would suggest you use your law degree and case history in constitutional law and file a new suit, provided you can find precedent for overturning the Supreme Court ruling. Who do you appeal that to?

Best bet is to elect representatives that will repeal the 'tax'. Im guessing there are going to be more than a few Obamacare 'supporters' that are going to be less than thrilled with the wonderful legislation once it actually gets enacted.