Topic: Who is the Speaker going to file a lawsuit with? (Read 2771 times)
So a bunch of people who no longer could get their old insurance because of Obamacare have signed up because that is now the only way for them to get it? I'm sure you have a point here, could you just get to it?
20 million people have signed up for Obamacare.
http://time.com/2950961/obamacare-health-care-obama/
http://time.com/2950961/obamacare-health-care-obama/
Indeed. Liberals are *shocked*, but it is not a surprise to anyone who pays attention. The PPACA was politically expedient, and therefore passed, precisely because it relied on state exchanges. 39 states opted out, though, something that the central planners in their infinite wisdom somehow did not foresee. That left Obama with an unworkable law because the law only allows them to subsidize premiums for insurance purchased on state exchanges.
Obama will ask for another ruling. If that isn't in his favor he'll just grab a pen and change the law to include federal exchanges...he's already shown even though he's supposed to be a constitutional lawyer, he has little regard for the law.
Indeed. Liberals are *shocked*, but it is not a surprise to anyone who pays attention. The PPACA was politically expedient, and therefore passed, precisely because it relied on state exchanges. 39 states opted out, though, something that the central planners in their infinite wisdom somehow did not foresee. That left Obama with an unworkable law because the law only allows them to subsidize premiums for insurance purchased on state exchanges.
The way the law is written, federal subsidies are only supposed to be available to people who sign up through STATE exchanges. Since a bunch of states didn't set up exchanges those subsidies aren't available to poor people, so if they're given subsidies it will be breaking the law.
Of course the argument here is going to be "but he's the president. It doesn't matter what the law is, Obama can just give out the subsidies anyway!"
Of course the argument here is going to be "but he's the president. It doesn't matter what the law is, Obama can just give out the subsidies anyway!"
the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
Apparently the new rule of law is "Obama gets the make up the rules and laws as he goes."I wonder how this is going to go over when a republican president does the same thing.obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
just keep it up, it's fun. the only difference is you are just inviting people to second guess everything you say in the future. words well spent.
the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
Apparently the new rule of law is "Obama gets the make up the rules and laws as he goes."I wonder how this is going to go over when a republican president does the same thing. obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
the law says you violate it if you don't have that by this date
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
obama says: ok you violated the law by not making the deadline. But given the circumstance, i wont prosecute you unless you miss that this date in the future. everybody in all three branches do it all the time, and it's totally legal.
nothing was modified because hypothetically, they can totally make a new law in the future saying that those businesses that made the original deadline would be entitled to some tax perks while those taking the extended deadline won't. that's the difference between modifying the law and exercising prosecutorial discretion
the more you linger on this, the dumber you look, rigon. just admitting that the speaker's lawsuit is frivolous and you just didn't like the law - not like we all have any doubt what your real motivation is - would have earned your more respect.
thanks for playing anyways.
Obama/democrats forced through a law that everyone knew couldn't work, and now that it's not working Obama is trying to change the law on the fly and democrats with hopes of getting re-elected are running from it and him.
He's the president of the greatest country in the world. Elected properly by the Constitution/electorate of the United States of America.I honestly don't mind if He breaks a few local, state, national, and/or international law(s), if he thinks it is in the best interest of the USA.
I say give the Man the benefit of the doubt, and assume he's not a mastermind evil genius plotting to take away our rights and liberties.
Obama/democrats forced through a law that everyone knew couldn't work, and now that it's not working Obama is trying to change the law on the fly and democrats with hopes of getting re-elected are running from it and him.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
really?
And btw, thanks for admitting and agreeing with me that Obama broke his own law.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
Simple question: give that that was just one symptom of how shitty the law is, can you give me one good reason why the dates should have been delayed rather than the law cancelled altogether? Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
an underestimation of how long it would take for 300million people to adjust means the law need to be canceled?really? really? REALLY??
that's the answer to your question, boy. your argument sucks, that's the reason.
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability.What Obama is doing is more like a judge ignoring a mandatory minimum sentence to impose what he feels is more just. That judge would be reversed on appeal and maybe censured.
I understand the valid concern of the preservation of legal institutions and rule of law, but 7960s motives have nothing to do with concern for others.
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability.What Obama is doing is more like a judge ignoring a mandatory minimum sentence to impose what he feels is more just. That judge would be reversed on appeal and maybe censured.
Simple question: Can you give me a good reason why we should not delay fines associated with the affordable care act given the troubles we had with the website and the initial misjudgements in terms of how long it would take the system to adjust outside of "it's the law!"?
If the president isn't going to follow the law he passed, why should anyone follow any law?
That's like suggesting that if a judge decided to take extenuating circumstances into consideration and reduced punishment for a crime that would normally legally warrant death that such a move would automatically encourage lawlessness. History shows that lenience under the right circumstance is actually very important for social stability. Jump to: