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.
Liberals are constantly reminding us that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act when attempting to blame House Republicans.....as if the SC had adjudicated the policy merits of the Act.
I've never heard any liberal do that, and if one did they would rightfully be called a loon--or just badly misinformed.
One of the biggest and most prevalent fallacies of this and other popular liberal arguments is that the Supreme Court upheld the policy merits of ACA. The SC did NOT rule on the merits of the POLICY of the Affordable Care Act. The Supreme Court merely ruled on the penalty provision of the law, ultimately ruling it is a tax instead of an actual penalty.
Again: The Supreme Court did NOT rule on the merits of the policy. Therefore, the claim that Obamacare has been ruled "constitutional" is a willfully ignorant attempt to associate the Supreme Court's ruling with the complaints put forth by House conservatives about the merits of the POLICY that is the Affordable Care Act.
The ignorant will agree with you. The rest of us? Nice try.
The court ruled on the only contention brought before the court. Since the whole act was not in contention on it's constitutionality, therfore the act is constituional.
The fact is if the Supreme court had ruled in the reverse, that act would have had to go back to committe for adjustment and would have most likely not become law.
So the ruling by the court kept ACA whole and law.
The court ruled on the only contention brought before the court. Since the whole act was not in contention on it's constitutionality, therfore the act is constituional.
the court didnt need to rule on that.
Say what? What a really dumb answer.
All facets of the ACA were not ruled constitutional. Ruling on the one does not prove the rest. Try that in science.
That's like scooping up turds trying to find the one that stinks, flicking one out and saying the rest of the pile smells like roses.
The court ruled on the only contention brought before the court. Since the whole act was not in contention on it's constitutionality, therfore the act is constituional.
The fact is if the Supreme court had ruled in the reverse, that act would have had to go back to committe for adjustment and would have most likely not become law.
So the ruling by the court kept ACA whole and law.
You're just stating the obvious. You should tell your liberal counterparts that use the meme "the ACA was passed by the Congress, signed by the President, and upheld by the Supreme Court" a tongue lashing for confusing the House GOP consternation towards ACA policy with that of the Supreme Court's actual ruling.
Uninformed or disingenuous, call it whatever you want. The fact still remains, those folks get it wrong every time they utter these words.
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.
