Jump to content
Steeleballz

Supreme Court appears to signal Obamacare will survive latest GOP challenge

 Share

19 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

 

(CNN)Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh suggested Tuesday that it wasn't the Supreme Court's role to invalidate the entire sprawling, 900-page Affordable Care Act, even if one or more provisions are deemed unconstitutional, signaling the key parts of Obamacare will survive the latest court challenge.

 

https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/politics/supreme-court-obamacare-oral-arguments/index.html

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline

I guess we won't know for sure for some time, but I seem to remember a lot of folks pontificating that ACB would singlehandedly do away with the ACA.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I guess we won't know for sure for some time, but I seem to remember a lot of folks pontificating that ACB would singlehandedly do away with the ACA.

Not only do these conclusions the Dems make tend to wind up wrong, but the point is to psychologically put in the head these threats made to them that if the outcomes don't match what the opposing people want, there will be consequences. That plays a role in future behavior. That's why it's necessary to get people in the court who aren't influenced by public opinion and the threats made by politicians, thus far I'm seeing evidence far too many of them are.

Edited by Burnt Reynolds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Dashinka said:

I guess we won't know for sure for some time, but I seem to remember a lot of folks pontificating that ACB would singlehandedly do away with the ACA.

 

  We can't predict the future, especially with ACB, but I like to see that the justices are putting the law before partisanship. It's what they are supposed to do, although it will influence their outlook at times. 

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

I think that Kavanaugh was deeply shaken by his treatment during confirmation (rightfully), and that he'll try anything to get people to "like" him.  For example, he hired all-female clerks.  He might often vote like John Roberts does, so that he'll keep getting invited to Georgetown parties.  I hope to be proven wrong.

06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, TBoneTX said:

I think that Kavanaugh was deeply shaken by his treatment during confirmation (rightfully), and that he'll try anything to get people to "like" him.  For example, he hired all-female clerks.  He might often vote like John Roberts does, so that he'll keep getting invited to Georgetown parties.  I hope to be proven wrong.

 

  Ideally the court would reach equilibrium around a few moderates, and a few leaning left and a few right. Just like with our political system, our justice system also works best if it is seen to represent everyone.  There is also a tendency to put too much emphasis on their political views and not enough on their professional ethics.  Especially right now, when 3 of them have such a short track record at this level. As we have seen with Roberts, their voting record doesn't always line up with their political outlook. Nor should it. 

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I was going to make a cheap joke about how Trump might not be getting the ROI on Kavanaugh he was looking for when he made that placement, but I won't. :)

 

I agree with Steele that when a justice has a short track record, it's hard to read any one ruling or dissent as indicative of how they will naturally rule every time. Kavanaugh may be someone who I personally think has character issues, but he's a smart guy and can see the way the wind is blowing. He can be a Roberts or he can be an Alito when there are immediate ramifications for millions of people's lives. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Russia
Timeline
7 minutes ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Ideally the court would reach equilibrium around a few moderates, and a few leaning left and a few right. Just like with our political system, our justice system also works best if it is seen to represent everyone.  There is also a tendency to put too much emphasis on their political views and not enough on their professional ethics.  Especially right now, when 3 of them have such a short track record at this level. As we have seen with Roberts, their voting record doesn't always line up with their political outlook. Nor should it. 

I agree with you, but one thing that seems noticeable, it seems the justices appointed by GOP Presidents are the ones that tend to be more moderate.

Visa Received : 2014-04-04 (K1 - see timeline for details)

US Entry : 2014-09-12

POE: Detroit

Marriage : 2014-09-27

I-765 Approved: 2015-01-09

I-485 Interview: 2015-03-11

I-485 Approved: 2015-03-13

Green Card Received: 2015-03-24 Yeah!!!

I-751 ROC Submitted: 2016-12-20

I-751 NOA Received:  2016-12-29

I-751 Biometrics Appt.:  2017-01-26

I-751 Interview:  2018-04-10

I-751 Approved:  2018-05-04

N400 Filed:  2018-01-13

N400 Biometrics:  2018-02-22

N400 Interview:  2018-04-10

N400 Approved:  2018-04-10

Oath Ceremony:  2018-06-11 - DONE!!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dashinka said:

I agree with you, but one thing that seems noticeable, it seems the justices appointed by GOP Presidents are the ones that tend to be more moderate.

 

  Part of that is your perspective, but it is also that the moderates tend to gravitate towards the center out of necessity. Assuming someone has to fill that gap, it's usually going to be someone from the majority. The supreme court has been generally conservative for most of the last 50 years. That is also part of what you are seeing.

 

  Roberts doesn't want politics in the supreme court. I don't think he would be doing what he does if there were 5 liberal justices. He  just took it upon himself to bring the balance that was missing.

995507-quote-moderation-in-all-things-an

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TBoneTX said:

I think that Kavanaugh was deeply shaken by his treatment during confirmation (rightfully), and that he'll try anything to get people to "like" him.  For example, he hired all-female clerks.  He might often vote like John Roberts does, so that he'll keep getting invited to Georgetown parties.  I hope to be proven wrong.

I think that might be part of it, but I also told Republicans.. look at Kavanaugh's prior employment (Bush administration) and personal history, who he's been around, what he's said, and give an accurate depiction of his voting record. Plain and simple, he's a neoconservative. 

 

Trump simply outsourced decision making of judges to TFS (key criticism from me about who he picks to be around him), and these are groups of Ivy League Educated people who get prominent positions in government. It's an establishmentarian system that seeks above all to benefit itself, which is why it hates populist movements, and why it facilitates power for itself and to encourage fighting among the populace below.

 

Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are neoconservatives. Roberts is one too, but he's particularly unhinged atm because Trump. This is simultaneously why I think one of Trump's most grievous errors was thinking the courts or any system on its own would save him from establishment corruption when he's relying on establishment people.

Edited by Burnt Reynolds
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Filed: IR-1/CR-1 Visa Country: Canada
Timeline

1. The Radical right wing ecosystem wants to take America back to the Coolidge administration 2. Took years and years to assemble a Scotus dream team to achieve their goals 3. Scotus upholds standing case law. 4. 🤯

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  We can't predict the future, especially with ACB, but I like to see that the justices are putting the law before partisanship. It's what they are supposed to do, although it will influence their outlook at times. 

Thats what constitutional judges do. Constitutional conservative judges tend to be less activist 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Steeleballz said:

 

  Part of that is your perspective, but it is also that the moderates tend to gravitate towards the center out of necessity. Assuming someone has to fill that gap, it's usually going to be someone from the majority. The supreme court has been generally conservative for most of the last 50 years. That is also part of what you are seeing.

 

  Roberts doesn't want politics in the supreme court. I don't think he would be doing what he does if there were 5 liberal justices. He  just took it upon himself to bring the balance that was missing.

The center is often a lonely place 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, CanAm1980 said:

Tell me about it

I bet you can almost see it when you hit a bump in your ditch and your head bounces above the top of the ditch.

For years everyone has wanted in my MOR club.

 

Since the great purge last night the demographics have me back in the middle 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
- Back to Top -

Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...