ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags ACA , court decisions , Reed O'Connor

Reply
Old 14th December 2018, 07:20 PM   #1
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,394
Federal Judge strikes down Affordable Care Act

Is that it? Its dead?

Story on CNN.
__________________
100% Cannuck!

Last edited by Molinaro; 14th December 2018 at 08:41 PM.
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 07:48 PM   #2
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,874
404.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:07 PM   #3
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,533
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
Is that it? Its dead?

Story on CNN.
This?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/polit...uit/index.html

Quote:
"Judge O'Connor has declared the individual mandate unconstitutional and the rest of the Affordable Care Act invalid, but he has not blocked its continued operation,"Jost told CNN.
Texans, y'all are a bunch of pussies!
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:10 PM   #4
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,556
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
This?

https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/14/polit...uit/index.html



Texans, y'all are a bunch of pussies!
SCOTUS already ruled on this. This is meaningless.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:15 PM   #5
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,397
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
SCOTUS already ruled on this. This is meaningless.
The US wasn't designed to be a nation-state. It wasn't designed to be a Republic. It was designed to be an open-ended legal case, by lawyers, for lawyers.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:22 PM   #6
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,017
I wonder how many anti-ACA will now find themselves without health insurance or huge premium increases due to pre-existing conditons?

Quote:
A federal judge in Texas has ruled the Affordable Care Act unconstitutional, finding that the law cannot stand now that Congress has rolled back the mandate that everyone carry health insurance or pay a fine.

The new ruling poses a significant threat to the Affordable Care Act’s most popular and most sweeping health insurance reforms. If affirmed at higher courts, it could roll back Obamacare’s ban on preexisting conditions. Insurers would once again be able to charge sick patients higher premiums.

The Trump administration had partially supported this lawsuit, filing a brief asking the court to overturn Obamacare’s ban on preexisting conditions.
Quote:
Essentially, the state attorneys general are arguing that the individual mandate isn’t severable from the rest of the law. If the court finds the mandate unconstitutional, then the rest of the law — everything from protections for preexisting conditions to the Medicaid expansion required calorie labeling on menus — has to go down with it.
https://www.vox.com/2018/12/14/18065...l-texas-ruling

Last edited by Stacyhs; 14th December 2018 at 08:40 PM.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:31 PM   #7
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,556
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
The US wasn't designed to be a nation-state. It wasn't designed to be a Republic. It was designed to be an open-ended legal case, by lawyers, for lawyers.
Except his ruling was in direct contradiction to SCOTUS's ruling just a few years ago. He isn't ordering stopping the Affordable Care Act. So where does that leave us? A single judge in Texas cannot overturn the Supreme Court and Congress. This will have to work it's way back to SCOTUS which would take a year if it gets that far.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume

Last edited by acbytesla; 14th December 2018 at 08:32 PM.
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:35 PM   #8
DallasDad
Muse
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 820
Did the Ft. Worth judge stay his order pending appeal?
DallasDad is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:43 PM   #9
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,394
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
SCOTUS already ruled on this. This is meaningless.
According to the article, after that SCOTUS decision, the penalty for the individual mandate was changed to $0 by the Republican congress. That change is what makes it now in violation of The Constitution.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:46 PM   #10
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,017
Originally Posted by DallasDad View Post
Did the Ft. Worth judge stay his order pending appeal?
I don't think, from what I've read, that the ruling will affect it as of now and it's most certainly going to be appealed...and likely headed to the SC.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:49 PM   #11
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,397
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Except his ruling was in direct contradiction to SCOTUS's ruling just a few years ago. He isn't ordering stopping the Affordable Care Act. So where does that leave us? A single judge in Texas cannot overturn the Supreme Court and Congress. This will have to work it's way back to SCOTUS which would take a year if it gets that far.
As I say, the US isn't a nation, it's an open-ended lawsuit.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 08:53 PM   #12
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,397
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
According to the article, after that SCOTUS decision, the penalty for the individual mandate was changed to $0 by the Republican congress. That change is what makes it now in violation of The Constitution.
Allegedly.

The US won't go out with a bang, nor with a whimper, it'll go out in a welter of litigation.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 09:02 PM   #13
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,954
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Except his ruling was in direct contradiction to SCOTUS's ruling just a few years ago. He isn't ordering stopping the Affordable Care Act. So where does that leave us? A single judge in Texas cannot overturn the Supreme Court and Congress. This will have to work it's way back to SCOTUS which would take a year if it gets that far.
This ruling makes no sense. When a section of a law is found unenforceable or unconstitutional the ruling is always specific to that specific section.

Can anyone find an example where the entire law was tossed out due to a problem with one clause?

I doubt this will survive the first level of appeal.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th December 2018, 11:04 PM   #14
Travis
Misanthrope of the Mountains
 
Travis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 23,952
If this is allowed to stand I lose my health insurance. That... is not optimal.
__________________
"Because WE ARE IGNORANT OF 911 FACTS, WE DEMAND PROOF" -- Douglas Herman on Rense.com
Zingiber Officinale

Travis is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 12:17 AM   #15
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,017
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
If this is allowed to stand I lose my health insurance. That... is not optimal.
Don't worry, Travis. Trump has promised that he has far better and cheaper plan just waiting to replace the ACA. And he always keeps his promises. Would he lie?
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 12:55 AM   #16
KDLarsen
Illuminator
 
KDLarsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 4,026
A former republican senate staffer issuing an order that is entirely in line with republican talking points? Colour me shocked...
KDLarsen is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 01:28 AM   #17
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 49,550
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
The US wasn't designed to be a nation-state. It wasn't designed to be a Republic. It was designed to be an open-ended legal case, by lawyers, for lawyers.
I thought it was started as a tax dodge?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 06:02 AM   #18
bonzombiekitty
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 1,474
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Except his ruling was in direct contradiction to SCOTUS's ruling just a few years ago. He isn't ordering stopping the Affordable Care Act. So where does that leave us? A single judge in Texas cannot overturn the Supreme Court and Congress. This will have to work it's way back to SCOTUS which would take a year if it gets that far.
My quick reading on it is that it's not a contradiction. Since the tax penalty for not having insurance is now 0, they can't argue that it's constitutional under taxing powers.
bonzombiekitty is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 06:36 AM   #19
Horatius
NWO Kitty Wrangler
 
Horatius's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 27,163
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
My quick reading on it is that it's not a contradiction. Since the tax penalty for not having insurance is now 0, they can't argue that it's constitutional under taxing powers.


Wasn't that change made by the Republicans? Am I getting this right? They made it unconstitutional, and are now bragging about, "Hey, we TOLD you that it was unconstitutional!"?
__________________
Obviously, that means cats are indeed evil and that ownership or display of a feline is an overt declaration of one's affiliation with dark forces. - Cl1mh4224rd
Horatius is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 06:36 AM   #20
bignickel
Mad Mod Poet God
 
bignickel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: St. Louis, MO
Posts: 3,166
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
According to the article, after that SCOTUS decision, the penalty for the individual mandate was changed to $0 by the Republican congress. That change is what makes it now in violation of The Constitution.
If the republican led change makes the law unconstitutional, shouldn’t the court just declared that reducing the mandate to $0 is the unconstitutional bit because of its effect on the ACA?

I’m just thinking about how that would play out with other laws : “the federal voting act has been declared unconstitutional by a judge thanks to a republican law redefining ‘race’ earlier.”
__________________
"You can find that book everywhere and the risk is that many people who read it believe that those fairy tales are real. I think I have the responsibility to clear things up to unmask the cheap lies contained in books like that."
- Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone
bignickel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 07:21 AM   #21
alfaniner
Penultimate Amazing
 
alfaniner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 19,983
Originally Posted by Molinaro View Post
Is that it? Its dead?

Story on CNN.
As a result of this, surely some will be.
__________________
Science is self-correcting.
Woo is self-contradicting.
alfaniner is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 07:26 AM   #22
Stacko
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 10,837
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Wasn't that change made by the Republicans? Am I getting this right? They made it unconstitutional, and are now bragging about, "Hey, we TOLD you that it was unconstitutional!"?
That's their entire approach to government. Break it and claim it never worked in the first place so it should be removed to give tax cuts to their donors.
Stacko is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 08:44 AM   #23
Molinaro
Illuminator
 
Molinaro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 4,394
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Wasn't that change made by the Republicans? Am I getting this right? They made it unconstitutional, and are now bragging about, "Hey, we TOLD you that it was unconstitutional!"?
Republicans seem intent on making the US the place where democracy, integrity, honesty and values went to die.
__________________
100% Cannuck!
Molinaro is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 09:41 AM   #24
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,954
Originally Posted by bonzombiekitty View Post
My quick reading on it is that it's not a contradiction. Since the tax penalty for not having insurance is now 0, they can't argue that it's constitutional under taxing powers.
The Supreme Court decided that the penalty can be enforced because Congress has the authority to impose a tax. They didn’t declare that the Constitutional basis of the entire law required a monitary penalty for not buying heath insurance.

The original ACA regulations waived the penalty in most cases where people did not buy heath insurance.

Last edited by Kestrel; 15th December 2018 at 09:43 AM.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 09:45 AM   #25
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,733
So after two years of controlling Congress and the White House all the Republicans have come up with is to replace the plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions with a plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions?
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 09:54 AM   #26
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,016
Originally Posted by Garrison View Post
So after two years of controlling Congress and the White House all the Republicans have come up with is to replace the plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions with a plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions?
Correction. After two years of controlling Congress and the White House all the Republicans have come up with is to repeal the plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions. They don't have anything on the "replace" part of the plan...
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 09:58 AM   #27
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,218
Originally Posted by Horatius View Post
Wasn't that change made by the Republicans? Am I getting this right? They made it unconstitutional, and are now bragging about, "Hey, we TOLD you that it was unconstitutional!"?
I thought that was what the republicans were trying to do: unable to repeal it they instead seek to break Obamacare as much as possible so that it will fail.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 10:11 AM   #28
Polaris
Penultimate Amazing
 
Polaris's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 11,359
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Correction. After two years of controlling Congress and the White House all the Republicans have come up with is to repeal the plan that provides affordable health care and protects people with pre-existing conditions. They don't have anything on the "replace" part of the plan...
Indeed. Trump was the one who added "replace" to it. Not that he had a plan either, much less actually gave a ****.
__________________
"There's vastly more truth to be found in rocks than in holy books. Rocks are far superior, in fact, because you can DEMONSTRATE the truth found in rocks. Plus, they're pretty. Holy books are just heavy." - Dinwar

"Let your ears hear this beautiful song that's hiding underneath the sound," Ed Kowalczyk.
Polaris is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 10:56 AM   #29
CapelDodger
Penultimate Amazing
 
CapelDodger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Cardiff, South Wales
Posts: 24,397
Originally Posted by Polaris View Post
Indeed. Trump was the one who added "replace" to it. Not that he had a plan either, much less actually gave a ****.
Trump does care about removing ObamaCare, because Obama.
__________________
It's a poor sort of memory that only works backward - Lewis Carroll (1832-1898)

God can make a cow out of a tree, but has He ever done so? Therefore show some reason why a thing is so, or cease to hold that it is so - William of Conches, c1150
CapelDodger is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 11:01 AM   #30
Armitage72
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 2,950
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Trump does care about removing ObamaCare, because Obama.

It's always been about destroying everything that President Obama did, in retaliation for the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner.
Armitage72 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 01:14 PM   #31
Garrison
Illuminator
 
Garrison's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 4,733
Originally Posted by CapelDodger View Post
Trump does care about removing ObamaCare, because Obama.
Could do what they did with NAFTA, have essentially the same thing but just stick a different name on it so Donny can pretend he did something.
__________________
So I've started a blog about my writing. Check it out at: http://fourth-planet-problem.blogspot.com/
And my first book is on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/dp/B077W322FX
Garrison is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 01:50 PM   #32
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,415
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
If this is allowed to stand I lose my health insurance. That... is not optimal.
Dude, you live in California. There is no shortage of free stuff here, we are the entitlement capitol of the country. Just get in line!

In fact the new CA Text Messaging Tax will help you get a free phone!

Text Message Tax
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 01:53 PM   #33
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,017
Originally Posted by Armitage72 View Post
It's always been about destroying everything that President Obama did, in retaliation for the 2011 White House Correspondents' Dinner.
This! I also don't doubt that he blames Obama for his looking like a fool regarding the birth certificate nonsense.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 05:45 PM   #34
Trebuchet
Penultimate Amazing
 
Trebuchet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The Great Northwet
Posts: 21,874
Originally Posted by Stacyhs View Post
This! I also don't doubt that he blames Obama for his looking like a fool regarding the birth certificate nonsense.
That would require him to recognize that it made him look like a fool. I don't think he's capable of that.
Meanwhile, it doesn't appear that the decision will have any immediate effect, pending the inevitable appeals. The Supreme Court previously found it constitutional but its composition has changed and this decision was based on the exclusion of the individual mandate penalty.
__________________
Cum catapultae proscribeantur tum soli proscripti catapultas habeant.
Trebuchet is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 08:12 PM   #35
Mumbles
Philosopher
 
Mumbles's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 7,021
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
That would require him to recognize that it made him look like a fool. I don't think he's capable of that.
Meanwhile, it doesn't appear that the decision will have any immediate effect, pending the inevitable appeals. The Supreme Court previously found it constitutional but its composition has changed and this decision was based on the exclusion of the individual mandate penalty.
As I've said in other places...

The ACA is, effectively, the GOP's response to the US health care problem, put in place by a moderate dem looking for compromise. If it actually gets tossed out entirely (and many people are questioning this ruling), then I see no reason why the Dems don't just go for Medicare for all, and then turn wildly hostile to the courts if they toss that out as well.

(It's really quite remarkable that the GOP can't even accept a "yes" coming from a black guy...)
Mumbles is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 15th December 2018, 08:16 PM   #36
Stacyhs
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 8,017
Originally Posted by Trebuchet View Post
That would require him to recognize that it made him look like a fool. I don't think he's capable of that.
Meanwhile, it doesn't appear that the decision will have any immediate effect, pending the inevitable appeals. The Supreme Court previously found it constitutional but its composition has changed and this decision was based on the exclusion of the individual mandate penalty.
I think he definitely knows when he's made to look like a fool and that is why he hates Obama so much. He doesn't acknowledge that he is a fool, only that he was made to look like one.
Stacyhs is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 09:01 AM   #37
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 35,743
Originally Posted by Kestrel View Post
This ruling makes no sense. When a section of a law is found unenforceable or unconstitutional the ruling is always specific to that specific section.
As I understand it, this actually depends on how exactly the law is written. Some laws are written in so that their clauses are explicitly separate from each other. In that case, one clause may be struck down without affecting the others. However, if this explicit separation is not spelled out, then the whole law must generally be taken as a single entity, that fails entirely if any part of it fails.

It may also be the case that the clauses of the law must be linked in order for the law to succeed. This is the kind of thing that courts must rule on. Another thing that courts may have to rule on is any custom or precedent that might apply to a specific category of law, where the laws are always assumed to be severable (several?) even when not spelled out.

All of which to say that it's not automatically the case with every law, that striking down one clause doesn't mean striking down the whole law.

I seem to recall some discussion a few years ago about how the ACA omitted the explicit wording that allowed its clauses to be ruled on separately from each other. But I don't have any details and can't vouch for the accuracy of that.
theprestige is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 09:38 AM   #38
Marcus
Illuminator
 
Marcus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,027
Originally Posted by Travis View Post
If this is allowed to stand I lose my health insurance. That... is not optimal.
Me too. We'll just have to hope that it's reversed on one of the lower appeals, with the new makeup of the Supreme Court I don't think we can count on them.
Marcus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 09:47 AM   #39
Kestrel
Philosopher
 
Kestrel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Colorado
Posts: 5,954
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
As I understand it, this actually depends on how exactly the law is written. Some laws are written in so that their clauses are explicitly separate from each other. In that case, one clause may be struck down without affecting the others. However, if this explicit separation is not spelled out, then the whole law must generally be taken as a single entity, that fails entirely if any part of it fails.

It may also be the case that the clauses of the law must be linked in order for the law to succeed. This is the kind of thing that courts must rule on. Another thing that courts may have to rule on is any custom or precedent that might apply to a specific category of law, where the laws are always assumed to be severable (several?) even when not spelled out.

All of which to say that it's not automatically the case with every law, that striking down one clause doesn't mean striking down the whole law.

I seem to recall some discussion a few years ago about how the ACA omitted the explicit wording that allowed its clauses to be ruled on separately from each other. But I don't have any details and can't vouch for the accuracy of that.
Nobody has yet provided an example where failure to include the magic words resulted in an entire complex law being struck down on the basis of one small part of that law.

Rather odd considering how often unconstitutional provisions get slipped into laws at the state level.

A more reasonable explanation is that a Federal judge known for his far right beliefs invented a novel legal theory to get rid of the entire ACA. An action that could result in a Circuit Court nomination by President Trump.
Kestrel is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 16th December 2018, 10:09 AM   #40
autumn1971
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,761
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
I thought that was what the republicans were trying to do: unable to repeal it they instead seek to break Obamacare as much as possible so that it will fail.
I very honestly see this as at least negligent homicide. The Republicans are knowingly sentencing tens of thousands of citizens to death in the name of the Party.

Not only have the idle rich declared that the workers don’t matter, they are actively seeking legislation that kills them off.
__________________
'A knave; a rascal; an eater of broken meats; a base, proud, shallow, beggardly, three-suited, hundred-pound, filthy, worsted-stocking knave; a lily-livered, action-taking knave, a whoreson, glass-gazing, superservicable, finical rogue;... the son and heir of a mongral bitch: one whom I will beat into clamorous whining, if thou deniest the least syllable of thy addition."'
-The Bard
autumn1971 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:23 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.