PDA

View Full Version : Judge Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed



pjohns
07-10-2018, 06:26 PM
No doubt, there will be many brushback pitches during the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh--it will truly be a rough ride (to mix a metaphor)--but I am almost certain that he will eventually be confirmed.

For one thing, red-state Democrats who are up for re-election in 2018--Joe Manchin of West Virginia; Joe Donnelly of Indiana; and Claire McCaskill of Missouri--will be under intense pressure to break ranks with Chuck Schumer, and vote according to the desires of their constituents.

And John Tester of Montana may also vote for confirmation.

And I am really unconvinced that Susan Collins (of Maine) will vote against this nominee. Her recent proclamation that she could not vote for anyone who would challenge Roe v. Wade was likely just cover for the fact that she will probably be inclined to vote for this nominee; and, since Judge Kavanaugh has not (and presumably, will not) make an unambiguous statement in this regard, she can then tell her constituents, "Well, I voted for a man who did not say anything about voting to overturn Roe.

So it is possible that Judge Kavanaugh may receive 50 Republican votes, plus a handful of Democratic votes.

Comments?

Peter1469
07-10-2018, 06:29 PM
I think that is why Trump nominated him. Although still a conservative his is mainstream. I heard someone describe him as a bit to the left of Thomas.

DLLS
07-10-2018, 06:34 PM
No "theory" about the female Senator from AK (her name escapes me at the moment)? A lot of times she forgets that she is a Republican.

Currently, not opining about democrats I see, Collins, Paul and AK as more than possible "no" votes.

MisterVeritis
07-10-2018, 06:35 PM
I hope Kavanaugh will be rejected. We need the real deal.

pjohns
07-10-2018, 06:47 PM
No "theory" about the female Senator from AK (her name escapes me at the moment)?

Presumably, you are speaking of Lisa Murkowski.

She is, indeed, a centrist. (I do not care for the word, "moderate," in this context, as it implies that all who are not "moderate" are thereby immoderate; which is to say, extremist.)


Currently, not opining about democrats I see, Collins, Paul and AK as more than possible "no" votes.

Rand Paul is really a libertarian, masquerading as a Republican.

Still, I believe that he will eventually come around. (In fact, I understand that he is already moving a bit in that direction.)

gamewell45
07-10-2018, 07:15 PM
No doubt, there will be many brushback pitches during the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh--it will truly be a rough ride (to mix a metaphor)--but I am almost certain that he will eventually be confirmed.

For one thing, red-state Democrats who are up for re-election in 2018--Joe Manchin of West Virginia; Joe Donnelly of Indiana; and Claire McCaskill of Missouri--will be under intense pressure to break ranks with Chuck Schumer, and vote according to the desires of their constituents.

And John Tester of Montana may also vote for confirmation.

And I am really unconvinced that Susan Collins (of Maine) will vote against this nominee. Her recent proclamation that she could not vote for anyone who would challenge Roe v. Wade was likely just cover for the fact that she will probably be inclined to vote for this nominee; and, since Judge Kavanaugh has not (and presumably, will not) make an unambiguous statement in this regard, she can then tell her constituents, "Well, I voted for a man who did not say anything about voting to overturn Roe.

So it is possible that Judge Kavanaugh may receive 50 Republican votes, plus a handful of Democratic votes.

Comments?
Anything is possible at this stage of the game. Should be an interesting election in November.

DLLS
07-10-2018, 07:19 PM
I am hopeful that they "pull out all the stops" and have a Justice confirmed by the beginning of the term.

texan
07-10-2018, 07:59 PM
I have no problem with the guy and no other American should either.

Tahuyaman
07-10-2018, 10:51 PM
Judge Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed
Why shouldn’t he? Maybe one of the malcontents like MisterVeritis can explain why?

Tahuyaman
07-10-2018, 10:52 PM
I have no problem with the guy and no other American should either.

Well, he must disagree with MV on some trivial issue, so....

Tahuyaman
07-10-2018, 10:53 PM
I hope Kavanaugh will be rejected. We need the real deal.
You should be rejected.

gamewell45
07-11-2018, 01:05 AM
No doubt, there will be many brushback pitches during the confirmation process of Brett Kavanaugh--it will truly be a rough ride (to mix a metaphor)--but I am almost certain that he will eventually be confirmed.

For one thing, red-state Democrats who are up for re-election in 2018--Joe Manchin of West Virginia; Joe Donnelly of Indiana; and Claire McCaskill of Missouri--will be under intense pressure to break ranks with Chuck Schumer, and vote according to the desires of their constituents.

And John Tester of Montana may also vote for confirmation.

And I am really unconvinced that Susan Collins (of Maine) will vote against this nominee. Her recent proclamation that she could not vote for anyone who would challenge Roe v. Wade was likely just cover for the fact that she will probably be inclined to vote for this nominee; and, since Judge Kavanaugh has not (and presumably, will not) make an unambiguous statement in this regard, she can then tell her constituents, "Well, I voted for a man who did not say anything about voting to overturn Roe.

So it is possible that Judge Kavanaugh may receive 50 Republican votes, plus a handful of Democratic votes.

Comments?
I think you'll get DINO Manchin's vote from the democrats side and I think RINO Collins of Maine will break ranks to vote against his nomination so it'll be a wash unless McCain shows up to vote and in that case it'll be a lock for sure on the nominee.

Chris
07-11-2018, 07:22 AM
I agree, he's mainstream conservative and probably won't see much resistance from Democrats.

MMC
07-11-2018, 07:23 AM
Collins and Murkowski voted for his confirmation to the DC Appellate Court. As did the Demos.


The Demos will put up a fight, but not much of one. Just to keep their base happy. Mike Allen of Axios. Jake Sherman of Politico and other left leaning Law Pundits. State Kavanaugh will be confirmed.


McCaskill doesn't matter what she does. She is losing in Missouri so no pressure on her over this vote. Now Heidkampt, Manchin, and Donnelly is a different story.


Tester, Sherrod Brown will vote against.


Rand Paul the Army of one.....will vote to confirm. Despite any face time before the cameras.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 08:50 AM
I have no problem with the guy and no other American should either.
He will be as reliable as Roberts. On the biggest, most important issues I believe Kavanaugh will side with the Statists against the Constitution.

We need and should have a reliable Constitutional Conservative. Kavanaugh might become just another Kennedy or Roberts.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 08:51 AM
Well, he must disagree with MV on some trivial issue, so....
He searched for a way to turn the ObamaCare penalty into a tax. No thanks. We should pass him by and demand a Constitutional Conservative.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 08:52 AM
You should be rejected.
I don't mind being rejected by you.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 08:53 AM
I agree, he's mainstream conservative and probably won't see much resistance from Democrats.
Kavanaugh is unreliable.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 08:59 AM
He searched for a way to turn the ObamaCare penalty into a tax. No thanks. We should pass him by and demand a Constitutional Conservative.

It was a tax.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 09:02 AM
MV is one of these guys who needs 100% agreement with his views. With him if you disagree on any issue he considers you an enemy of the nation.

Remember, agree with him 100% of the time, or be prepared to be called an enemy of America.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 09:24 AM
I agree, he's mainstream conservative and probably won't see much resistance from Democrats.


I think he's going to see a lot of resistance from Democrats. Schumer actually read and understands his views on the ACA. He knows that Kavanaugh would have voted with the minority if he had been on the Supreme Court then.

In spite of what one particular malcontent says, Kavanaugh will be a reliable constitutionalist on the court.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 09:25 AM
It was a tax.
You lie.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 09:27 AM
I think he's going to see a lot of resistance from Democrats. Schumer actually read and understands his views on the ACA. He knows that Kavanaugh would have voted with the minority if he had been on the Supreme Court then.

In spite of what one particular malcontent says, Kavanaugh will be a reliable constitutionalist on the court.
Kavanaugh's record proves otherwise. It is a shame you are unable to read.

countryboy
07-11-2018, 09:57 AM
It was a tax.

Holy shit, you side with the libs and Roberts on the Obamacare decision? I thought you were a conservative. Albeit, a snarky contrarian conservative

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 09:59 AM
Holy shit, you side with the libs and Roberts on the Obamacare decision? I thought you were a conservative. Albeit, a snarky contrarian conservative
Tahu frequently errs.

DLLS
07-11-2018, 09:59 AM
It only became a tax when they had to defend it in court, prior to that it was a penalty.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:01 AM
It only became a tax when they had to defend it in court, prior to that it was a penalty.
No. It only became a tax when Roberts rewrote the statue. The Congress clearly wrote the law as a penalty.

