Why is Obamacare so important?

[dblack]

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

Yep. That's what the Constitution is for.

The constitution is not supposed to be distorted into the “easy way out” for Congress to fail to do its job.

No, that's exactly what it's for. When Congress fucks up and steps outside its constraints, the Court is there to slap them down.

The law passed a decade ago. Just now getting around to determining whether it’s constitutional?

More like re-addressing Roberts' decision from before. That's allowed you know.

This isn’t about finding the right constitutional argument against it, this is about finding the right judge to rule in your favor.

That’s not what the constitution is for.

Sure it is. Judges make mistakes. Courts make mistakes. Never too late to right a wrong.

The solution is legislative. Taking it back to the courts just because you changed the lineup is a failure of leadership and pure cowardice.

Not if the problem was the legislature overstepping its bounds. In that case, you can't rely on the legislature to provide its own checks and balances. That's why we have the Court in the first place.

 

[colfax_m]

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

Yep. That's what the Constitution is for.

The constitution is not supposed to be distorted into the “easy way out” for Congress to fail to do its job.

No, that's exactly what it's for. When Congress fucks up and steps outside its constraints, the Court is there to slap them down.

The law passed a decade ago. Just now getting around to determining whether it’s constitutional?

More like re-addressing Roberts' decision from before. That's allowed you know.

This isn’t about finding the right constitutional argument against it, this is about finding the right judge to rule in your favor.

That’s not what the constitution is for.

Sure it is. Judges make mistakes. Courts make mistakes. Never too late to right a wrong.

The solution is legislative. Taking it back to the courts just because you changed the lineup is a failure of leadership and pure cowardice.

Not if the problem was the legislature overstepping its bounds. In that case, you can't rely on the legislature to provide its own checks and balances. That's why we have the Court in the first place.

You lost the case a decade ago. Installing new judges to win a case is not a legal strategy that is consistent with the constitution.

 

[DBA]

If Republicans had a better solution to healthcare, they wouldn’t be desperately trying to shove through a SCOTUS justice to overturn it.

The ACA is important because Republicans don’t have any better ideas.

Having better solution, or not, has nothing to do with constitutionality. If law is unconstitutional, is should be repealed, period.

If law has been through a decade of court challenges. If it were unconstitutional, we’d know by now.

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected. That was the single good thing that came out of ACA. The high prices will be gone, hopefully. Just for giggles I priced healthcare for my family on the ACA website several years ago. It is obviously based on income and it was prohibitively expensive. Basically, we are subsidizing those that don't pay anything. Also, the ACA got rid of catastrophic plans which raised prices. We are now forced into plans with higher levels of coverage which we may not require.

I have a friend who priced coverage for himself and his wife. Their income is very modest and he doesn't work. She has coverage from her employer but the cost of adding him was too much. They looked to the ACA, once again, it was too expensive, even more than adding him to her workplace plan. He was previously in favor of the ACA, even though I tried to explain to him why it was a bad idea. After this experience, the bells went off. He got it. Too bad others still don't.

The bottom line is that if you in the middle class, or even upper lower class, and need health insurance, the ACA is not your answer. If you don't work and have very little income or none, then it is an added benefit largely funded by the upper-lower and middle class self-employed, which applies to many small business owners.

 

[DBA]

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

Yep. That's what the Constitution is for.

The constitution is not supposed to be distorted into the “easy way out” for Congress to fail to do its job.

No, that's exactly what it's for. When Congress fucks up and steps outside its constraints, the Court is there to slap them down.

The law passed a decade ago. Just now getting around to determining whether it’s constitutional?

More like re-addressing Roberts' decision from before. That's allowed you know.

This isn’t about finding the right constitutional argument against it, this is about finding the right judge to rule in your favor.

That’s not what the constitution is for.

Sure it is. Judges make mistakes. Courts make mistakes. Never too late to right a wrong.

The solution is legislative. Taking it back to the courts just because you changed the lineup is a failure of leadership and pure cowardice.

You mean like packing the courts?

 

[dblack]

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

Yep. That's what the Constitution is for.

The constitution is not supposed to be distorted into the “easy way out” for Congress to fail to do its job.

No, that's exactly what it's for. When Congress fucks up and steps outside its constraints, the Court is there to slap them down.

The law passed a decade ago. Just now getting around to determining whether it’s constitutional?

More like re-addressing Roberts' decision from before. That's allowed you know.

This isn’t about finding the right constitutional argument against it, this is about finding the right judge to rule in your favor.

That’s not what the constitution is for.

Sure it is. Judges make mistakes. Courts make mistakes. Never too late to right a wrong.

The solution is legislative. Taking it back to the courts just because you changed the lineup is a failure of leadership and pure cowardice.

Not if the problem was the legislature overstepping its bounds. In that case, you can't rely on the legislature to provide its own checks and balances. That's why we have the Court in the first place.

You lost the case a decade ago. Installing new judges to win a case is not a legal strategy that is consistent with the constitution.

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

 

[colfax_m]

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

Yep. That's what the Constitution is for.

The constitution is not supposed to be distorted into the “easy way out” for Congress to fail to do its job.

No, that's exactly what it's for. When Congress fucks up and steps outside its constraints, the Court is there to slap them down.

The law passed a decade ago. Just now getting around to determining whether it’s constitutional?

More like re-addressing Roberts' decision from before. That's allowed you know.

This isn’t about finding the right constitutional argument against it, this is about finding the right judge to rule in your favor.

That’s not what the constitution is for.

Sure it is. Judges make mistakes. Courts make mistakes. Never too late to right a wrong.

The solution is legislative. Taking it back to the courts just because you changed the lineup is a failure of leadership and pure cowardice.

You mean like packing the courts?

Well, kinda of yeah.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

 

[dblack]

If Republicans had a better solution to healthcare, they wouldn’t be desperately trying to shove through a SCOTUS justice to overturn it.

The ACA is important because Republicans don’t have any better ideas.

Having better solution, or not, has nothing to do with constitutionality. If law is unconstitutional, is should be repealed, period.

If law has been through a decade of court challenges. If it were unconstitutional, we’d know by now.

This is about Republicans using the courts to accomplish what they didn’t have the political ability to do.

No, it isn't. The individual mandate was unconstitutional and is now gone. Roberts was wrong. He sided with the 4 liberal judges who ALWAYS vote for liberal policies.

The ACA is effectively gone now. The only semblance left is the high insurance costs for those who do not qualify for heavily subsidized plans and pay through the nose and protection for those with pre-existing conditions. The pre-existing conditions will be protected.

Which is why ACA is, decidedly, not gone. Neither is the individual mandate. Republicans just dialed it down to zero. It's still the law of the land and Biden, especially if Republicans lose the Senate, will just dial it right back up.

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

One way to improve the situation would be to require a 2/3 majority for confirmation. Requiring something closer to real consensus would go a long way.

 

[colfax_m]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

It’s more than just appointments, it’s how those appointments are handled and it’s how cases are taken to court. The right has made the judiciary a central point in their political campaigns. How often have you heard people say that they voted for Trump specifically to get conservative judges appointed? Is that how you think the founders foresaw this?

 

[dblack]

Sure it is. Are you saying we should only confirm Judges who agree with all existing precedent? Is there no room for correcting judicial mistakes?

If we changed landmark judicial decisions every time we changed justices, the country would be very chaotic. Especially when the true solution is so damn simple.

True solution?

Write a new law.

Again, you can depend on the legislature to police itself. That's the whole reason for checks and balances.

The politicians pick the police, so yeah, they are policing themselves based on what they’re doing.

Separation of Powers: System of Checks and Balances

How the American system of separation of powers through checks and balances ensures that no branch of government grows too powerful.

www.thoughtco.com

Don’t you see how this distorts that? They’re choosing judges to achieve political outcomes. That no longer serves as a check, it’s just an alternative means of exerting legislative power.

Sure. It's not a perfect system, by any means. Both of our entrenched parties have used it as you observe. But it does provide some protection. Do want to just dump it altogether?

I just want judicial nominations and litigation to stop being petty political footballs but the right has turned the courts into such a political issue it’s been deteriorating the entire purpose of an independent judiciary.

C'mon. You really think that only the "right" appoints Judges sympathetic to their cause?

It’s more than just appointments, it’s how those appointments are handled and it’s how cases are taken to court. The right has made the judiciary a central point in their political campaigns. How often have you heard people say that they voted for Trump specifically to get conservative judges appointed? Is that how you think the founders foresaw this?

Yep. The left is the same way. How do you propose to fix it?