Log in or Sign up

Federal Judge - "Not so fast, my friend."

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by Swerved, Jan 31, 2011.

Page 3 of 13

shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

Joined:

Jan 11, 2005

Messages:

37,754

Likes Received:

23,932

red55 said: ↑

This going to be overturned. !
Click to expand...

See, you are coming around.

shane0911, Feb 1, 2011

#21
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

red55 said: ↑

Dumbass fascists. They think they have pulled a fast one. :rofl:

This going to be overturned. Look, Appeals courts have to follow precedent when overturning legislation. One of the long-precedented items is that they don't get to overturn an entire law is there is only one component of it in question. Even the republican Supremes will have to overturn this, based on long-standing precedent. An even better political reason is that this would return to bite the GOP in the ass someday. Talk about trying to legislate from the bench!
Click to expand...

You are wrong. Obama has hung himself on his own petard. Look up "Severability".

SabanFan, Feb 1, 2011

#22
red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

45,195

Likes Received:

8,736

SabanFan said: ↑

You are wrong. Obama has hung himself on his own petard. Look up "Severability".
Click to expand...

No, it is you that is wrong, as usual. Severability in contracts is not the same as severability in legislation. Look it up. :lol:

From Wikipedia:

Severability

. . . Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.

red55, Feb 2, 2011

#23
MLUTiger Secular Humanist

Joined:

Aug 9, 2001

Messages:

4,606

Likes Received:

810

shane0911 said: ↑

Poor little socialist loving liberals. They thought that they had pulled a fast one.
Click to expand...

If you think that bill/law is even remotely socialist, you have no idea what socialism really is...

MLUTiger, Feb 2, 2011

#24
martin Banned Forever

Joined:

Oct 20, 2003

Messages:

19,026

Likes Received:

934

MLUTiger said: ↑

If you think that bill/law is even remotely socialist, you have no idea what socialism really is...
Click to expand...

then what is socialist, then?

if the government manages health insurance, and provides for people by redistributing money from some to others, then what is that called? capitalism?

social security is called that because it is an explicitly socialist program. it is the collectivization of insurance for old people. that is socialist, by definition. it doesnt mean we as a nation are socialist. same thing with government management of health insurance. the government, the collective, should not be managing health insurance at all, not beyond preventing fraud and such.

obviously we are a blend of socialism and capitalism, some things we do are definitely socialist.

martin, Feb 2, 2011

#25
shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

Joined:

Jan 11, 2005

Messages:

37,754

Likes Received:

23,932

MLUTiger said: ↑

If you think that bill/law is even remotely socialist, you have no idea what socialism really is...
Click to expand...

I know that this bill is crap and it is the proverbial "foot in the door" and it must be either repealed or altered so that it isn't so. It is grossly unfunded and boy look out when 2016 rolls around. Not to worry lad, if it doesn't get repealed congress will vote to not pay for it and it will die.

shane0911, Feb 2, 2011

#26
KyleK Who, me? Staff Member

Joined:

Oct 29, 2007

Messages:

9,109

Likes Received:

3,366

OkieTigerTK said: ↑

yet.

and that is the main provision being fought as unconstitutional.

and just for the record, because i own a small business, if i am forced to pay health insurance for my employees, there is a good chance i will have no employees.

it is small businesses like mine that will take the hardest hit. we arent large enough that insurance doesnt eat up a huge chunk of the profit and can be easily absorbed or passed along without raising our prices noticably, driving away business.

it is a catch 22. we would love to grow to the point where emloyee benefits like that are doable. but if we cant afford the growing pains because they are forced on us, we may have to quit employing all together and not grow at all. which would be a shame because we have been growing every year. but we are doing our best to do so responsibly, even if it means slower than we would like just because we are trying to not rack up too much debt in order to grow. because if the economy hits us, we dont want to be saddled with so much debt it bites us in the butt.

its all a balancing act, and forced health care for employees will throw off that balance and cause the whole damn thing to crash.
Click to expand...

You're not required to buy insurance for your employees until you have 25.

KyleK, Feb 2, 2011

#27
SabanFan The voice of reason

Joined:

Oct 21, 2002

Messages:

26,080

Likes Received:

1,247

red55 said: ↑

No, it is you that is wrong, as usual. Severability in contracts is not the same as severability in legislation. Look it up. :lol:

From Wikipedia:

Severability

. . . Severability clauses are also commonly found in legislation, where they state that if some provisions of the law, or certain applications of those provisions, are found to be unconstitutional, the remaining provisions, or the remaining applications of those provisions, will, nonetheless, continue in force as law.
Click to expand...

Wrong again:

Roger Vinson, the federal judge behind today's ruling, agreed with plaintiffs who argued that if the mandate is unconstitutional, the entire law should be struck down.

That's because the legislation lacked the so-called "severability clause," which allows a portion of a law to be struck down while leaving the rest of it intact. According to Talking Points Memo's Brian Beutler, it's "meant to protect the bulk of a law in the event that a small portion of it is determined to be unconstitutional. That small portion must go, or be changed, but pretty much everything else is allowed to stand."
Click to expand...

Severability Clause at Heart of Judge Vinson's Ruling That 'Obamacare' Is Unconstitutional

SabanFan, Feb 3, 2011

#28
OkieTigerTK Tornado Alley

Joined:

Jan 3, 2005

Messages:

18,000

Likes Received:

1,286

KyleK said: ↑

You're not required to buy insurance for your employees until you have 25.
Click to expand...

that's good to know.

i wasnt sure what the law said about that, i just know if it did require me to buy for just a few, then it was gonna wreck me.

OkieTigerTK, Feb 3, 2011

#29
hebertjp Founding Member

Joined:

Dec 2, 2007

Messages:

373

Likes Received:

53

I hope I am not wading into waters too deep but I had this one question that I wonder if anyone knows the answer to. Many states force their citizens to buy auto insurance or be subject to penalty. In what ways is this difference from the fed. govt. forcing citizens to buy health insurance? Is it a state vs. federal power thing? How is it that states have the power to require the purchase of auto insurance?

hebertjp, Feb 5, 2011

#30

(You must log in or sign up to reply here.)

Page 3 of 13

Share This Page