"Obamacare"

[Dr Rick Daris]

I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.

won't happen. ksu is just smart enough to know that he's also pretty stupid. he won't engage.

Meh, not worth the pissing match.

nailed it.

[bucket]

https://twitter.com/tobamann/status/860243587690369025

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Tapout noted.

The funny thing is, I asked a lot of questions and never got any answers. Doesn't seem like a "tap out" but arguing with liberals is a kinda weird like that.

[bucket]

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088

[mocat]

Liberals smdh

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088

I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?

[Rage Against the McKee]

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088

I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?

He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088

I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?

He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.

In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.

[The Big Train]

Tapout noted.

The funny thing is, I asked a lot of questions and never got any answers. Doesn't seem like a "tap out" but arguing with liberals is a kinda weird like that.

I thought you were an expert on this stuff why would you need to ask US questions

[Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)]

Libtards just got clownsuited itt.

Stop being so rough ridin' desperate, jfc.

[sys]

if legendary hall of fame head coach snyderman is against this bill, then it really gives the rest of us little choice.

[bucket]

if legendary hall of fame head coach snyderman is against this bill, then it really gives the rest of us little choice.

His boy is totally behind the bill.

[SdK]

I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.

Catching up. Me too.

[SdK]

I also really hope we have a good ol' fashioned credential off with chum and ksuw.

Catching up. Me too.

Disappointed. You made a claim ksu and then you were challenged.

[Spracne]

I'm to the point that I no longer care about the short- and medium-term costs. We need a comprehensive, full-fledged, (expensive), redesign of the entire healthcare delivery system. I realize political realities make that vision seem nearly impossible to attain. But in my America, "impossible" is just an excuse. Let's do it, everybody. I'm 100% behind this, as long as I still get to keep my Cadillac plan.

[The Big Train]

What legal ramifications would this mindset have?

[Spracne]

What legal ramifications would this mindset have?

This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.

[Spracne]

Sometimes you need to burn it down and start from scratch.

[The Big Train]

What legal ramifications would this mindset have?

This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.

Funny here I thought all along the Judiciary made sure the political branches were compliant with the law.  Guess you learn something new everyday.

[Skipper44]

if legendary hall of fame head coach snyderman is against this bill, then it really gives the rest of us little choice.

His boy is totally behind the bill.

calling LHCBS Schneider was the go to move for a number of Nebraska fans in the early days of the inter-webs

[star seed 7]

I'm to the point that I no longer care about the short- and medium-term costs. We need a comprehensive, full-fledged, (expensive), redesign of the entire healthcare delivery system. I realize political realities make that vision seem nearly impossible to attain. But in my America, "impossible" is just an excuse. Let's do it, everybody. I'm 100% behind this, as long as I still get to keep my Cadillac plan.

 

[Spracne]

What legal ramifications would this mindset have?

This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.

Funny here I thought all along the Judiciary made sure the political branches were compliant with the law.  Guess you learn something new everyday.

Well, in that case I'm happy to correct the failings of your high school civics teacher. What judges do is decide concrete disputes between parties to litigation. Their job is to apply the law that already exists to cases or controversies and determine which side is entitled to prevail. This--the future of healthcare in America--is a question of policy, which rightly belongs to the policymaking branch of government. Lawmakers make laws. Judges interpret laws. They are duty-bound to effectuate the will of the people, as expressed through their representatives. And on rare occasions, the will of the people conflicts with the Constitution, in which case the supreme law must win. That's because the states, when they ratified the Constitution, agreed to surrender some of their sovereignty in exchange for membership in the Union. But as a practical matter, judges only do that which is judicial. They do not get to decide which laws they are to interpret. Congress is free to pass a new law that would change the outcome of an already-pending court case, too. It happens all the time.

[The Big Train]

What legal ramifications would this mindset have?

This is about the political branches of the government. It has nothing to do with the judiciary.

Funny here I thought all along the Judiciary made sure the political branches were compliant with the law.  Guess you learn something new everyday.

Well, in that case I'm happy to correct the failings of your high school civics teacher. What judges do is decide concrete disputes between parties to litigation. Their job is to apply the law that already exists to cases or controversies and determine which side is entitled to prevail. This--the future of healthcare in America--is a question of policy, which rightly belongs to the policymaking branch of government. Lawmakers make laws. Judges interpret laws. They are duty-bound to effectuate the will of the people, as expressed through their representatives. And on rare occasions, the will of the people conflicts with the Constitution, in which case the supreme law must win. That's because the states, when they ratified the Constitution, agreed to surrender some of their sovereignty in exchange for membership in the Union. But as a practical matter, judges only do that which is judicial. They do not get to decide which laws they are to interpret. Congress is free to pass a new law that would change the outcome of an already-pending court case, too. It happens all the time.

[treysolid]

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088

I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?

He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.

In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.

When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

https://twitter.com/AGSchneiderman/status/860229551619801088

I would say it is laughable to challenge the constitutionality of the legislature's power to allocate federal tax dollars by statute, but it seems you kind a lunatic district court judge to give you any ruling you want these days. Doesn't this dude know that sorts of cases should be brought in the 9th circuit?

He's going to lose, but he's really just trying to fire up his base. Kobach does the same thing in Kansas.

In all seriousness, I cannot say with any confidence that he will lose at the district level if he draws an Obama appointee. There is really no ruling too absurd. I did get a chuckle out of the "cruel and unconstitutional attack on women's rights" - I guess that means abortion and forcing nuns to buy insurance with birth control coverage.

When you go to a buffet, do your complain that you shouldn't have to pay the full price because you didn't eat the tater tots?

I think the proper anaolgy is, if you're allergic to MSG, should the government have the power to force you to eat at a Chinese buffet or else pay a penalty? The Little Sisters case was about the conflict between religious freedom and the (already constitutionally dubious) government mandate to buy something.