• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
A

Atlagev

Member
Saw this on twitter... Does anyone know if this is accurate?:

"RB ‏@RBPundit

Since ObamaCare is a tax, it is filibuster proof. Only need 51 Republican Senators to repeal. DOABLE. ‪#tcot‬ ‪#p2"
 
K

Kosmo

Banned
Atlagev said:
Saw this on twitter... Does anyone know if this is accurate?:

"RB ‏@RBPundit

Since ObamaCare is a tax, it is filibuster proof. Only need 51 Republican Senators to repeal. DOABLE. ‪#tcot‬ ‪#p2"
Click to expand...

Dat reconciliation.
I assume, or something like that.

Obama would have to sign it though, right?
 
E

el retorno

Member
Atlagev said:
Saw this on twitter... Does anyone know if this is accurate?:

"RB ‏@RBPundit

Since ObamaCare is a tax, it is filibuster proof. Only need 51 Republican Senators to repeal. DOABLE. ‪#tcot‬ ‪#p2"
Click to expand...

Obamacare was passed through reconciliation. Can't see how this changed anything. Still needs a president to say yes. Also congress can change what can be passed under reconciliation.


Kosmo said:
Obama would have to sign it though, right?
Click to expand...
yes but they could overrule it with 2/3rds
 
C

codhand

Member
Kosmo said:
It a tax
Click to expand...

images
 
E

electricpirate

Member
el retorno de los sapos said:
Obamacare was passed through reconciliation. Can't see how this changed anything. Still needs a president to say yes. Also congress can change what can be passed under reconciliation.



yes but they could overrule it with 2/3rds
Click to expand...

Just to point out, the entirety of the law couldn't be removed by reconciliation, just portions related to funding and the budget. Probably couldn't undo the regulations on what inusrances cover for example. The entire law wasn't passed via reconciliation, the tweaks to conform it to the compromise with the house were the only parts that passed through reconciliation.

Also, I believe current senatorial rules prevent reconciliation from being used to increase the deficit, so they'd have to change that in order to remove the mandate. I'm not sure if that's likely to happen though.
 
E

el retorno

Member
electricpirate said:
Just to point out, the entirety of the law couldn't be removed by reconciliation, just portions related to funding and the budget. Probably couldn't undo the regulations on what inusrances cover for example. The entire law wasn't passed via reconciliation, the tweaks to conform it to the compromise with the congress were the only parts that passed through reconciliation.

Also, I believe current senatorial rules prevent reconciliation from being used to increase the deficit, so they'd have to change that in order to remove the mandate. I'm not sure if that's likely to happen though.
Click to expand...

Ugh i hate the senate.
 
T

ToxicAdam

Member
Et tu, John Roberts? I can just hear the charges of "traitor" being flung at Chief Justice John Roberts by Republican lawmakers and conservative activists. They should hold their fire.

Roberts didn't "join the left," as some bloggers are writing. Nor did he turn his back on the strict-construction crowd, or even wander far from bedrock conservative principles.

Roberts, instead, has lined up with conservatives who are faithful to traditional interpretations of the Constitution. And that means deferring to Congress and the executive branch, even if the laws they've enacted circumscribe some individual freedoms. The right of elected leaders to pass the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare) falls well within the existing boundaries of constitutional power, Roberts essentially concluded. And for those who don't like the result, relief should be sought at the polls, not in the courts.

The evidence for how Roberts would rule was hiding in plain sight. He has never been in the libertarian wing of conservatism that is personified in today's Tea Party movement -- favoring limited government and states' rights and holding the belief that personal liberty trumps everything else. Instead, he likely drew inspiration from the opinions of a handful of prominent conservative legal scholars and lower court judges. Two are worth mentioning:

In November, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit upheld the ACA in a 2-1 decision written by Judge Laurence Silberman, a card-carrying member of the GOP's conservative wing. He wrote that the health reform law “is an encroachment of individual liberty, but it is no more so than a command that restaurants or hotels are obliged to serve all customers regardless of race, that gravely ill individuals cannot use a substance their doctors described as the only effective palliative for excruciating pain, or that a farmer cannot grow enough wheat to support his own family.”

Silberman also notably argued that freedom from regulation must give way to “the imperative that Congress be free to forge national solutions to national problems.” Interestingly, Silberman didn't rest his legal argument on the powers granted Congress under the Commerce Clause -- just as Roberts didn't lean on the Commerce Clause in his majority opinion today. Silberman essentially provided Roberts a path to upholding Obama's signature legislative achievement without further expanding, or even endorsing past expansions, of the Commerce Clause, which liberals have leaned on for decades to adopt the 1964 Civil Rights Act and numerous other laws.

Another likely Roberts muse is Henry Paul Monaghan, the Harlan Fiske Stone professor of constitutional law at Columbia Law School. Among his conservative bona fides: He testified in favor of Robert Bork during his aborted Supreme Court confirmation hearings in 1986. But Monaghan is somewhat of a stickler when it comes to upholding precedent, and it was his opinion that an analysis of settled case law meant that the individual mandate is constitutional. One such settled principle is Congress's right to regulate commerce, whether it's activity (buying insurance) or inactivity (not buying it).

In the end, Roberts concluded that any ruling against the health-care law would have been the very kind of judicial activism that conservatives decry. To Roberts, the solution lies with politicians and voters, not his court.
Click to expand...
.
 
B

Black Republican

Member
was away when this happened, holy shit, well done roberts!

my very first prediction was roberts voting with the left 5-4 but when i heard he neve sides with the left on slim margins i changed to kennedy.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Starting to see some people claim that Roberts' opinion significantly limits the scope of the commerce clause. Anyone read it?
 
C

Chichikov

Member
eznark said:
Starting to see some people claim that Roberts' opinion significantly limits the scope of the commerce clause. Anyone read it?
Click to expand...
It is most assuredly not expanding it.
He specifically states that this decision does not mean that the government can force citizens to purchase random products from private companies.

And regardless of how you feel about Obamacare or the decision, that's a good thing.
 
E

eznark

Banned
Chichikov said:
It is most assuredly not expanding it.
He specifically states that this decision does not mean that the government can force citizens to purchase random products from private companies.

And regardless of how you feel about Obamacare or the decision, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...


Yeah, seems like he found a good way to at least not expand irrevocably expand the fed reach.
 
R

reilo

learning some important life lessons from magical Negroes
J

Jackson50

Member
Chichikov said:
It is most assuredly not expanding it.
He specifically states that this decision does not mean that the government can force citizens to purchase random products from private companies.

And regardless of how you feel about Obamacare or the decision, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...
Yeah. From what I've read, he's not retracting its current scope. He's stating this is not an expansion for Congress to exploit.
reilo said:
Link?
Click to expand...
Paula Dwyer from Bloomberg.
 
T

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Chichikov said:
It is most assuredly not expanding it.
He specifically states that this decision does not mean that the government can force citizens to purchase random products from private companies.

And regardless of how you feel about Obamacare or the decision, that's a good thing.
Click to expand...

Which I'm actually a fan of. I supported the commerce clause argument with the caveat that it extended to the unique situation of healthcare that isn't comparable to any other industry, and finding a way to make this work without invoking the CC is great with me.
 
W

Wilsongt

Member
I would post a link to Rapture Ready for you all to partake in goblets full of bitter tears, but I think you all know how they are reacting and are tired of that cesspool, anyway.
 
M

markatisu

Member
It is amazing to watch the various news channels and have all the GOP reps talking about how the decision means nothing because they will just get rid of it.

And did anyone see Rand Paul's lolworthy "only a few people on the court making a decision does not make this law legal" moment
 
P

PantherLotus

Professional Schmuck
I don't think we should let Rusty get away with not knowing the context of one of the most important political pictures/moments ever.
 
E

eznark

Banned
markatisu said:
It is amazing to watch the various news channels and have all the GOP reps talking about how the decision means nothing because they will just get rid of it.

And did anyone see Rand Paul's lolworthy "only a few people on the court making a decision does not make this law legal" moment
Click to expand...

Funny to suddenly see no one hand-wringing over a 5-4 decision and the need to pack the courts. We can be thankful for that at least.
 
G

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
markatisu said:
It is amazing to watch the various news channels and have all the GOP reps talking about how the decision means nothing because they will just get rid of it.

And did anyone see Rand Paul's lolworthy "only a few people on the court making a decision does not make this law legal" moment
Click to expand...

Um...

the law was passed by Congress.

It was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court.

Sounds pretty legal to me.
 
E

eznark

Banned
DBV: without even a tiny bit of hesitation or irony.

Jackson50 said:
There's only one genuine threat to the ACA. And I'll work tirelessly to ensure Gary Johnson does not even sniff 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
Click to expand...

Sniff? Such pedestrian and plebeian verbiage is unbefitting one possessing such an immense vocabulary.
 
J

Jackson50

Member
DeathbyVolcano said:
You really think Romney would repeal something that is essentially HIS BILL?
Click to expand...
Assuredly. Repealing the ACA has been central to the Republican agenda since it was passed. If presented the opportunity, they'll seize it. And Mitt Romney is not going to stop them.
eznark said:
Sniff? Such pedestrian and plebeian verbiage is unbefitting one possessing such an immense vocabulary.
Click to expand...
I'll not waste elegance on Gary Johnson. Speaking of whom, he seems to have handled the news equably.
“It has been clear for a while that we need a new President and a new Congress. Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court."

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/gary-johnson-on-obamacare-ruling-it-has
Click to expand...
 
K

Kosmo

Banned
bananas said:
Oh, so we got a good 90 years left on this thing? That's good to know.
Click to expand...

LOL - I could still be alive!

OK, serious question - how much of the expanded coverage (moving the currently 40M uninsured down to 20M, as estimated by the CBO) was due to the expanded Medicaid mandate?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Frostpunk 2 | Review Thread
Review
12
1K
geary replied
Has the internet regressed reporting of news?
Clickbait
30
2K
StueyDuck replied
Exposing German Hops
2 3
115
8K
Dr.Morris79 replied
Star Wars Outlaws | Review Thread
Analysis Review 8 9 10 11 12
571
40K
Gamer_By_Proxy replied
Reynatis (PS4, PS5, Switch, and PC) | Review Thread + Discussion thread
News Review 2
81
9K
drganon replied
Top Bottom