Customer Discussions > Politics forum

Chief Justice Roberts' finding that Obamacare is a "tax" issue,,,,


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 126-142 of 142 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 2:27:58 PM PDT
Kathy Edens says:
Mark time said that Roberts is giving Obama the 1 finger salute. How is upholding his premier piece of legislation giving Obama the middle finger? It seem to me that he is embracing him.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 3:39:30 PM PDT
Rhea D. says:
Because most journalists are over 25 years old, and therefore remember when there were ACTUAL LIBERAL justices on the bench, like Thurgood Marshall, White, and Black. They also know that never in the history of the Court has there ever been Justices who were as conservative at the current crop of ACTIVIST Conservative Justices, such as Thomas, whose wife actually runs a conservative political action committee (no conflict of interest there, huh, as she takes in charitable donations).

Even the most conservative Eisenhower and Nixon appointees were never in the same league as the 4 Conservative Activists on the bench now. Stevens was considered a conservative when he was appointed to the bench by Ford in 1975, but he was considered a "Liberal" when he retired from the Court in 1990. He always stated that he didn't change, the Court did, to the extent that his conservativism of the '70's is considered liberalism in the twenty first century.

It's not the journalists that are skewed.... it's the spin that is put on them from the Koch/Murdoch owned spin doctors.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 29, 2012 5:06:48 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 29, 2012 5:08:12 PM PDT
Lisa E. says:
Great post, Sue. The right wing of this country were trying to drag everyone along with them. Their mistake was thinking that they had the SCOTUS and Chief Justice Roberts in their back pocket. Thank God the Koch Brothers could only buy Scalia and Thomas.

Since they obviously can't call Roberts a socialist, all they are doing is wailing and gnashing their teeth at this huge victory for Obama. Like the implementation of Social Security and Medicare [under Democratic presidents], they are being dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st Century.

Since the Affordable Care Act was predicated on the Romney plan in Massachusetts, I can't wait to see how Romney tries to spin this during the debates when he has to actually face Obama with the lies he has been telling i.e. you can't keep your own insurance under "Obamacare." I can't wait.

Posted on Jun 30, 2012 8:23:04 AM PDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 8:50:55 AM PDT
J.Wease,
as it happens I came accross a case that may have some relevance (perhaps not much) to the question of shifting interpretations of the same word. The case involved differing definition of the word 'supplies' throughout one section of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FARs). I don't mean to bore people (although I am sure I will) with legal minutiae but I figured it couldn't help to point out that what Roberts did was somehow novel or otherwise unprecedented. But I did think you might have some interest in it.) The court said this:

"The separate, individual usages of "supplies" in other provisions do not alter the meaning of the phrase including that word in the cargo preference provision. Rather these various usages underscore that the general definitions of [*1116] FAR § 2.101 do not govern each specific clause of a contract, but only generally suggest the scope of the FAR itself. Nor does the fact that the five clauses individually define "supplies" require that this court necessarily find a single, overarching definition of the term to encompass all subordinate ones. Use of "supplies" in other clause-specific contexts does not control the meaning of "supplies to be furnished un-der this contract" in the Cargo Preference Clause. "

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 9:20:21 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 9:28:05 AM PDT
Thanks, Leonard.
That's really interesting.

Wasn't that good, everyone?

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 9:38:01 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 10:06:10 AM PDT
Ah Ricky.
Ironic post from the person who lives to bump his own threads in a valliant effort to get the world to '_look_at_Ricky'.

Still wounded.
Still smarting. So I do understand your pain.

I have had an interesting exchange with J Wease comparing and contrasting the differing interpretations of the word tax as used by Roberts in his decision. You should feel free to join in if you are up to it. But it would involve critical thought and an open mind about Robert's decision and not the mindless tourettes-like repetition of your brilliant and deeply insightful OP so I'm not sure if you can handle it. Feel free to prove me wrong.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 10:13:40 AM PDT
I don't think so, Leonard.
You and J go ahead and enjoy your dialog.

I'm "up to it," I can "handle it," I'm not feeling "wounded," I'm not "smarting," I'm not feeling any "pain."

I can even handle the hostility and sarcasm.

I'm just not interested.

Rick Wright

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 10:23:41 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 11:07:37 AM PDT
"I can even handle the hostility and sarcasm."

You mean something like the sarcasm contained in the exchange you just initiated? This is really the root of your problems here. You seem woefully yet blissfully unaware that you are more often than not the initiator of the conduct you claim to decry. A stunning absence of critical thinking.

"I'm just not interested."

Let's see now. Initiating an exchange with me = lack of interest.
Okay then.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 12:15:23 PM PDT
Lisa E. says:
--"Every day we hear of Democrat defections: Democrats voting to censure Eric Holder; Democrats announcing that they will not attend the Democratic convention; In short, Democrats realizing that they need to throw Barry under the bus before he does it to them."--

This is one of the funniest posts I have ever read. Because we don't march in lockstep like the Republicans [with the exception of that "traitor" -- Chief Justice John Roberts] means we are falling apart at the seams?

From the 1930's:

I don't belong to any organized party --
I'm a Democrat

Will Rogers

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 12:22:36 PM PDT
Lisa,
That was true then, not now. The only reason democratic politicians are breaking ranks is for political survival. The never broke ranks when Pelosi was speaker and the Democrats had the power.

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 1:56:59 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 2:03:52 PM PDT
My sarcasm is the problem, not yours.
Okay then.

Leonard, I suppose we could go back into the mists of time and determine who initiated the string of exchanges between you and me, but I'm not interested in that either.

I'm guessing it happened when you butted into an exchange between me and somebody else.

I'm also pretty sure you've earned all the sarcasm I've ever directed at you. You do present an attractive target.

Cheers,
Rick

In reply to an earlier post on Jun 30, 2012 2:39:51 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on Jun 30, 2012 2:42:48 PM PDT
Ah so another post telling me how you arent interested in my posts. You really arent presenting much of a challenge here

Now, here you are, butting in to an exchange between me and somebody else to complain that I butted in to one of your conversations with somebody else.

I do, however, envy you your ability to go through life without any awareness that the faults you so readily attribute to others describe you so perfectly.

With all due respect and my commiseration that things haven't turned out so well for you.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 8:39:33 AM PDT
"How is upholding his premier piece of legislation giving Obama the middle finger? It seem to me that he is embracing him."

I'd say he was embracing his vision of the meaning of the Constitution as applied to the Health Care Act. I don't think he was giving Obama the finger nor do I think he was embracing him.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 10:03:39 AM PDT
Just dropped by to tell you I'm not interested in your posts.

In reply to an earlier post on Jul 1, 2012 10:06:50 AM PDT
The Democrat Party was in disarray then, and it's in disarray now.

Just wait until Barry, the Democrat congressmen and the Democrat senators who are up for reelection start throwing each other under the bus.

Posted on Jul 1, 2012 2:56:43 PM PDT
Rhea D. says:
dis·ar·ray
noun /ˌdisəˈrā/

1. A state of not goosestepping blindly along following the leader.
2. A state of thinking for ones self instead of getting one's opinions directly from Fox News
‹ Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Politics forum
Participants:  31
Total posts:  142
Initial post:  Jun 28, 2012
Latest post:  Jul 1, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.

Search Customer Discussions