What Roberts did is unconstitutional He took an unconstitutional law and rewrote it. Kavanaugh led the way. Kavanaugh should be rejected.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 10:09 AM
Holy $#@!, you side with the libs and Roberts on the Obamacare decision? I thought you were a conservative. Albeit, a snarky contrarian conservative


It Was as a tax. That doesn't mean it was constitutional. Either purchase a product or pay a tax.


The federal government was still requiring you to purchase a product. That is indeed unconstitutional.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:12 AM
It Was as a tax. That doesn't mean it was constitutional. Either purchase a product or pay a tax.
When did you decide to start lying?

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 10:18 AM
Kavanaugh's record proves otherwise. It is a shame you are unable to read.


It's a shame that you can't face any disagreement in any issue.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:22 AM
It's a shame that you can't face any disagreement in any issue.
I face disagreement every day. I choose to be on the right side. You choose the other side.

Kavanaugh is a risky choice based on his arguments that a penalty could be considered to be a tax.

Boot him quickly and let's get a Constitutional Conservative.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 10:22 AM
Holy $#@!, you side with the libs and Roberts on the Obamacare decision? I thought you were a conservative. Albeit, a snarky contrarian conservative

Whether you call it a tax or a penalty is immaterial. That is not what should have made the ACA declared unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional because the federal government was mandating that you purchase a product or face the imposition of a tax or penalty. That is overstepping their authority.

The late great Justice Scalia said the same thing.

That is the truth.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 10:24 AM
I face disagreement every day...

You sure don't handle it well. You are as intolerant and closed minded as any liberal in existence.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:25 AM
Whether you call it a tax or a penalty is immaterial.
This is why you fail.


That is not what should have made the ACA declared unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional because the federal government was mandating that you purchase a product or face the imposition of a tax or penalty. That is overstepping their authority.
That was a strike against it. But not the only strike.

The late great Justice Scalia said the same thing.
You err yet again. I quoted Scalia's dissent. Did you read it? Or was it too difficult?

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:26 AM
You sure don't handle it well. You are as intolerant and closed minded as any liberal in existence.
When I am right I am right. Do you expect me to accept your errors over the correct view?

Captdon
07-11-2018, 10:29 AM
Anything is possible at this stage of the game. Should be an interesting election in November.

There are at lest 4 Democrats who will vote for him. It will be a done deal and he'll be on the court before the elections.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:33 AM
There are at lest 4 Democrats who will vote for him. It will be a done deal and he'll be on the court before the elections.
Democrats should vote for him. He will be another Kennedy or Roberts. Republicans should reject him.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 10:34 AM
I think you'll get DINO Manchin's vote from the democrats side and I think RINO Collins of Maine will break ranks to vote against his nomination so it'll be a wash unless McCain shows up to vote and in that case it'll be a lock for sure on the nominee.

Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly and probably McCaskill are going to vote for Trump's choice. They don't intend to throw their re-elections away for Chuckles Shumer.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 10:37 AM
Kavanaugh's record proves otherwise. It is a shame you are unable to read.

Except for the ACA he's just fine. ACA is dying on the vine so that's no concern. Read his record and remember that he is more conservative than Gorsuch was.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 10:39 AM
It only became a tax when they had to defend it in court, prior to that it was a penalty.

No. The government said it wasn't a tax. The Republicans said it was. A mistake. Roberts agreed with them and that made the ACA constitutional in his eyes. A Republican screw up.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:40 AM
Except for the ACA he's just fine. ACA is dying on the vine so that's no concern. Read his record and remember that he is more conservative than Gorsuch was.
Don't be a fool. ACA is not the point. Kavanaugh's willingness to rewrite statutes is. He cannot be trusted. I see you want another Kennedy. Or another Roberts. Why? We can have a Constitutional Conservative if we insist on it.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:41 AM
No. The government said it wasn't a tax. The Republicans said it was. A mistake. Roberts agreed with them and that made the ACA constitutional. A Republican screw up.
Don't put this on the Republicans. Roberts rewrote an unconstitutional law. Roberts and Kavanaugh are gross errors. We can do better and we should.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 10:44 AM
Democrats should vote for him. He will be another Kennedy or Roberts. Republicans should reject him.
That's being a kook.
No, they shouldn't. You know I'm right but you can't ever admit to being wrong. You are dead wrong this time. Do try to learn something you don't know. You're never too hard to learn if you want to learn. That remains to be seen.

Yea, reject Trump's appointee right before the election and give the House to the Dems as a gift.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:47 AM
No, they shouldn't. You know I'm right but you can't ever admit to being wrong. You are dead wrong this time. Do try to learn something you don't know. You're never too hard to learn if you want to learn. That remains to be seen.

Yea, reject Trump's appointee right before the election and give the House to the Dems as a gift.
If I am wrong shouldn't you be able to show it? I posted Scalia's dissent and described how Kavanaugh did the same gyrations Roberts did to turn a penalty into a tax. Do you disbelieve Scalia's dissent? Do you believe Kavanaugh did not do all he could to turn a legislated penalty into a legislated tax?

Or is it that you simply do not care if Kavanaugh is a very risky choice?

Captdon
07-11-2018, 10:48 AM
Don't put this on the Republicans. Roberts rewrote an unconstitutional law. Roberts and Kavanaugh are gross errors. We can do better and we should.

It was the stupid Republicans who screamed it was a tax. they said it in writing to the Court. They said it to the Court. Roberts took their arguement. Yea, it was dumbass Republicans who brought the tax issue to the Court.
Perhaps you were ill and unable to keep up when the issue came to the court. I can't think of any other reason for you to say this.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:51 AM
It was the stupid Republicans who screamed it was a tax. they said it in writing to the Court. They said it to the Court. Roberts took their arguement. Yea, it was dumbass Republicans who brought the tax issue to the Court.
Perhaps you were ill and unable to keep up when the issue came to the court. I can't think of any other reason for you to say this.
Note to self: Capt is unaware that Roberts rewrote a legislative penalty, the law, unconstitutionally, into a tax. Question: Is Capt simply ignorant? Is there some other explanation? Can a Justice write legislation? If so by what Constitutional authority?

Are the Republicans dumb asses or is Capt simply wrong, again.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 10:54 AM
It was the stupid Republicans who screamed it was a tax. they said it in writing to the Court. They said it to the Court. Roberts took their argument. Yea, it was dumbass Republicans who brought the tax issue to the Court.
Perhaps you were ill and unable to keep up when the issue came to the court. I can't think of any other reason for you to say this.
It does not matter what Republicans did or did not say. Do you understand that? The point was the law itself. The law itself was unconstitutional. Roberts rewrote the law. That is unconstitutional.

Perhaps you were too ill to understand what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. I can't think of any other reason for you to say this.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 10:56 AM
If I am wrong shouldn't you be able to show it? I posted Scalia's dissent and described how Kavanaugh did the same gyrations Roberts did to turn a penalty into a tax. Do you disbelieve Scalia's dissent? Do you believe Kavanaugh did not do all he could to turn a legislated penalty into a legislated tax?

Or is it that you simply do not care if Kavanaugh is a very risky choice?

Scalia wasn't a god. He though t that government agencies had more "belief" in courts too.

Blame Robert's. he was on the court. Kavanaugh wasn't.

He is not a risky choice. Neither was Roberts. Roberts has been just fine most of the time.

Showing you a fire wouldn't be enough for you. Throwing you in it to see how hot it was wouldn't make you think it wasn't a trick.

You normality status is at risk I think. There is another group besides normal and abnormals. There aberrants. You are borderline as is. Hopefully, you are having a bad day and can rejoin the normals.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 11:04 AM
Scalia wasn't a god. He though t that government agencies had more "belief" in courts too.
You are arguing against a point I did not make. While convenient for you it does not advance your argument.

Blame Robert's. he was on the court. Kavanaugh wasn't.
I do blame Roberts. If you can pay attention Kavanaugh ruled on the same law. Kavanaugh practically did somersaults to convert the penalty into a tax as Roberts did after Kavanaugh did.

One can learn from one's mistakes or one can appoint another Kennedy or Roberts. We deserve better and we should demand that President Trump nominate a Constitutional Conservative.


He is not a risky choice. Neither was Roberts. Roberts has been just fine most of the time.
Roberts made ACA constitutional through an unconstitutional rewriting of the law. If you believe that is acceptable then the problem lies within you.

Showing you a fire wouldn't be enough for you. Throwing you in it to see how hot it was wouldn't make you think it wasn't a trick.
I understand you ran out of arguments.

You normality status is at risk I think. There is another group besides normal and abnormals. There aberrants. You are borderline as is. Hopefully, you are having a bad day and can rejoin the normals.
The Normal people want a Constitutional Conservative on the Court. The abnormals don't really care as long as they can claim a win. Don't be abnormal.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 11:10 AM
When I am right I am right. Do you expect me to accept your errors over the correct view?


And when you are wrong, you are wrong.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 11:16 AM
I said Scalia, who you adore, isn't a god. I gave an example. It wasn't a deflection since I challenged you otherwise. Don't play word games or mind games with me. You don't have the talent. Let's just stick to old-fashioned disagreement or agreement.

When you're right I'll agree with you. When your wrong I'll let you know so you can learn.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 11:23 AM
Scalia wasn't a god. He though t that government agencies had more "belief" in courts too.

Blame Robert's. he was on the court. Kavanaugh wasn't.

He is not a risky choice. Neither was Roberts. Roberts has been just fine most of the time.

Showing you a fire wouldn't be enough for you. Throwing you in it to see how hot it was wouldn't make you think it wasn't a trick.

You normality status is at risk I think. There is another group besides normal and abnormals. There aberrants. You are borderline as is. Hopefully, you are having a bad day and can rejoin the normals.


I think Kavanaugh is a good choice. I'm sure there will be an occasion where he takes a side some conservatives would disagree with, but even a solid constitutional conservative such as Justice Scalia sometimes did the same.


Roberts did err in that he re-wrote part of the ACA to make it fit into a box which could make it constitutional. That is not the job of the court. Given his otherwise conservative record, why he did that is inexplicable.


MV will never forgive Roberts for that. Disagree with him once and it's all over.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 11:27 AM
And when you are wrong, you are wrong.
I suppose I have been wrong from time to time. I cannot recall any times.

Fortunately, I am not wrong. Unfortunately, you are.

I showed you Scalia's dissent where Scalia describes that Roberts rewrote the statute to turn a penalty written into the law into a tax (that was not in the law). I described for you Kavanaugh, debating with one of the attorneys on the same point arguing that the penalty written into law as a penalty could be considered a tax despite the tax not being written into law.

I believe anyone who would make the argument that judges can turn one law into another are dangerous to our liberties. You dissent.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 11:30 AM
This is why you fail.


That was a strike against it. But not the only strike.

You err yet again. I quoted Scalia's dissent. Did you read it? Or was it too difficult?

You are wrong. The troubling part, for you anyway, is that you are too stubborn and prideful to acknowledge it. That ensures that you will continue to be wrong.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 11:30 AM
I said Scalia, who you adore, isn't a god. I gave an example. It wasn't a deflection since I challenged you otherwise. Don't play word games or mind games with me. You don't have the talent. Let's just stick to old-fashioned disagreement or agreement.

When you're right I'll agree with you. When your wrong I'll let you know so you can learn.
Whether Scalia is a god or not or whether I adore Scalia or not was not relevant. Scalia did dissent. I quoted Scalia's dissent. If you want to say you reject Scalia's argument, that is one thing. But you didn't.

If you don't care for "word games" given that the law is all about words and what they mean, maybe you should retire from this argument.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 11:31 AM
You are wrong. The troubling part, for you anyway, is that you are too stubborn to acknowledge it. That ensures that you will continue to be wrong.
If I am wrong you should be able to show it. But you are unable.

The troubling part, for you anyway, is that you are too stubborn to acknowledge it. That ensures that you will continue to be wrong.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 11:32 AM
If I am wrong you should be able to show it. But you are unable.

The troubling part, for you anyway, is that you are too stubborn to acknowledge it. That ensures that you will continue to be wrong.


You're a tool.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 11:33 AM
I think Kavanaugh is a good choice. I'm sure there will be an occasion where he takes a side some conservatives would disagree with, but even a solid constitutional conservative such as Justice Scalia sometimes did the same.


Roberts did err in that he re-wrote part of the ACA to make it fit into a box which could make it constitutional. That is not the job of the court. Given his otherwise conservative record, why he did that is inexplicable.


MV will never forgive Roberts for that. Disagree with him once and it's all over.
Roberts betrayed his oath of office where he swore to support and defend the Constitution. Kavanaugh did the same thing with the same part of the same law. There is no reason to believe Kavanaugh will be any more reliable than Roberts. That is not fine with me. It is fine with you.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 11:34 AM
If I am wrong you should be able to show it. But you are unable.

You're a tool.
if true I am at least us useful tool. You are a broken, worthless tool.

Maybe that is why you cannot show me my error.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 11:40 AM
If I am wrong you should be able to show it. But you are unable.

if true I am t least us useful tool. You are a broken, worthless tool.

Maybe that is why you cannot show me my error.


Lol.....

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 11:41 AM
Lol.....
At some point, after you have again been shown to be lacking laughter is your best option. I am glad you found it.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 11:48 AM
When you disagree with MV he becomes irrational.

countryboy
07-11-2018, 11:52 AM
It Was as a tax. That doesn't mean it was constitutional. Either purchase a product or pay a tax.


The federal government was still requiring you to purchase a product. That is indeed unconstitutional.

It was never a tax, nor was it ever intended to be. Obama, you know, the guy who's name is on the thing, slathered on about how it WASN'T a tax.

countryboy
07-11-2018, 11:55 AM
Whether you call it a tax or a penalty is immaterial.

Nonsense, it is a very important distinction.


That is not what should have made the ACA declared unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional because the federal government was mandating that you purchase a product or face the imposition of a tax or penalty. That is overstepping their authority.

The late great Justice Scalia said the same thing.

That is the truth.

Could you please quote Scalia saying it was a tax?

pjohns
07-11-2018, 12:14 PM
MV is one of these guys who needs 100% agreement with his views. With him if you disagree on any issue he considers you an enemy of the nation.
Ronald Reagan had a good quote on this matter. (I can only paraphrase: But it went something like this):

If a person agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he should be considered an 80 percent friend--not a 20 percent enemy.

pjohns
07-11-2018, 12:19 PM
When did you decide to start lying?
There is a logical fallacy known as The Fallacy of the Complex Question.

Basically, it is two questions rolled into one.

The classical example of it is this:

When did you stop beating your wife?

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 01:12 PM
Ronald Reagan had a good quote on this matter. (I can only paraphrase: But it went something like this):

If a person agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he should be considered an 80 percent friend--not a 20 percent enemy.


MV is no Ronald Reagan.

Whats really odd about MV’s position is that the left is hyperventilating over Kavanaugh’s demonstrated hostility to the ACA. MV claims the exact opposite about the guy.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 01:14 PM
It was never a tax, nor was it ever intended to be. Obama, you know, the guy who's name is on the thing, slathered on about how it WASN'T a tax.
You have no idea why the ACA should have been declared unconstitutional and it had nothing to do with whether or not it contained a tax or penalty.

countryboy
07-11-2018, 01:32 PM
You have no idea why the ACA should have been declared unconstitutional and it had nothing to do with whether or not it contained a tax or penalty.

Lol, I have no idea? Why, because you say so? You're smarter than Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and even Kennedy? Oooo-kay.

BTW, I've never mentioned what I think about the constitutionally of Obama care. Are you some kinda mind reader?

MMC
07-11-2018, 01:48 PM
I suppose I have been wrong from time to time. I cannot recall any times.

Fortunately, I am not wrong. Unfortunately, you are.

I showed you Scalia's dissent where Scalia describes that Roberts rewrote the statute to turn a penalty written into the law into a tax (that was not in the law). I described for you Kavanaugh, debating with one of the attorneys on the same point arguing that the penalty written into law as a penalty could be considered a tax despite the tax not being written into law.

I believe anyone who would make the argument that judges can turn one law into another are dangerous to our liberties. You dissent.

You were misled about Kavanaugh.



Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/...nted-unlawful/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/)

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 01:53 PM
Lol, I have no idea? Why, because you say so? You're smarter than Alito, Thomas, Scalia, and even Kennedy? Oooo-kay.

BTW, I've never mentioned what I think about the constitutionally of Obama care. Are you some kinda mind reader?
They didn’t oppose the ACA because of a tax or fee. They opposed it because government has no business ordering you to purchase a particular product.

Scalia used the example of government requiring one to buy broccoli.

If participation in the ACA had been made voluntary, no one would have had an issue with it.

MMC
07-11-2018, 02:00 PM
They didn’t oppose the ACA because of a tax or fee. They opposed it because government has no business ordering you to purchase a particular product.

Scalia used the example of government requiring one to buy broccoli.

If participation in the ACA had been made voluntary, no one would have had an issue with it.



You are correct. Kavanaugh made the Right call. Which was proven once Trump got rid of the Individual mandate.

Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


The Taxing Clause, he continued, “has not traditionally authorized a legal prohibition or mandate,” which Obamacare plainly contained. Contrary to Jacobs’ revisionist history, Kavanaugh’s Taxing Clause discussion is thus the opposite of a roadmap to upholding the statute under the Taxing Clause, as the Supreme Court ultimately did in its indefensible decision. Rather, Kavanaugh’s dismissal of the Taxing Clause argument is a roadmap to the conclusion reached by the dissenters—that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Taxing Clause.



To be sure, Kavanaugh suggested that a different statute without a mandate might pass muster under the Taxing Clause. But a statute without the mandate would not be Obamacare; it would be an entirely different law. Kavanaugh’s hypothetical discussion of a different statute without a mandate could not be a roadmap to upholding the statute with the mandate that was actually before the court.


A final point: Kavanaugh explained that waiting to resolve the challenge to Obamacare was not only required by law, but also the wise and judicially restrained course. There might never be a need to address the constitutionality of the mandate, he explained, because a future president (after the 2012 election) might choose not to enforce it. That suggestion triggered a furious response from liberal commentator Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker.


Moreover, Kavanaugh warned that rushing to resolve the constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012, rather than respecting the statutory limitations on the court’s authority, could result in an error in judgment. Kavanaugh was right.....snip~



http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 02:02 PM
You are correct. Kavanaugh made the Right call. Which was proven once Trump got rid of the Individual mandate.

Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


The Taxing Clause, he continued, “has not traditionally authorized a legal prohibition or mandate,” which Obamacare plainly contained. Contrary to Jacobs’ revisionist history, Kavanaugh’s Taxing Clause discussion is thus the opposite of a roadmap to upholding the statute under the Taxing Clause, as the Supreme Court ultimately did in its indefensible decision. Rather, Kavanaugh’s dismissal of the Taxing Clause argument is a roadmap to the conclusion reached by the dissenters—that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Taxing Clause.



To be sure, Kavanaugh suggested that a different statute without a mandate might pass muster under the Taxing Clause. But a statute without the mandate would not be Obamacare; it would be an entirely different law. Kavanaugh’s hypothetical discussion of a different statute without a mandate could not be a roadmap to upholding the statute with the mandate that was actually before the court.


A final point: Kavanaugh explained that waiting to resolve the challenge to Obamacare was not only required by law, but also the wise and judicially restrained course. There might never be a need to address the constitutionality of the mandate, he explained, because a future president (after the 2012 election) might choose not to enforce it. That suggestion triggered a furious response from liberal commentator Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker.


Moreover, Kavanaugh warned that rushing to resolve the constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012, rather than respecting the statutory limitations on the court’s authority, could result in an error in judgment. Kavanaugh was right.....snip~



http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/

Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

MMC
07-11-2018, 02:09 PM
Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

Because the left has put out misleading info with some Never Trumpers. Even though the Never Trumpers as a majority of them are onboard with the Kavanaugh pick. Plus a couple other Moderates like Jacobs got the facts wrong.


The big clue for all to take note of is.....Kavanaugh and his strict interpretation of the Separations of Powers.


Which the leftness fears moreso than Roe vs Wade.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 02:22 PM
Because the left has put out misleading info with some Never Trumpers. Even though the Never Trumpers as a majority of them are onboard with the Kavanaugh pick. Plus a couple other Moderates like Jacobs got the facts wrong.


The big clue for all to take note of is.....Kavanaugh and his strict interpretation of the Separations of Powers.


Which the leftness fears moreso than Roe vs Wade. I'll disagree with on one thing. Roe vs Wade is the most important issue for the left. This is inexplicable, because if Roe vs Wade should be overturned, the only thing which would hapoen is the issue would go to the states. The federal government would not be involved. Which is the way it should be.

The reason Democrats are trying to find creative ways to oppose his nomination is because they were being exposed as one issue idiots by focusing so intently on one issue.


Once his answers to Schumer's questions during his last confirmation hearing pertaining to Roe vs Wade were exposed, the Democrats got disarmed on that issue.

MMC
07-11-2018, 02:28 PM
I'll disagree with on one thing. Roe vs Wade is the most important issue for the left. This is inexplicable, because if Roe vs Wade should be overturned, the only thing which would hapoen is the issue would go to the states. The federal government would not be involved. Which is the way it should be.

The left knows it would go to the States, and the states like Californification and NY would not get rid of Abortion Clinics. They also know Roe vs Wade was written up poorly.

They also know what Scalia said about Roe Vs Wade. Check out Scalia and what he had to say about it.

countryboy
07-11-2018, 02:32 PM
They didn’t oppose the ACA because of a tax or fee. They opposed it because government has no business ordering you to purchase a particular product.

Scalia used the example of government requiring one to buy broccoli.

If participation in the ACA had been made voluntary, no one would have had an issue with it.

Lol, from the dissent.


The joint dissent from the majority opinion by Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito could hardly have been more vigorous:

Our cases establish a clear line between a tax and a penalty. “ ‘[A] tax is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a penalty . . . is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act.’” [citation omitted] In a few cases, this Court has held that a “tax” imposed upon private conduct was so onerous as to be in effect a penalty. But we have never held – never – that a penalty imposed for violation of the law is so trivial as to be in effect a tax. We have never held that any exaction imposed for violation of the law is an exercise of Congress’s taxing power – even when the statute calls it a tax, much less when (as here) the statute repeatedly calls it a penalty. (p. 18)
We never have classified as a tax an exaction imposed for violation of the law, and so too, we never have classified as a tax an exaction described in the legislation itself as a penalty…. But we have never – never – treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction as a “penalty.” Eighteen times [in the Act] Congress called the exaction … a “penalty.” (p. 20-21)
For all these reasons, to say that the Individual Mandate merely imposed a tax is not to interpret the statute but to rewrite it. Judicial tax-writing is particularly troubling. (p. 24)
The Government and those who support its position . . . make the remarkable argument that [the penalty] is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act [citation omitted], but is a tax for constitutional purposes …. The rhetorical device that tries to cloak this argument in superficial plausibility is the same device employed in arguing that for constitutional purposes the minimum-coverage provision is a tax: confusing the question of what Congress did with the question of what Congress could have done…. But there is no such prescription here. What the Government would have us believe in these cases is that the very same textual indications that show this is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act show that it is a tax under the Constitution. That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists. (pp. 27-28)


The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax. . . .
The Court regards its strained statutory interpretation as judicial modesty. It is not. It amounts instead to a vast judicial overreaching. It creates a debilitated, inoperable version of health-care regulation that Congress did not enact and the public does not expect. (p. 64)
The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the Federal Government is one of limited powers. But the Court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty. (p. 65)
The fragmentation of power produced by the structure of our Government is central to liberty, and when we destroy it, we place liberty at peril. Today’s decision should have vindicated, should have taught, this truth; instead, our judgment today has disregarded it.


For the reasons here stated, we would find the Act invalid in its entirety. We respectfully dissent.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 02:39 PM
Clearly they were concerned about government mandating that someone is required by law to purchase a particular product.

gamewell45
07-11-2018, 02:59 PM
There are at lest 4 Democrats who will vote for him. It will be a done deal and he'll be on the court before the elections.

I guess we'll see what ultimately transpires. If what you say holds true, then it'll be a done deal; if not then we'll find out either way.

gamewell45
07-11-2018, 03:07 PM
Heitkamp, Manchin, Donnelly and probably McCaskill are going to vote for Trump's choice. They don't intend to throw their re-elections away for Chuckles Shumer.

I agree with Manchin who's a DINO; the other three I'm not so sure about. Roe Vs. Wade is a very touchy subject for many people, especially women. It would appear from what I'm hearing that McCaskill is more or less out of the running for her seat so she has nothing to lose if she votes against Kavanaugh's nomination. The other two, if they vote for his nomination, they'll have to live that for the rest of their careers (if they still have one), but you never know, you might be right on the other hand. Either way we'll find out one way or another.

MMC
07-11-2018, 03:07 PM
Clearly they were concerned about government mandating that someone is required by law to purchase a particular product.

Which as one can see Kavanaugh agreed with. Unconstitutional. Separations of Powers.

Peter1469
07-11-2018, 03:09 PM
It was a tax.

I thought congress said it was not a tax- they were afraid it would not pass if they called it a tax.

Peter1469
07-11-2018, 03:14 PM
Whether you call it a tax or a penalty is immaterial. That is not what should have made the ACA declared unconstitutional. It was unconstitutional because the federal government was mandating that you purchase a product or face the imposition of a tax or penalty. That is overstepping their authority.

The late great Justice Scalia said the same thing.

That is the truth.

It is material. If it was a penalty, the Court would look to the Commerce Clause- which it did, and said the Commerce Clause does not allow the Feds to force a penalty on citizens for not buying something.

If it was a tax the Court looked to the Government's taxing powers. Which I think ought to relate to only things that fall under Article 1, section 8, US Constitution. So it should have failed.

Roberts fell on his sword on the second point to get a win on the first point. The Commerce Clause is slowly being returned to its original intent from which it deviated around 1936.

Peter1469
07-11-2018, 03:15 PM
Democrats should vote for him. He will be another Kennedy or Roberts. Republicans should reject him.

Roberts is a far cry from Kennedy.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:47 PM
MV is no Ronald Reagan.

Whats really odd about MV’s position is that the left is hyperventilating over Kavanaugh’s demonstrated hostility to the ACA. MV claims the exact opposite about the guy.
The difference between us is, I documented my concerns. You simply defaulted to lying.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:49 PM
Roberts is a far cry from Kennedy.
Not on the important issues. Roberts rewrote a law on the bench. kavanaugh was doing the same dance with the same law. If you don't mind settling for second best then Kavanaugh or Roberts or Kennedy is your guy. We can do better and we should.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:50 PM
It is material. If it was a penalty, the Court would look to the Commerce Clause- which it did, and said the Commerce Clause does not allow the Feds to force a penalty on citizens for not buying something.

If it was a tax the Court looked to the Government's taxing powers. Which I think ought to relate to only things that fall under Article 1, section 8, US Constitution. So it should have failed.

Roberts fell on his sword on the second point to get a win on the first point. The Commerce Clause is slowly being returned to its original intent from which it deviated around 1936.
The critical issue is Roberts (and Kavanaugh's) willingness to play fast and loose with the Constitution when the need for defense was critical. Neither can be trusted.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:51 PM
I thought congress said it was not a tax- they were afraid it would not pass if they called it a tax.
The law as written, passed and signed said it was a penalty.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 03:52 PM
The difference between us is, I documented my concerns. You simply defaulted to lying.

Im not sure what your problem is.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:52 PM
Ronald Reagan had a good quote on this matter. (I can only paraphrase: But it went something like this):

If a person agrees with you 80 percent of the time, he should be considered an 80 percent friend--not a 20 percent enemy.
When one is 20% enemy on the Constitution one has a Kennedy or a Roberts. Is that what we elected President Trump to give us?

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:53 PM
Im not sure what your problem is.
I have no problem. You do.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 03:56 PM
I thought congress said it was not a tax- they were afraid it would not pass if they called it a tax.
When it was being debated, the Republicans portrayed it as the largest tax increase in American history. The Democrats said no, it’s a penalty. When it went to the Supreme Court the Democrats changed course and said it was a tax and not a fee or penalty.

In the end the minority did address the tax vs penalty aspect, but their objection was government forcing the citizens to purchase a specific product.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:56 PM
When you disagree with MV he becomes irrational.
When you disagree with me you become irrational. I documented my concerns. You didn't.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 03:58 PM
When it was being debated, the Republicans portrayed it as the largest tax increase in American history. The Democrats said no, it’s a penalty. When it went to the Supreme Court thecDemocratsxchsnged course and said it was a tax and not a fee or penalty.

In the end the minority did address the tax vs penalty aspect, but their objection was government forcing the citizens to purchase a specific product.
And again you lie.

I documented Scalia's dissent. Why do you pretend?

What did the law say? Did the law call the penalty a penalty? Or did the law call the penalty a tax? Let's start so simple even you cannot screw it up.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 04:00 PM
There is a logical fallacy known as The Fallacy of the Complex Question.
Basically, it is two questions rolled into one.The classical example of it is this:

When did you stop beating your wife?
One must pay attention to context. Tahu lied. I called him on it. Tahu lied again.

"It Was as a tax. That doesn't mean it was constitutional. Either purchase a product or pay a tax."

What should someone reasonable do?

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 04:02 PM
When you disagree with me you become irrational. I documented my concerns. You didn't. Honestly, you aren’t a stupid guy. Why then do you say so many stupid things? Is it just the contrarian in you? Do you have this irrational need to always try to prove to that you are the smartest guy in the room? That generally proves that you aren’t.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 04:03 PM
You were misled about Kavanaugh.
Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/...nted-unlawful/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/)
If I was misled it was by Kavanaugh. There are transcripts of his ten-minute harangue where he twisted penalties into taxes. They were his repeated words. Kavanaugh cannot be trusted. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Whoever you are quoting is lying to you.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 04:05 PM
Honestly, you aren’t a stupid guy. Why then do you say so many stupid things? Is it just the contrarian in you? Do you have this irrational need to always that you are the smartest guy in the room? That generally proves that you aren’t.
If I was wrong, and I am not, you should be able to easily document that Scalia said something other than he did or that Kavanaugh did not argue with the attorney over a penalty being a tax. But you cannot because I am right. I posted Scalia's dissent and a link to it. I described what Kavanaugh argued.

But you are inclined to accept the second stringer.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 04:06 PM
It’s impissible to engage in a discusion with that dude. I’m going be forced to just ignore the ignorameous.

MMC
07-11-2018, 04:08 PM
If I was misled it was by Kavanaugh. There are transcripts of his ten-minute harangue where he twisted penalties into taxes. They were his repeated words. Kavanaugh cannot be trusted. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Whoever you are quoting is lying to you.



Clearly you are confused over Kavanaughs Dissent.

Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


The Taxing Clause, he continued, “has not traditionally authorized a legal prohibition or mandate,” which Obamacare plainly contained. Contrary to Jacobs’ revisionist history, Kavanaugh’s Taxing Clause discussion is thus the opposite of a roadmap to upholding the statute under the Taxing Clause, as the Supreme Court ultimately did in its indefensible decision. Rather, Kavanaugh’s dismissal of the Taxing Clause argument is a roadmap to the conclusion reached by the dissenters—that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Taxing Clause.



To be sure, Kavanaugh suggested that a different statute without a mandate might pass muster under the Taxing Clause. But a statute without the mandate would not be Obamacare; it would be an entirely different law. Kavanaugh’s hypothetical discussion of a different statute without a mandate could not be a roadmap to upholding the statute with the mandate that was actually before the court.


A final point: Kavanaugh explained that waiting to resolve the challenge to Obamacare was not only required by law, but also the wise and judicially restrained course. There might never be a need to address the constitutionality of the mandate, he explained, because a future president (after the 2012 election) might choose not to enforce it. That suggestion triggered a furious response from liberal commentator Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker.


Moreover, Kavanaugh warned that rushing to resolve the constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012, rather than respecting the statutory limitations on the court’s authority, could result in an error in judgment. Kavanaugh was right.....snip~



http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/...nted-unlawful/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/)

Quit listening to those few Never Trumpers…..they are nothing more than patsies for the Left.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 04:10 PM
They didn’t oppose the ACA because of a tax or fee. They opposed it because government has no business ordering you to purchase a particular product.

Scalia used the example of government requiring one to buy broccoli.

If participation in the ACA had been made voluntary, no one would have had an issue with it.
Again you lie. Why do you do it?

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-114/

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:02 PM
Don't be a fool. ACA is not the point. Kavanaugh's willingness to rewrite statutes is. He cannot be trusted. I see you want another Kennedy. Or another Roberts. Why? We can have a Constitutional Conservative if we insist on it.

Don't tell me what I want. You want someone we have never had by your lights. Some of your lights are burned out. Try learning. You aren't the only one haer who can tread and comprehend.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:05 PM
I thought congress said it was not a tax- they were afraid it would not pass if they called it a tax.

They did. It was the republicans who said it was from the first federal court all the way to the Supreme court. Kavanaugh and Roberts took them at their word. The Republicans screwed the pooch.

One here says it was Kavanaugh who gave the idea to Roberts. It was the Republicans who gave the idea to everyone. In fact, it wasn't a tax. It was a penalty.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:07 PM
They didn’t oppose the ACA because of a tax or fee. They opposed it because government has no business ordering you to purchase a particular product.

Scalia used the example of government requiring one to buy broccoli.

If participation in the ACA had been made voluntary, no one would have had an issue with it.

Oh, right. I still don't see how a government can require you to buy a product. Car insurance is for car owners for example.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:12 PM
I guess we'll see what ultimately transpires. If what you say holds true, then it'll be a done deal; if not then we'll find out either way.

The worst that can happen is to wait until Jan 3 when the new congress takes power. The Republicans are likely to have 55 seats minimum. Then, Collins, Mukerksy(?) and Paul won't matter.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:16 PM
I agree with Manchin who's a DINO; the other three I'm not so sure about. Roe Vs. Wade is a very touchy subject for many people, especially women. It would appear from what I'm hearing that McCaskill is more or less out of the running for her seat so she has nothing to lose if she votes against Kavanaugh's nomination. The other two, if they vote for his nomination, they'll have to live that for the rest of their careers (if they still have one), but you never know, you might be right on the other hand. Either way we'll find out one way or another.


Live with it for the rest of their careers? They don't care about it at all. They will shrug it off.
"The first duty of any politician is to get re-elected." I don't know who said but it's true. No one is going to vote against this pick ahead of being re-elected. Manchin has already said he will take it to town hall meetings. you know how that will go. Heitkamp doesn't intend to die politically for Chuckie boy. Donnelly doesn't intend to commit political suicide.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 05:17 PM
Oh, right. I still don't see how a government can require you to buy a product. Car insurance is for car owners for example.


You are not required to have insurance to obtain a drivers license or purchase a car. Plus, driving an automobile on the open streets or hiway is not a right. It's a privelidge.

Now, if they created a law which says one can not obtain a drivers license until they got auto insurance, one would have a valid complaint.

besides, one is not required to have auto insurance. One is required to have adaquate coverage in the event of an accident. You can secure a bond or self insure if you have the financial means to do so.


Also there are several alternatives available for auto insurance on the free market. That wasn't the case with the ACA. Government was ordering you to purchase health care insurance from a specific company. You did not have free market choices.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:20 PM
The law as written, passed and signed said it was a penalty.

Until the dummies on the right re-defined it. Look to your right not to your left. You have to turn your head for this manouver.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:24 PM
If I was misled it was by Kavanaugh. There are transcripts of his ten-minute harangue where he twisted penalties into taxes. They were his repeated words. Kavanaugh cannot be trusted. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Whoever you are quoting is lying to you.

If you were mislead? That's not possible so don't deflect. God, you're having a really bad day.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:27 PM
If I was wrong, and I am not, you should be able to easily document that Scalia said something other than he did or that Kavanaugh did not argue with the attorney over a penalty being a tax. But you cannot because I am right. I posted Scalia's dissent and a link to it. I described what Kavanaugh argued.

But you are inclined to accept the second stringer.

Scalia didn't win. His argument did not matter except to you. He was not always right. I just committed a mortal sin just now but Scalia wasn't God and his dissent isn't the gospel.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:29 PM
Onee must pay attention to context. he lied. I called him on it. He lied again.

"It Was as a tax. That doesn't mean it was constitutional. Either purchase a product or pay a tax."

What should someone reasonable do?

You aren't reasonable. I agree with you when you are. You aren't on this. Therein lies the rub.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 05:30 PM
Until the dummies on the right re-defined it. Look to your right not to your left. You have to turn your head for this manouver.


If you were mislead? That's not possible so don't deflect. God, you're having a really bad day.
Stop it. He’s dug in now and it will only get worse.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:32 PM
Again you lie. Why do you do it?

Perhaps the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will attain the enduring status of the Social Security Act or the Taft-Hartley Act; perhaps not. But this Court’s two decisions on the Act will surely be remembered through the years. The somersaults of statutory interpretation they have performed (“penalty” means tax, “further [Medicaid] payments to the State” means only incremental Medicaid payments to the State, “established by the State” means not established by the State) will be cited by litigants endlessly, to the confusion of honest jurisprudence. And the cases will publish forever the discouraging truth that the Supreme Court of the United States favors some laws over others, and is prepared to do whatever it takes to uphold and assist its favorites.
I dissent.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-114/

Once Trump destroys it piece by piece no one will remember it at all. It will be forgotten in less tha a generation. With the mandate removed you hear little about it today. When it goes away it will be forgotten.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 05:38 PM
You are not required to have insurance to obtain a drivers license or purchase a car. Plus, driving an automobile on the open streets or hiway is not a right. It's a privelidge.

Now, if they created a law which says one can not obtain a drivers license until they got auto insurance, one would have a valid complaint.

besides, one is not required to have auto insurance. One is required to have adaquate coverage in the event of an accident. You can secure a bond or self insure if you have the financial means to do so.


Also there are several alternatives available for auto insurance on the free market. That wasn't the case with the ACA. Government was ordering you to purchase health care insurance from a specific company. You did not have free market choices.


Jesus, you want to play word games. What I said was clear enough.

Okay, the government did not require you to buy health insurance from a particular company. That is not true.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 05:41 PM
Jesus, you want to play word games. What I said was clear enough.

Okay, the government did not require you to buy health insurance from a particular company. That is not true.You had limited options. Very limited. It certainly wasn’t a free market situation as it is with auto insurance.

Also, where was I playing word games? Please, don’t be like MV.

Captdon
07-11-2018, 06:50 PM
You had limited options. Very limited. It certainly wasn’t a free market situation as it is with auto insurance.

Also, where was I playing word games? Please, don’t be like MV.

It certainly was under the law. That a number of companies left the system is on them. I'm not going to lie about the Dems anymore than the Reps. The free market had a lot of companies make a choice and they did. Here in SC we have two choices- Blue Cross and one of their subsidiaries.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 06:55 PM
Don't be a fool. ACA is not the point. Kavanaugh's willingness to rewrite statutes is. He cannot be trusted. I see you want another Kennedy. Or another Roberts. Why? We can have a Constitutional Conservative if we insist on it.

Don't tell me what I want. You want someone we have never had by your lights. Some of your lights are burned out. Try learning. You aren't the only one haer who can tread and comprehend.
We had a Thomas and a Scalia. President Trump can choose a Constitutional Conservative who has not trashed the Constitution.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 06:57 PM
When it was being debated, the Republicans portrayed it as the largest tax increase in American history. The Democrats said no, it’s a penalty. When it went to the Supreme Court the Democrats changed course and said it was a tax and not a fee or penalty.

In the end the minority did address the tax vs penalty aspect, but their objection was government forcing the citizens to purchase a specific product.
What did the law call it? This is very simple. Don't screw it up.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:01 PM
Clearly you are confused over Kavanaughs Dissent.

Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


The Taxing Clause, he continued, “has not traditionally authorized a legal prohibition or mandate,” which Obamacare plainly contained. Contrary to Jacobs’ revisionist history, Kavanaugh’s Taxing Clause discussion is thus the opposite of a roadmap to upholding the statute under the Taxing Clause, as the Supreme Court ultimately did in its indefensible decision. Rather, Kavanaugh’s dismissal of the Taxing Clause argument is a roadmap to the conclusion reached by the dissenters—that the individual mandate is unconstitutional under the Taxing Clause.



To be sure, Kavanaugh suggested that a different statute without a mandate might pass muster under the Taxing Clause. But a statute without the mandate would not be Obamacare; it would be an entirely different law. Kavanaugh’s hypothetical discussion of a different statute without a mandate could not be a roadmap to upholding the statute with the mandate that was actually before the court.


A final point: Kavanaugh explained that waiting to resolve the challenge to Obamacare was not only required by law, but also the wise and judicially restrained course. There might never be a need to address the constitutionality of the mandate, he explained, because a future president (after the 2012 election) might choose not to enforce it. That suggestion triggered a furious response from liberal commentator Jeffrey Toobin in The New Yorker.


Moreover, Kavanaugh warned that rushing to resolve the constitutionality of Obamacare in 2012, rather than respecting the statutory limitations on the court’s authority, could result in an error in judgment. Kavanaugh was right.....snip~



http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/...nted-unlawful/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/)

Quit listening to those few Never Trumpers…..they are nothing more than patsies for the Left.
Your pre-canned talking points are wonderful. They do not undo the clear intention by Kavanaugh to turn a penalty in the written law into an unwritten tax. I understand you want to believe. Go ahead. But one day Kavanaugh will do as Roberts did and destroy the Constitution. Just as Roberts did.

The truth, however, is the truth. Why do you deny it?

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:03 PM
It’s impissible to engage in a discusion with that dude. I’m going be forced to just ignore the ignorameous.
I love that someone who is a dullard under pressure is calling me names implying some intellectual shortcomings.

Good job.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:06 PM
They did. It was the republicans who said it was from the first federal court all the way to the Supreme court. Kavanaugh and Roberts took them at their word. The Republicans screwed the pooch.

One here says it was Kavanaugh who gave the idea to Roberts. It was the Republicans who gave the idea to everyone. In fact, it wasn't a tax. It was a penalty.
What does the law say? This is easy. Don't fuck it up.

Kavanaugh spent an easy ten minutes in a harangue against the opposing lawyer twisting the clear language of the law, that it was a penalty, into a tax. But you idiotically blame Republicans but hold the dangerous, deceptive Kavanaugh and the duplicitous Roberts harmless. What is wrong with you?

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:08 PM
The law as written, passed and signed said it was a penalty.

Until the dummies on the right re-defined it. Look to your right not to your left. You have to turn your head for this manouver.
The dummies on the right cannot redefine a law.

Kavanaugh and Roberts did this to us. No one else.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:09 PM
If I was misled it was by Kavanaugh. There are transcripts of his ten-minute harangue where he twisted penalties into taxes. They were his repeated words. Kavanaugh cannot be trusted. He is a wolf in sheep's clothing.

Whoever you are quoting is lying to you.

If you were mislead? That's not possible so don't deflect. God, you're having a really bad day.
It is a rhetorical flourish.

I am not having a bad day. I am right.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:10 PM
Stop it. He’s dug in now and it will only get worse.
It helps that I am right.

Can you remember a time when you were right?

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:11 PM
Once Trump destroys it piece by piece no one will remember it at all. It will be forgotten in less tha a generation. With the mandate removed you hear little about it today. When it goes away it will be forgotten.
Kavanaugh and Roberts destroyed the Constitution. And that appears to be fine with you.

It is not with me.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:35 PM
Scalia didn't win. His argument did not matter except to you. He was not always right. I just committed a mortal sin just now but Scalia wasn't God and his dissent isn't the gospel.
Scalia did not win. The leftists won.

Try to wrap your head around the facts. I know it is difficult. But try.

Kavanaugh did his best to turn a penalty, written in the law as a penalty, into a tax. Kavanaugh broke the Constitution. Roberts did the same. If you like the unwillingness of a Justice to always follow the Constitution then Roberts and Kavanaugh are your guys, they are on your team. They will stab you in the back when they believe it is necessary.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 07:37 PM
You aren't reasonable. I agree with you when you are. You aren't on this. Therein lies the rub.
I am very reasonable. I can afford to be. I am right. You are willing to settle for another Kennedy.

gamewell45
07-11-2018, 07:53 PM
The worst that can happen is to wait until Jan 3 when the new congress takes power. The Republicans are likely to have 55 seats minimum. Then, Collins, Mukerksy(?) and Paul won't matter.

If that's the case, then yes, it'll be a moot point.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 08:26 PM
It helps that I am right.

Can you remember a time when you were right?please, leave md alone. You’re annoying.

gamewell45
07-11-2018, 08:27 PM
Live with it for the rest of their careers? They don't care about it at all. They will shrug it off.
"The first duty of any politician is to get re-elected." I don't know who said but it's true. No one is going to vote against this pick ahead of being re-elected. Manchin has already said he will take it to town hall meetings. you know how that will go. Heitkamp doesn't intend to die politically for Chuckie boy. Donnelly doesn't intend to commit political suicide.

Manchin may as well not waste his time taking it to town hall since we know how he's going to vote; the other two may not want to die for Chuckles but either way they'll come out on the losing side since the democrats in their district most likely won't support someone, who voted to confirm a judge who could change the face of the SCOTUS particularly when it came to Roe Vs. Wade.

If I were the republicans, I'd be worried about Republicans Susan Collins (pro choice), Lisa Murkowski (pro choice), Rand Paul (libertarian views on government interference) and Shelly Moore Capito (Mix record on abortion) as possible no votes. I realize there are no guarantees on how people will vote, but it's interesting to compare the possibilities.

Peter1469
07-11-2018, 08:27 PM
The law as written, passed and signed said it was a penalty.

That is the way I remember it.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 08:29 PM
It certainly was under the law. That a number of companies left the system is on them. I'm not going to lie about the Dems anymore than the Reps. The free market had a lot of companies make a choice and they did. Here in SC we have two choices- Blue Cross and one of their subsidiaries.
In South Carolina you had two choices? Wow.

MisterVeritis
07-11-2018, 08:46 PM
please, leave md alone. You’re annoying.
I am right. Naturally, you find me annoying.

DLLS
07-11-2018, 09:17 PM
In South Carolina you had two choices? Wow.

There are poor people who could not get Obamacare. If you had no job you could not pay the premiums and the government would not provide a subsidy. They required as proof of income a tax return. Well if you have no income it is very hard to provide a tax return because if you do not work you do not file.

Tahuyaman
07-11-2018, 09:19 PM
I am right. Naturally, you find me annoying.
I don't find you annoying because you are right. I find you annoying because you are an imbecile

MMC
07-12-2018, 06:44 AM
I am very reasonable. I can afford to be. I am right. You are willing to settle for another Kennedy.

No, you weren't Right about Kavanaugh's dissent. Read it again and note what was bolded.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 09:26 AM
I don't find you annoying because you are right. I find you annoying because you are an imbecile
At least this time you spelled your words correctly. It is a step in the right direction.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 09:27 AM
No, you weren't Right about Kavanaugh's dissent. Read it again and note what was bolded.
It was not Kavanaugh's dissent. It was Scalia's dissent.

Of course, I am right.

MMC
07-12-2018, 10:04 AM
It was not Kavanaugh's dissent. It was Scalia's dissent.

Of course, I am right.

Wrong.....here it is again Note the bolding.


Brett Kavanaugh Said Obamacare Was Unprecedented And Unlawful (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/) Brett Kavanaugh has by far the strongest, most consistent, most fearless record of constitutional conservatism of any federal court of appeals judge in the country.


Over 12 years and 300 opinions, he has repeatedly fought for principles of textualism and originalism, reined in regulatory overreach, and ensured that administrative bureaucrats are accountable to the elected president. Nominating Kavanaugh would continue President Trump’s exemplary record of selecting the best-qualified person for the Supreme Court, as he did with his brilliant choice of Justice Neil Gorsuch.


Unfortunately, being the clear best choice has downsides, including inviting unfair attacks. One came Monday in a lengthy article by Christopher Jacobs (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/02/potential-scotus-pick-brett-kavanaugh-wrote-roadmap-saving-obamacare/) claiming that Kavanaugh “wrote a roadmap for saving Obamacare.” That is nonsense, and conservatives should not be misled into thinking otherwise.


In 2011, two judges on the D.C. Circuit upheld the Obamacare individual mandate under the Commerce Clause. Kavanaugh dissented from that decision, which was authored by the respected Judge Laurence Silberman, a Reagan appointee. Kavanaugh explained that Obamacare could be challenged as unconstitutional, but that a federal jurisdictional statute required such a challenge to be brought in the future.


Critically, and almost entirely absent from Jacobs’ account of the decision, Kavanaugh then called the individual mandate “a law that is unprecedented on the federal level in American history” and observed that upholding the individual mandate would be a “a jarring prospect” that would “usher in a significant expansion of congressional authority with no obvious principled limit.” The government’s argument for the mandate, Kavanaugh continued, would “ultimately extend as well to mandatory purchases of” many other products, a result that would have “extraordinary ramifications.”


Kavanaugh’s thorough and principled takedown of the mandate was indeed a roadmap for the Supreme Court—the Supreme Court dissenters, justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, and Samuel Alito, who explained that the mandate violated the Constitution. I am very familiar with that opinion, because I served as Kennedy’s law clerk that term. I can tell you with certainty that the only justices following a roadmap from Brett Kavanaugh were the ones who said Obamacare was unconstitutional.


Kavanaugh was equally critical of the individual mandate under the weak Taxing Clause argument advanced by the government and catastrophically accepted by the Supreme Court. Kavanaugh explained that “no court to reach the merits has accepted the Government’s Taxing clause argument,” thereby showing his agreement with all the courts of appeals that correctly found the mandate unsustainable under that clause.


Kavanaugh is by far the strongest choice for the job. His courageous and influential opinions on countless different issues—presidential power, regulatory overreach, religious liberty, the Second Amendment, and the list goes on—leave no doubt that he would be a forceful conservative justice for decades to come. Conservatives should not be misled by misinformation. Judge Brett Kavanaugh has the principles, the record, and the backbone that we need on the Supreme Court.....snip~


http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/...nted-unlawful/ (http://thefederalist.com/2018/07/03/brett-kavanaugh-said-obamacare-unprecedented-unlawful/)


Now, tell us how Scalia dissented before Kavanaugh who was on the Appellate Court where it was heard before it went to the SCOTUS.

Captdon
07-12-2018, 11:35 AM
You had limited options. Very limited. It certainly wasn’t a free market situation as it is with auto insurance.

Also, where was I playing word games? Please, don’t be like MV.

You could choose from any company that stayed in. That's the free market at it's best. My auto insurance reference was good enough but you have to correct ever word and than you still got it wrong.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 11:37 AM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MisterVeritis http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2378343#post2378343)
It was not Kavanaugh's dissent. It was Scalia's dissent.

Of course, I am right.

Wrong.....here it is again Note the bolding.
Don't be a fool. I quoted directly from Scalia's dissent.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 11:41 AM
Now, tell us how Scalia dissented before Kavanaugh who was on the Appellate Court where it was heard before it went to the SCOTUS.
I quoted directly from Scalia's dissent. Not from Kavanaugh's dissent. I quoted from Scalia's dissent.

I then discussed Kavanaugh's lengthy argument with the opposing lawyer during the hearings where Kavanaugh pressed his argument that the penalty, written into the law as a penalty was a tax.

It is Kavanaugh's willingness to rewrite a statute to make it constitutional that makes him a risky choice. In my opinion, he will stab us in the back just as Justice Roberts did. We don't need another Roberts when we could have another Scalia or Thomas.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 11:42 AM
You could choose from any company that stayed in....

And in many states there was only one or two options. Some states had zero participants.


The ACA is not nor ever was a free market solution to the cost of health care insurance. It is inexplicable how anyone can say it is "the free market at its best". It shut out the free market.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 11:44 AM
It looks like Kavanaugh is going to be a solid constitutionalist on the court.

Captdon
07-12-2018, 11:44 AM
Manchin may as well not waste his time taking it to town hall since we know how he's going to vote; the other two may not want to die for Chuckles but either way they'll come out on the losing side since the democrats in their district most likely won't support someone, who voted to confirm a judge who could change the face of the SCOTUS particularly when it came to Roe Vs. Wade.

If I were the republicans, I'd be worried about Republicans Susan Collins (pro choice), Lisa Murkowski (pro choice), Rand Paul (libertarian views on government interference) and Shelly Moore Capito (Mix record on abortion) as possible no votes. I realize there are no guarantees on how people will vote, but it's interesting to compare the possibilities.

This post is a joke right? Donnelly votes against this nominee he can move home now and avoid the Christmas rush. Indiana is worrying about Roe v Wade.

Heitkamp is from a state that would ban abortion tomorrow id it could. They want her if she votes against this nominee? Capito is also from W. Va. I'm thinking she wants re-elected the next time she runs. Doug Jones might like being a Senator. He has little chance of re-election bit none if he votes against no. Alabama isn't electing a pro- abortion Senator. Paul will come around in the end.


Chuckles picked the wrong fight. He is going to look stupid.

Captdon
07-12-2018, 11:47 AM
In South Carolina you had two choices? Wow.

Yes, and it wasn't by law. The free market made the other companies take a hike. This is also the biggest fault to the ACA. It wasn't supposed to work to begin with.

Every major company has Medicare Plus. it isn't required and the free market determined it was viable.

Captdon
07-12-2018, 11:52 AM
I quoted directly from Scalia's dissent. Not from Kavanaugh's dissent. I quoted from Scalia's dissent.

I then discussed Kavanaugh's lengthy argument with the opposing lawyer during the hearings where Kavanaugh pressed his argument that the penalty, written into the law as a penalty was a tax.

It is Kavanaugh's willingness to rewrite a statute to make it constitutional that makes him a risky choice. In my opinion, he will stab us in the back just as Justice Roberts did. We don't need another Roberts when we could have another Scalia or Thomas.

He's the choice Trump has made. He isn't going to change his mind. You screw with Trump at your peril. Vote his choice down and piss him off is always a good idea.

I voted for Trump and what he said he'd do. He has more than met my expectations. You feel whatever way you like. You are not required to be right and you aren't.

Talk about risks? Trump was a risk. If he had been playing us we'd be up shit creek.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 11:53 AM
It looks like Kavanaugh is going to be a solid constitutionalist on the court.
Like Roberts. Or Kennedy.

Captdon
07-12-2018, 11:56 AM
And in many states there was only one or two options. Some states had zero participants.


The ACA is not nor ever was a free market solution to the cost of health care insurance. It is inexplicable how anyone can say it is "the free market at its best". It shut out the free market.

What? Can you actually read? You said the government decided who you had to buy from. It did no such thing. We ended up with just the two because the free market allowed the others to leave. How much simpler can I make it?

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 11:56 AM
He's the choice Trump has made. He isn't going to change his mind. You screw with Trump at your peril. Vote his choice down and piss him off is always a good idea.

I voted for Trump and what he said he'd do. He has more than met my expectations. You feel whatever way you like. You are not required to be right and you aren't.
Kavanaugh can be rejected by the Senate and should be. We can do better and we should do better.

I have given you solid fact-based reasons for my opinion. You have not been able to respond with a counter.

If Kavanaugh gets on the court we can expect him to stab us in the back just as Roberts did. When the time comes I am sure you will be among the ones who wonder how it happened.

gamewell45
07-12-2018, 11:57 AM
This post is a joke right? Donnelly votes against this nominee he can move home now and avoid the Christmas rush. Indiana is worrying about Roe v Wade.

Heitkamp is from a state that would ban abortion tomorrow id it could. They want her if she votes against this nominee? Capito is also from W. Va. I'm thinking she wants re-elected the next time she runs. Doug Jones might like being a Senator. He has little chance of re-election bit none if he votes against no. Alabama isn't electing a pro- abortion Senator. Paul will come around in the end.


Chuckles picked the wrong fight. He is going to look stupid.

Yes, the post is a joke. Where is your sense of humor?

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 12:14 PM
What? Can you actually read? You said the government decided who you had to buy from. It did no such thing. We ended up with just the two because the free market allowed the others to leave. How much simpler can I make it?


OK. You can go on thinking that the ACA was the free market at its best.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 12:15 PM
Like Roberts. Or Kennedy.

More reliable than Kennedy.

Roberts' actions on the ACA was both indefensible and inexplicable, but where else has he disappointed conservatives?

Captdon
07-12-2018, 12:30 PM
OK. You can go on thinking that the ACA was the free market at its best.

Okay, you can't read.I said, and everyone but you understood, dropping out of the ACA was the free market at it's best. You just have to keep going until you make yourself foolish.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 12:38 PM
Okay, you can't read.I said, and everyone but you understood, dropping out of the ACA was the free market at it's best. You just have to keep going until you make yourself foolish.

Just the other day, I was telling a liberal how you can disagree with someone and not be disagreeable or insulting while doing so. I was wrong.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 01:28 PM
More reliable than Kennedy.

Roberts' actions on the ACA was both indefensible and inexplicable, but where else has he disappointed conservatives?
Isn't one nearly fatal stab in the back sufficient?

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 01:31 PM
Isn't one nearly fatal stab in the back sufficient?


So you have no other complaint with Roberts?

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 01:31 PM
So you have no other complaint with Roberts?
One stab in the back is sufficient.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 01:35 PM
So you have no other complaint with Roberts?


One stab in the back is sufficient.


So, the answer would be "correct, no other complaints".

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 01:37 PM
One stab in the back is sufficient.

So, the answer would be "correct, no other complaints".
No. The answer is One stab in the back is sufficient.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 01:41 PM
Yep. 100% agreement 100% of the time. Anything less is intolerable.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 02:21 PM
Yep. 100% agreement 100% of the time. Anything less is intolerable.
The answer is One stab in the back is sufficient.

How many times do you let people stab you in the back before you realize you don't want them around?

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 02:22 PM
Yep. 100% agreement 100% of the time. Anything less is intolerable.
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 02:23 PM
Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

That's applicable

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 02:23 PM
That's applicable
It was only one small disagreement.

Tahuyaman
07-12-2018, 02:34 PM
It was only one small disagreement.
No one was assassinated. The mistake Roberts made can be corrected.

Captdon
07-12-2018, 04:23 PM
Kavanaugh can be rejected by the Senate and should be. We can do better and we should do better.

I have given you solid fact-based reasons for my opinion. You have not been able to respond with a counter.

If Kavanaugh gets on the court we can expect him to stab us in the back just as Roberts did. When the time comes I am sure you will be among the ones who wonder how it happened.

I'll trust Trump more than you. To you, Trump should have been tossed out for shooting missiles at Syria. I never wonder what a Justice of the Court will do. They all do whatever they please for that moment.

Captdon
07-12-2018, 04:24 PM
Just the other day, I was telling a liberal how you can disagree with someone and not be disagreeable or insulting while doing so. I was wrong.


You were wrong about my post by making something up. if not, you could find the quote and you can't.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 05:42 PM
No one was assassinated. The mistake Roberts made can be corrected.
Roberts did massive damage to the nation, far more than a single assassination.

MisterVeritis
07-12-2018, 05:43 PM
I'll trust Trump more than you. To you, Trump should have been tossed out for shooting missiles at Syria. I never wonder what a Justice of the Court will do. They all do whatever they please for that moment.
Goody for you. It makes things simpler for those unwilling to think for themselves.