Appeals Court rules Obamacare unconstitutional

[Razgovory]

It's that way because car insurance is mainly structured as a liability insurance.  If I run into you and cripple you for life, it's not looked upon as a chance event happening to you.  It's loooked upon as tort, and thus it makes me liable to pay your damages.  Given that, it's in society's interest to make sure that I can actually pay you the judgment against me.

Who's interests are we more concerned about?  Mine or Society?  Anyway, I'm already legally crippled for life.  You run over my legs and cripple me, I'll kick your head in!

[Valmy]

Let me the first to say it:

"Damn those activist judges!".

Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.

[Razgovory]

Let me the first to say it:

"Damn those activist judges!".

Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.

Has anyone heard from him in a while?  I thought he was going to out to shoot at Pashtuns.  I hope he's okay.

[Ed Anger]

Let me the first to say it:

"Damn those activist judges!".

Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.

Has anyone heard from him in a while?  I thought he was going to out to shoot at Pashtuns.  I hope he's okay.

Hopefully, he jamming the leaflets up their asses.

[CountDeMoney]

Let me the first to say it:

"Damn those activist judges!".

Hans is outraged by our unelected God-Emperors I am sure.

Has anyone heard from him in a while?  I thought he was going to out to shoot at Pashtuns.  I hope he's okay.

Humvees need their 3,000 mile oil changes.  He'll be fine.

[jimmy olsen]

5-4 anyone?

No reasonable doubt in my mind.

How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?

[Neil]

5-4 anyone?

No reasonable doubt in my mind.

How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?

Because they want to?

[Admiral Yi]

How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?

By ruling that existence is not a commercial act.

[jimmy olsen]

5-4 anyone?

No reasonable doubt in my mind.

How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?

Because they want to?

That's why, not how.

[Neil]

5-4 anyone?

No reasonable doubt in my mind.

How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?

Because they want to?

That's why, not how.

Do they need a way?  Isn't their sayso good enough?

[jimmy olsen]

5-4 anyone?

No reasonable doubt in my mind.

How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?

Because they want to?

That's why, not how.

Do they need a way?  Isn't their sayso good enough?

Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.

[Neil]

Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.

They can just say that it doesn't, because the founders wrote the constitution with the intention that the rich get richer and the poor get enslaved.

[dps]

Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.

They can just say that it doesn't, because the founders wrote the constitution with the intention that the rich get richer and the poor get enslaved.

Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.

[alfred russel]

5-4 anyone?

No reasonable doubt in my mind.

How do they do it without overturning all the other decisions on the Commerce Clause?

Because they want to?

That's why, not how.

Do they need a way?  Isn't their sayso good enough?

Since they support those other commerce clause decisions they'll have to rule very narrowly and explain why it doesn't overturn them as well.

Christ Tim, this is a thread about an appeals court that just tossed it out as unconsititional. If you want a heads up on what rationale could be used to consider it unconstitutional, you could just look at a description of the rationale in the opening post, or if you are really curious read the opinion. (or read the opinions of most of the republican appointed judges that have ruled in similar cases--not all because I know at least one let it stand).

[DGuller]

Yeah, 'cause establishing an individual mandate that forces people who can't afford health insurance to purchase it anyway or face legal penalties really screws the wealthy and helps the poor.

It does help the poor, because without the mandate universal coverage is impossible without single payer system.