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.
well ACA supporters cant have it both ways, either its a revenue bill, and thus unconstitutional, or the mandate is truly not a tax, and thus THAT is unconstitutional. sorry guys but both cant be constitutional. and the scotus has already ruled that since the mandate is a tax, and thus constitutional, the latest ruling by the appeals court is then wrong, and will be appealed to the scotus.
well ACA supporters cant have it both ways, either its a revenue bill, and thus unconstitutional, or the mandate is truly not a tax, and thus THAT is unconstitutional. sorry guys but both cant be constitutional. and the scotus has already ruled that since the mandate is a tax, and thus constitutional, the latest ruling by the appeals court is then wrong, and will be appealed to the scotus.
Who will most likely refuse to hear. While your argument sounds good, and may be good, that doesn't mean SCOTUS must listen to it. They've just turn it away like they do 90% of the appeal that reach their desk.
I would not get my hopes up on the SC. The justices badgered The ACA lawyers for like 2 hours before they finally confessed it was a tax. I think the SC will also ignore the language of the bill and rule against that only the states that set up exchanges can get subsidies. The SC gave a assist to Obamacare the last time and most likely will do the same as the appeals court and side with intent instead of language.
Obamacare is here to stay until it implodes all by itself or the U S goes to single payer.
Looks like a good day for fighters against liberty.
Said the people who want to continue to leech off of everyone else's health insurance. The best thing about this act is that at a very minimum it punishes the scumbags who leech off the health system by having no insurance.
Said the people who want to continue to leech off of everyone else's health insurance. The best thing about this act is that at a very minimum it punishes the scumbags who leech off the health system by having no insurance.
Like the illegals who are still receiving free healthcare in California and are pushing some hospitals to close their doors? Aren't those "leeches" the people you constantly defend?
Who will most likely refuse to hear. While your argument sounds good, and may be good, that doesn't mean SCOTUS must listen to it. They've just turn it away like they do 90% of the appeal that reach their desk.
dont count on the scotus not hearing the case, there was a ruling in a similar case in another court that was opposite of this one, thus we have conflicting rulings, and thus the scotus will very likely HAVE to take the case if for no other reason to resolve the conflict.
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.
