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.
Congressional Dems should have READ the bill to SEE what was in it before they voted for it.
Absolutely true, I agree 100%. So you are acknowledging that the right's interpretation of ACA is not what the Democrats intended when they passed it? That means it was a drafting error. The SCOTUS reached the right result, then.
It's not nice to call Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy "complete idiots". Along with the other four Justices in the majority, I have it on pretty good authority that they are extremely bright. Maybe they aren't "complete idiots".
Though, I must say, those Justices clearly are not as bright as Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, Beck, so on. Aren't they all college dropouts. Oh yeah.
Mick
The term "State" is defined in the ACA law itself. The law's definition of "State" doesn't include the word "federal." What do you not get about that?
How does that change the actual definition of the words put INTO the law itself?
Thats right, it doesnt..
/FAIL
From the CRS report ....
"In analyzing a statute’s text, the Court is guided by the basic principle that a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its separate parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutory purpose.". But hey, you knew already.
there is no confusing in QUOTING the law.. the only thing taking place is left wing kooks claiming Democrats didnt even know the definition of the word "state", despite the fact that they defined it inside the law.
Once again, the Supreme Court, called you guys idiots.. You guys seem to agree
It's okay to admit that you were wrong. We understand, you are not a constitutional law lawyer or anything.
Let's hope President Trump/Clinton would not nominate "left wing kooks", like Justices Roberts and Kennedy apparently, to the bench.
I think the SCOTUS called you right wingers idiots for bringing this dumb lawsuit. lol
"In analyzing a statute’s text, the Court is guided by the basic principle that a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its separate parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutory purpose.". But hey, you knew already.
And reading it as a harmonious whole, there is NOTHING confusing about the definition.. Unless you're an idiot..
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
It's okay to admit that you were wrong. We understand, you are not a constitutional law lawyer or anything.
But I do understand what this means
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent
The ACA law itself defines"State" as "the term ‘‘State’’ means each of the 50 States and the District of Columbia."
If you think one has to be a constitutional lawyer to know what a state is, and you arent a constitutional lawyer, then by ambiguity, (the same ambiguity you claim is in the law), this would make one a moron.. By time one becomes old enough to post on city data, they should know what a state is.. some of you clearly dont. Are you sure you're old enough to post here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
Let's hope President Trump/Clinton would not nominate "left wing kooks", like Justices Roberts and Kennedy apparently, to the bench.
I think the SCOTUS called you right wingers idiots for bringing this dumb lawsuit. lol
No, they simply redefined what a "state" was.. because under no way shape or form do you get a non state to be a state, given the definition. But then you knew that.. just playing obtuse
Quote:
Originally Posted by florida.bob
From the CRS report ....
"In analyzing a statute’s text, the Court is guided by the basic principle that a statute should be read as a harmonious whole, with its separate parts being interpreted within their broader statutory context in a manner that furthers statutory purpose.". But hey, you knew already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTQ3000
So, apologize and let's move on.
Mick
I'm sorry there are so many idiots in this country who have to redefine things constantly to suit their own narrative..
How does that change the actual definition of the words put INTO the law itself?
Thats right, it doesnt..
/FAIL
Exactly.
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.
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.
