Who is Brett Kavanaugh? 3 things to know about Trump's Supreme Court pick

[Tahuyaman]

That is not good enough.

Exactly. You need people to agree with you 100% of the time on every single issue. You are no different than the resistance types.

[MisterVeritis]

For the record. I believe the Obamacare ruling was not only correct, but then was finally decided by We the People.

The Obama Administration argued that the mandate in Obamacare that was gone over in court...was a tax.

This is false. It is completely incorrect. The obama administration argued it was a penalty. Robert rewrote the statute to call it a tax. Kavanaugh worked very hard to find a way to turn a penalty into a tax. He is unreliable.

[Tahuyaman]

Kavanaugh worked very hard to discover the means to turn the ObamaCare penalty into a tax. That is enough of a red flag that Kavanaugh must be rejected.

That's because it was a tax. He basically said that because the tax was not going to be collected until 2014, it was not able to be judged until it was imposed. Even Scalia agreed with view on that.

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly. He needs to agree with you 100% of the time on every single issue.

Anyone who will seek out a way to interpret a demand that the government force a citizen to buy a product from another private individual is just a tax is not to be trusted.

I do not expect you to understand.

[MisterVeritis]

That's because it was a tax. He basically said that because the tax was not going to be collected until 2014, it was not able to be judged until it was imposed. Even Scalia agreed with view on that.

You err. Completely.

[MisterVeritis]

Exactly. He needs to agree with you 100% of the time on every single issue.

If you want another Kennedy run with Kavanaugh. If you want another Roberts then run with Kavanaugh.

Unreliable is not good enough.

[Tahuyaman]

Again, you require complete agreement with your views or one is an enemy of America.

[Tahuyaman]

You err. Completely.

Nope.

[MisterVeritis]

"today's opinion changes the usual rules of statutory interpretation for the sake of the Affordable Care Act. That, alas, is not a novelty. In National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius, 567 U. S. ___, this Court revised major components of the statute in order to save them from unconstitutionality. The Act that Congress passed provides that every individual “shall” maintain insurance or else pay a “penalty.” 26 U. S. C. §5000A. This Court, however, saw that the Commerce Clause does not authorize a federal mandate to buy health insurance. So it rewrote the mandate-cum-penalty as a tax.

567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 15–45). The Act that Congress passed also requires every State to accept an expansion of its Medicaid program, or else risk losing all Medicaid funding. 42 U. S. C. §1396c. This Court, however, saw that the Spending Clause does not authorize this coercive condition. So it rewrote the law to withhold only the incremental funds associated with the Medicaid expansion. 567 U. S., at ___–___ (principal opinion) (slip op., at 45–58). Having transformed two major parts of the law, the Court today has turned its attention to a third. The Act that Congress passed makes tax credits available only on an “Exchange established by the State.” This Court, however, concludes that this limitation would prevent the rest of the Act from working as well as hoped. So it rewrites the law to make tax credits available everywhere. We should start calling this law SCOTUScare.


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."

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/576/14-114/
We deserve far better than Kavanaugh.

[MisterVeritis]

You err. Completely.

Nope.

Well, yes.