Will it have a picture of an American flag on it?! Anyway, from a non-partisan perspective, it really seemed like the Democrats tried to appease the Republicans by including many, many of their amendments (as stated before, well over 100 of them). They had a live meeting on healthcare, as promised and at the Republicans' demand, where one side listened and reasoned while the other just spewed talking points and not many concrete ideas; the ideas from the other side that were concrete... get this... were included in the bill! Frum nailed it.
And I guarantee you that you are wrong. There's a little thing called civil procedure and appellate procedure that has to happen first. But since you're obviously well-versed in these topics, you'd know this right? harr harr harr....
I'll take that bet right now for any amount at all. I'll even give you the end of the year to come, IOW until 3/23/11.
I'll be making a call to my Rep later today to show my displeasure over this. I know it will pass but it suck living in a cave errrr Texas sometimes.
It's a 0 money down bet CML. Almost as great a deal as trading your gold in for cash and hybrid seeds.
The number of SC challenges per year is minuscule compared to the number of laws passed and judgements rendered in courts. The chance that this bill makes it to the SC is slim. So, you have a problem with the democratic process. Tell me which step you disagree with... 1. Americans elect people to be their representatives in Congress and also elect a President. 2. The representatives vote on legislation. 3. The President signs the legislation. Of course, you are combining the people who thought it didn't go far enough (no public option, no single payer, no universal health care) with the people who just didn't want ANYTHING. Besides, in the democratic process, the people had their vote, we voted to empower the Democrats and gave them a majority big enough to do pretty much anything. I lament that it didn't go far enough, but the Democrats did exactly what they were elected to do. Not just promised, but delivered. Virtually the entire process was carried out on C-SPAN including a seven hour long meeting in which the president almost begged for the GOP to display some bipartisanship. Almost none was done behind closed doors, virtually the entire process was on C-SPAN with the exception of vote wrangling and semantic changes to the specific wording. The process of crafting this bill has been one of the most open that I have ever seen Washington engaged in, so this talking point is just factually not true.
...i think you can give him longer than that, given that the provision that he heard somebody repeat something that somebody else said that he is hanging his hat on (the individual insurance mandate) doesn't take effect till 2014.
You are twisting the facts. The individual elements of the bill were approved of by the majority of the American people. Every major poll showed that. So why would they approve of the elements in the bill but not the bill itself? The reason is they were lied to about what was in the bill. You still haven't answered what Republican ideas were brought forward to the process by the GOP but then shut out?
Ever heard of the Supreme Court rules. Check rule 11. "Rule 11. Certiorari to a United States Court of Appeals before Judgment A petition for a writ of certiorari to review a case pending in a United States court of appeals, before judgment is entered in that court, will be granted only upon a showing that the case is of such imperative public importance as to justify deviation from normal appellate practice and to require immediate determination in this Court. See 28 U. S. C. § 2101(e)." They can here any case the want to whenever they want to as long it of public importance. I would say this is rather important. It's called the "Fast Track". Har,har,har...
Oh, well then I guess they'll simply file a case in federal court of appeals right and circumvent the district court, right, Clarence Darrow? Since you are very sure of yourself, I gladly accept your signature bet that this will not happen by the end of the year. Good luck finding a plaintiff. If they invent time travel by 2014 you may have a shot.
That's a wrong statement. Throughout human history, the head tax has been employed for much longer than any other tax. Countries / kingdoms would tax you just for existing. Also, slavery can be viewed as something similar where 100 percent of your income / output is taxed away by the owner / institution.
The other issue is that if you don't get insurance you create a burden on those that do... If you are in a car wreck or come down with Ebola, you'll be treated, but we'll have to pay for it.
So are they just directly filing with a Court of Appeals and skipping all lower courts? Edit: Sam beat me to it.
Has anyone in this thread tried talking about the legal merit of any of these objections? From what I can tell, they have 3 arguments: * Commerce clause: Congress can regulate interstate commerce, but this somehow doesn't count. Honestly, I don't understand the objection here. * 10th Amendment: That the Constitution doesn't give the Feds the power, so it is a State's right. * 16th Amendment: That Congress can only levy taxes on incomes, not in penalties for noncompliance. Do any of these hold water?
You can choose not to buy insurance and pay the fine. Again that is not a tax and the government can fine you for noncompliance in regard to regulations.
And what is the standard in this case that would justify a writ of certiorari? This isn't like a death penatly case where there is a timetable at work.
