Page 2 of 15 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 13 to 24 of 176

Thread: Oral Arguments

  1. #13
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,031
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Oral Arguments



    Thanks NC. That's what I got too. The first day was a good day for us but you never know. I'm sure those liberals will tow the party line but it didn't sound like it yesterday. EVen they know it's wrong.

    Galen has his facts wrong again and is desperate once again. Now please look above and see where I posted a link from the liberal CBS - the alphabet network - home of Rathergate and Katie Couric's yellow journalism with all their lies but they got it right this time.

    Everything I posted from hot air was in quotes. It is factual info on what
    was actually said. Galen missed it as usual same as his usual homer
    comments.

    I also used ABC on another thread as well as GALEN'S MSNBC. See
    Chaney thread. I've posted numerous threads from the Wash post, NY Times, politico.com, OBYs own web site, CNN, FOX, news busters, freepers, CNS NEWS and Newsmax, WND, Wash Times, LA Times and Wash Examiner the Wall Street Journal, the National Review, the Jerusalem Post, and the UK's Guardian just to name a few.


    It's no wonder no one listens to Galen.
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 03-27-2012 at 08:41 AM.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  2. #14
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,031
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Oral Arguments

    NC - This is a great forum over on scout. You'll see Greg and Bert over there
    a lot. They are discussing it.

    The guy to ask your question to would be 12th Raven. He's the constitutional expert over there as well as Greg. J Patrick also knows a lot so you can ask them. You'll see Jon Boy in there too.

    HotBirdz is their equivalent of Galen-lol.


    http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=118&f=1626&t=8849578
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  3. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,531

    Re: Oral Arguments

    I wouldn't get too caught up in the questioning by the Justices.

    If you read the transcript, they were pretty harsh to both sides, as they should be. The laughing was telling, but that line of questioning went to one of the four issues they are arguing. As much as Galen would like to spin this as only one issue being decided, the court is deciding four issues in this case:

    1. Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the power to require individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a tax penalty?

    2. Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program?

    3. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act?

    4. Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA?

    For anyone to predict anything from the questioning thus far is premature. And I am not shocked that our resident uber Liberal would spin this to a one-topic question when the issue at hand is far more complex for him.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  4. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,189

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    I wouldn't get too caught up in the questioning by the Justices.

    If you read the transcript, they were pretty harsh to both sides, as they should be. The laughing was telling, but that line of questioning went to one of the four issues they are arguing. As much as Galen would like to spin this as only one issue being decided, the court is deciding four issues in this case:

    1. Does the Commerce Clause grant Congress the power to require individuals to maintain a minimum level of health insurance or pay a tax penalty?

    2. Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program?

    3. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act?

    4. Is the individual mandate severable from the ACA?

    For anyone to predict anything from the questioning thus far is premature. And I am not shocked that our resident uber Liberal would spin this to a one-topic question when the issue at hand is far more complex for him.
    I was reading in to there question not on the entire case but moreso the AIA. for that to be applicable they would have to agree it's tax, which IMO seemed like at least some of them didn't think it was (Roberts, Alito, Ginsburg, Bryer).

    In your opinion am I right though about is it easier to get the SCOTUS to up hold lower court rulings than it is to overturn it, or is that probably irrelevant when it comes to a case like this?




  5. #17
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,531

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    I was reading in to there question not on the entire case but moreso the AIA. for that to be applicable they would have to agree it's tax, which IMO seemed like at least some of them didn't think it was (Roberts, Alito, Ginsburg, Bryer).

    In your opinion am I right though about is it easier to get the SCOTUS to up hold lower court rulings than it is to overturn it, or is that probably irrelevant when it comes to a case like this?
    It's irrelevant for the most part, especially cases that come from the 9th Circuit. They are the most overturned court of all the circuits.

    The 11th circuit, from which this case emanates, has very few cases come before the SCOTUS.

    But looking at the appeals court as a means of determining it's constitutionality is a crap shoot. Plenty of lawyers go before the SCOTUS and blow it. The solicitor general, if he's not careful, started down that path yesterday.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  6. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,189

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    It's irrelevant for the most part, especially cases that come from the 9th Circuit. They are the most overturned court of all the circuits.

    The 11th circuit, from which this case emanates, has very few cases come before the SCOTUS.

    But looking at the appeals court as a means of determining it's constitutionality is a crap shoot. Plenty of lawyers go before the SCOTUS and blow it. The solicitor general, if he's not careful, started down that path yesterday.
    Thanks.

    One other question, which you may not know.

    Is the case the 11th circuit court ruled on, is that the one that originated from the U.S. District Court of Northern FL (The case where the judge said the whole thing is unconstitutional because the mandate is inseparable?) Just wondering...




  7. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,531

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by NCRAVEN View Post
    Thanks.

    One other question, which you may not know.

    Is the case the 11th circuit court ruled on, is that the one that originated from the U.S. District Court of Northern FL (The case where the judge said the whole thing is unconstitutional because the mandate is inseparable?) Just wondering...
    Yes. Same case.

    Here is a good break down of the case from its beginning up to today:

    http://www.oyeztoday.org/healthcare/#details
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  8. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Tenuous
    Posts
    4,920

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    For anyone to predict anything from the questioning thus far is premature. And I am not shocked that our resident uber Liberal would spin this to a one-topic question when the issue at hand is far more complex for him.
    Too funny that a guy who becomes so enamored with the political folly of Palin, Bachman and Perry et al. would question someone else's ability to think with complexity.

    I'm on the record with a 6-3 uphold of the law. Feel free to put yourself out on the limb.








  9. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,031
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Oral Arguments

    HR is right in everything he says. No one knows how they vote except the liberals who always vote the party line. We just said that the first day wasn't good for their side based on the questions on tax. That's what their entire argument is based on.

    HR then summed up what we were saying with this:

    ___________________________________
    Plenty of lawyers go before the SCOTUS and blow it. The solicitor general, if he's not careful, started down that path yesterday.
    ________________________________


    Also don't forget Bush v Gore where the court pretty much voted down party lines on both sides, except Souter who voted on Gore's side and they still lost and
    he was put in by H Bush.

    You just never know.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  10. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    11,031
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Oral Arguments

    It's a damn shame the court declined a motion from
    Virginia, one of the states that filed the suit to expedite the proceedings. Final decision won't come out til July,
    in the middle of the campaign.

    Also a shame the court didn't televise the rest of the proceedings. Over 75% of the country wanted it as this is the biggest case in history and everyone is so interested but the SC never goes by polls.
    Pic of a natural act: UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU. THE PAST IS NOT DEAD, IN FACT, IT IS NOT EVEN PAST.' WILLIAM FAULKNER.




  11. #23
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    21,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Galen Sevinne View Post
    Too funny that a guy who becomes so enamored with the political folly of Palin, Bachman and Perry et al. would question someone else's ability to think with complexity.

    I'm on the record with a 6-3 uphold of the law. Feel free to put yourself out on the limb.
    Thanks for making my point.

    And didn't you pick Pawlenty?
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  12. #24
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,189

    Re: Oral Arguments

    Day Two:

    http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arg...11-398-Tuesday

    The Solicitor General sounds like his sphincter is so tight he couldn't crap out a hair.
    Last edited by NCRAVEN; 03-27-2012 at 12:37 PM.




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland