If the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional... (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 26, 2024, 08:18:24 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2012 Elections
  If the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional... (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Does Obama lose reelction?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 79

Author Topic: If the SCOTUS rules Obamacare unconstitutional...  (Read 14856 times)
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« on: March 28, 2012, 09:42:53 AM »

I would say yes, because what else does he have for "domestic achievements?"

Other than dealing successfully with the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, saving the auto industry, Wall Street reform, student loan reform and equal pay for women, nothing.

The economy has not improved enough, and may have improved as much or more under Mcain.

If "student loan reform" is Obama's major achievement in four years, he's finished.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #1 on: March 29, 2012, 07:39:01 AM »

The economy has not improved enough, and may have improved as much or more under Mcain.


And I could have banged Scarlett Johansson if only I had the chance to meet her.

And instead, like Obama, you spend your weekend alone.  The what could have happened, in theory, really has no bearing on it.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #2 on: March 29, 2012, 01:37:45 PM »

The economy has not improved enough, and may have improved as much or more under Mcain.


And I could have banged Scarlett Johansson if only I had the chance to meet her.

And instead, like Obama, you spend your weekend alone.  The what could have happened, in theory, really has no bearing on it.

ΟΚ, can you repeat that in English?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2012, 05:00:06 PM »

The economy has not improved enough, and may have improved as much or more under Mcain.


And I could have banged Scarlett Johansson if only I had the chance to meet her.

And instead, like Obama, you spend your weekend alone.  The what could have happened, in theory, really has no bearing on it.

ΟΚ, can you repeat that in English?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.

And so are yours about how "it could have been better".

Note the first part, "The economy has not improved enough... ."  McCain's proposal, which was similar to Hilary's, may have worked better as well.  We know where we are under Obama and most people are not happy about it.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2012, 10:18:44 PM »

The economy has not improved enough, and may have improved as much or more under Mcain.


And I could have banged Scarlett Johansson if only I had the chance to meet her.

And instead, like Obama, you spend your weekend alone.  The what could have happened, in theory, really has no bearing on it.

ΟΚ, can you repeat that in English?

What did happen, happened.  Any arguments that "it could have been worse" are much like you fantasy weekend.

Uh congratulations, you just debunked your own point and proved his, which is that the fact the economy might've also improved under McCain is totally irrelevant.

No, I proved that the argument that it might have been worse is irrelevant, from a political standpoint.  The perception is that the economy is not good enough.

I actually think that had a "housing support" plan been adopted, the economy would have been worse in 2010 than it was, and better going into 2012 than it is now.   Obama chose a different path and he, along with the rest of us, will be paying the price for it.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #5 on: March 30, 2012, 12:48:47 PM »



I'm also not convinced that Scalia (and possibly Thomas, who's unreadable on this particular subject at the moment because of how profound his dereliction of duty habit gets during oral argument) won't find that the Anti-Injunction Act applies.

If I understand correctly, there are three issues:

1.  They can't sue until the paying the penalty.

2.  The mandate is unconstitutional.

3.  The whole act is unconstitutional.

There might be a "moving majority" on all these issues.

For example:

#1. 1-8, with Thomas in the minority.

#2. 6-3, with Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan in the minority.

#3.  5-4, as Stevens casting the deciding vote.

I could easily see something like this (though not necessarily voting this way).
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #6 on: March 30, 2012, 08:25:06 PM »

Surely Kennedy or Roberts, not Stevens, as the deciding vote in issue 3?

I drew a blank on Kennedy, for some reason.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


« Reply #7 on: March 30, 2012, 08:26:55 PM »



If the four "liberals" realize the mandate is going down but Thomas will vote to wait til 2015, why wouldn't they join him and live to fight another day?

Because it is not a liberal/conservative thing.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.031 seconds with 15 queries.