U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-06-2011, 01:02 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,017 posts, read 15,650,958 times
Reputation: 3745

Advertisements

Healthcare reform: U.S. District Judge Roger Vincent is wrong on 'Obamacare' - latimes.com

This "scholar" has appreared in such classics as:



As well as advocating the dissolution of the electoral college. Apparently, he believes presidential elections should resemble popularity contests rather than through indirect representation.

LOL @ the Social Democracy loons!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:36 PM
 
Location: Central Maine
4,681 posts, read 5,508,468 times
Reputation: 4948
I suspect he knows more about the Constitution than either you or I do.

Here's another - Charles Fried, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former U.S. Solicitor General under the Reagan Administration, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Wednesday, Feb. 2, on "The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act."

His testimony can be found here: http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-0...0Testimony.pdf
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:45 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,914,298 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
Healthcare reform: U.S. District Judge Roger Vincent is wrong on 'Obamacare' - latimes.com

This "scholar" has appreared in such classics as:



As well as advocating the dissolution of the electoral college. Apparently, he believes presidential elections should resemble popularity contests rather than through indirect representation.

LOL @ the Social Democracy loons!
This scholar is a good example of why I sometimes have sympathy for the illegalization of marijuana, as it appears to have caused mental-educational damage.

He couldn't have written that screed without a little help from his plants.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 02:57 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,914,298 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
I suspect he knows more about the Constitution than either you or I do.

Here's another - Charles Fried, Professor of Law at Harvard Law School and former U.S. Solicitor General under the Reagan Administration, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last Wednesday, Feb. 2, on "The Constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act."

His testimony can be found here: http://judiciary.senate.gov/pdf/11-0...0Testimony.pdf
Stupid and Malice have always been best friends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 03:04 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,196,367 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Stupid and Malice have always been best friends.
Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for reasonable debate. There are respected scholars who believe that the health care reform law is constitutional, just as there are respected scholars who believe that it is not. Debating them on the merits is fine, but simply calling anybody who disagrees with you either stupid or malicious makes you seem ignorant and small.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 04:36 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,914,298 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by bc42gb43 View Post
Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for reasonable debate. There are respected scholars who believe that the health care reform law is constitutional, just as there are respected scholars who believe that it is not. Debating them on the merits is fine, but simply calling anybody who disagrees with you either stupid or malicious makes you seem ignorant and small.
Who gave you the authority to arrogate for yourself and others an "ad hominem" clearly directed at spoiled subject matter?

You one of them thar respeckled arthurs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 05:24 PM
 
Location: Raleigh, NC
20,017 posts, read 15,650,958 times
Reputation: 3745
Quote:
Originally Posted by GreenGene View Post
I suspect he knows more about the Constitution than either you or I do.
If he's such an expert on the constitution, why doesn't he address the hypocrisy of a FEDERAL mandate on buying health insurance, while simultaneously prohibiting health care from being sold across state lines? How can the interstate commerce clause be looked at in this wicked manner without a copious amount of gut busting laughter?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 05:27 PM
 
19,216 posts, read 12,914,298 times
Reputation: 2337
Quote:
Originally Posted by summers73 View Post
If he's such an expert on the constitution, why doesn't he address the hypocrisy of a FEDERAL mandate on buying health insurance, while simultaneously prohibiting health care from being sold across state lines? How can the interstate commerce clause be looked at in this wicked manner without a copious amount of gut busting laughter?
It's a reach, a grasp and a potential grab.

Right now, it's Grabby Haze.

Hey, how bout them Packers? 14-0 pretty quick.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 05:31 PM
 
1,777 posts, read 1,196,367 times
Reputation: 589
Quote:
Originally Posted by ergohead View Post
Who gave you the authority to arrogate for yourself and others an "ad hominem" clearly directed at spoiled subject matter?

You one of them thar respeckled arthurs?
If you disagree with them, say why.

Calling them names contributes exactly nothing to the debate.

On the other hand, it's a lot easier to call somebody names and not engage in any critical thinking, as you've done in your posts here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-06-2011, 05:49 PM
 
13,180 posts, read 13,026,562 times
Reputation: 4532
Oh he won't do?

Well here is a conservative legal expert who argues before the Supreme Court who agrees that the ruling is flawed.

He law clerked for Justice Kennedy and supported Fred Thompson (R) for President.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orin_Kerr

The Volokh Conspiracy The Weak Link in Judge Vinson’s Opinion Striking Down the Mandate
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. | Please obey Forum Rules | Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top