Yep...

[Yonivore]

...we were serious.

APUhVXImUhc

[ChumpDumper]

I guess she could refer them to Gingrich or the Heritage Foundation for a detailed answer. They certainly thought it would be constitutional.

[FromWayDowntown]

I guess she could refer them to Gingrich or the Heritage Foundation for a detailed answer. They certainly thought it would be constitutional.

That was before it was unconstitutional.

[Bill_Brasky]

The constitution needs to be rewritten every 30 or so years tbh.

[GSH]

I guess she could refer them to Gingrich or the Heritage Foundation for a detailed answer. They certainly thought it would be constitutional.

Well they were wrong, too. That should make you happy - those two being wrong.

[Winehole23]

friend of mine says the ACA isn't likely to be thrown out b/c there aren't more than a couple of justices willing to overrule Wickard v. Filburn (http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0317_0111_ZS.html) as a precedent...dunno how close or far away from the truth that might be, but it's an interesting suggestion...

[ChumpDumper]

Well they were wrong, too. That should make you happy - those two being wrong.In what way were they wrong?

Explain.

[Yonivore]

That was before it was unconstitutional.
If you were intellectually honest, you would admit the arguments against it being unconstitutional are the same ones, now, as they were way back then.

But, you're not.

It appears the Supreme Court will ignore your dishonesty -- and that of the law's proponents.

[Winehole23]

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit the arguments against it being unconstitutional are the same ones, now, as they were way back then.if you were intellectually honest, you would admit that Republicans (for the most part) weren't making those arguments. The personal insurance mandate was promoted as a turn to personal responsibility, away from public largesse.

[ChumpDumper]

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit the arguments against it being unconstitutional are the same ones, now, as they were way back then.As were the arguments for its being constitutional.

It's not decided. That's why it's in the SCOTUS.

If you were intellectually honest, you'd admit that.

But you're not.

[Winehole23]

by Newt Gingrich as recently as 2007

[GSH]

if you were intellectually honest, you would admit that Republicans (for the most part) weren't making those arguments. The personal insurance mandate was promoted as a turn to personal responsibility, away from public largesse.

LOL. No... the mandate was promoted as a way to make the numbers work. And that was what sold it.

[ChumpDumper]

LOL. No... the mandate was promoted as a way to make the numbers work. And that was what sold it.He's talking about how the Republicans promoted it.

[Yonivore]

Winehole paid about as much attention to the legal argument, over the past two years, as did Chris Matthews and Jeffrey Toobin -- both of whom were flabbergasted that Obamacare would fall as a result of being found unconstitutional.

I believe I can search back in the archives of this forum and show you where I raised the issue of the mandate being unconstitutional -- and, the issue of severability being the linchpin that will bring it all down.

Hell, there are two court rulings stating as much.

Where has the left been for two years?

[ChumpDumper]

Winehole paid about as much attention to the legal argument, over the past two years, as did Chris Matthews and Jeffrey Toobin -- both of whom were flabbergasted that Obamacare would fall as a result of being found unconstitutional.

I believe I can search back in the archives of this forum and show you where I raised the issue of the mandate being unconstitutional -- and, the issue of severability being the linchpin that will bring it all down.

Hell, there are two court rulings stating as much.

Where has the left been for two years?Waiting for the SCOTUS case, idiot.

Everyone already knows the issues. Everyone knew it would go to the SCOTUS.

Except you.

[ElNono]

None of the lower courts decisions matter, seeing the SCOTUS will be the one to decide.

I was right all along.

[Yonivore]

None of the lower courts decisions matter, seeing the SCOTUS will be the one to decide.

I was right all along.
What do you mean they don't matter? The lower courts determine the issues to be decided by the Supreme Court.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4941148&highlight=mandate+unconstitutional#post4941148

[ElNono]

What do you mean they don't matter? The lower courts determine the issues to be decided by the Supreme Court.

Nope. The SCOTUS decides what matters are they're going to decide on.

[Winehole23]

http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?p=4742181&highlight=mandate+unconstitutional#post4742181

[ChumpDumper]

What do you mean they don't matter? The lower courts determine the issues to be decided by the Supreme Court.You answered your own question.

[ElNono]

For example, the SCOTUS specifically asked the parties they wanted to hear and decide on the expansion of Medicare. Something that was not originally part of the lower-court cases.

[Winehole23]

in a nutshell, the lower courts developed the material, but the Supreme Court does whatever it wants

[Spurminator]

If you were intellectually honest

:lmao x 1,000,000,000,000,000

[George Gervin's Afro]

If you were intellectually honest, you would admit the arguments against it being unconstitutional are the same ones, now, as they were way back then.

But, you're not.

It appears the Supreme Court will ignore your dishonesty -- and that of the law's proponents.

Will anyone explain to me if Yoni is now ok with paying the medical bills for anyone who chooses not to be responsible?

I always thought he was about personal responsibility but now.... he's all over the place..

[RandomGuy]

If you were intellectually honest

man this board is a collection of yuks.

Cosmored's trolling on moon hoaxes and 9-11 conspiracies, Libertarians saving the world, and Yonivore lecturing people on being intellectually honest.

That's it. The world has gone insane.

There is only one rational response.

8mOWSlGrAnk

[Gutter92]

The same constitution that says that the government has the right to quarter troops in your house without your permission during wartime?

When was the last time that happened?

^ My point being that the constitution needs to be amended more frequently keeping in touch with the times, tbh..

[Winehole23]

they made it hard to change on purpose