User Tag List

+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 17 FirstFirst ... 456789101112 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 170

Thread: Judge Kavanaugh will probably be confirmed

  1. #71
    Points: 148,599, Level: 92
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 1,651
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    253693
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton Washington or Sayulita Mexico depending on the time of year.
    Posts
    65,590
    Points
    148,599
    Level
    92
    Thanks Given
    7,543
    Thanked 22,657x in 17,060 Posts
    Mentioned
    364 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by countryboy View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tahuyaman; 07-11-2018 at 01:55 PM.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    MMC (07-11-2018)

  3. #72
    Original Ranter
    Points: 156,655, Level: 94
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,195
    Overall activity: 99.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    39873
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    38,190
    Points
    156,655
    Level
    94
    Thanks Given
    11,500
    Thanked 8,862x in 6,743 Posts
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    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/...nted-unlawful/
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  4. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (07-11-2018),Tahuyaman (07-11-2018)

  5. #73
    Points: 148,599, Level: 92
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 1,651
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    253693
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton Washington or Sayulita Mexico depending on the time of year.
    Posts
    65,590
    Points
    148,599
    Level
    92
    Thanks Given
    7,543
    Thanked 22,657x in 17,060 Posts
    Mentioned
    364 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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/...nted-unlawful/
    Why is that so difficult for some to understand?

  6. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (07-11-2018),MMC (07-11-2018)

  7. #74
    Original Ranter
    Points: 156,655, Level: 94
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,195
    Overall activity: 99.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    39873
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    38,190
    Points
    156,655
    Level
    94
    Thanks Given
    11,500
    Thanked 8,862x in 6,743 Posts
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    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.
    Last edited by MMC; 07-11-2018 at 02:11 PM.
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  8. #75
    Points: 148,599, Level: 92
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 1,651
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    253693
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton Washington or Sayulita Mexico depending on the time of year.
    Posts
    65,590
    Points
    148,599
    Level
    92
    Thanks Given
    7,543
    Thanked 22,657x in 17,060 Posts
    Mentioned
    364 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by MMC View Post
    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.
    Last edited by Tahuyaman; 07-11-2018 at 02:27 PM.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Tahuyaman For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (07-11-2018)

  10. #76
    Original Ranter
    Points: 156,655, Level: 94
    Level completed: 69%, Points required for next Level: 1,195
    Overall activity: 99.1%
    Achievements:
    SocialRecommendation Second ClassOverdriveTagger First Class50000 Experience PointsVeteran
    MMC's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    39873
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Chicago Illinois
    Posts
    38,190
    Points
    156,655
    Level
    94
    Thanks Given
    11,500
    Thanked 8,862x in 6,743 Posts
    Mentioned
    59 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    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.
    Don't only Practice your Art, but force your way into its Secrets, For it and Knowledge can Raise men to the Divine!!!!! Ludwig Van Beethoven ~

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to MMC For This Useful Post:

    Captdon (07-11-2018)

  12. #77
    Points: 15,598, Level: 30
    Level completed: 15%, Points required for next Level: 852
    Overall activity: 8.0%
    Achievements:
    SocialVeteran25000 Experience Points
    countryboy's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    8615
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Ohio, USA
    Posts
    5,022
    Points
    15,598
    Level
    30
    Thanks Given
    1,477
    Thanked 1,842x in 1,315 Posts
    Mentioned
    110 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Tahuyaman View Post
    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.

    Progressivism, ideas so good, they have to be mandatory

  13. #78
    Points: 148,599, Level: 92
    Level completed: 55%, Points required for next Level: 1,651
    Overall activity: 99.8%
    Achievements:
    50000 Experience PointsVeteranOverdrive
    Tahuyaman's Avatar Senior Member
    Karma
    253693
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Location
    Bremerton Washington or Sayulita Mexico depending on the time of year.
    Posts
    65,590
    Points
    148,599
    Level
    92
    Thanks Given
    7,543
    Thanked 22,657x in 17,060 Posts
    Mentioned
    364 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Clearly they were concerned about government mandating that someone is required by law to purchase a particular product.

  14. #79
    Points: 19,596, Level: 33
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsSocial
    gamewell45's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    8099
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    upstate New York
    Posts
    5,390
    Points
    19,596
    Level
    33
    Thanks Given
    2,279
    Thanked 2,362x in 1,699 Posts
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    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.
    When you cuss a farmer, don't talk with your mouth full.

    Political parties are all a part of the same hypocrisy.
    Independent and proud of it!

    If you allow people to use you as a piece of carpet, they will. -- Eugene V. Debs

  15. #80
    Points: 19,596, Level: 33
    Level completed: 96%, Points required for next Level: 54
    Overall activity: 18.0%
    Achievements:
    Veteran10000 Experience PointsSocial
    gamewell45's Avatar Advisor
    Karma
    8099
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    upstate New York
    Posts
    5,390
    Points
    19,596
    Level
    33
    Thanks Given
    2,279
    Thanked 2,362x in 1,699 Posts
    Mentioned
    43 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Captdon View Post
    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.
    When you cuss a farmer, don't talk with your mouth full.

    Political parties are all a part of the same hypocrisy.
    Independent and proud of it!

    If you allow people to use you as a piece of carpet, they will. -- Eugene V. Debs

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts


Critical Acclaim
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO