FCS Football | Message Board | News
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/
https://www.championshipsubdivision.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=25345
SuperHornet wrote:FoxNews is reporting that a GA appeals court has ruled that the individual mandate embedded within ObamaCare is uncostitutional. No details yet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08 ... -care-law/
About freaking time!
If that's the case, then this probably ensures it a quick trip to SCOTUS. You can't have a federal law constitutional in one jurisdiction and unconstitutional in another. That just doesn't make sense. SCOTUS will have to deal with it one way or another. That was probably bound to happen, anyway.dbackjon wrote:One court. Others have ruled it ok.
SuperHornet wrote:If that's the case, then this probably ensures it a quick trip to SCOTUS. You can't have a federal law constitutional in one jurisdiction and unconstitutional in another. That just doesn't make sense. SCOTUS will have to deal with it one way or another. That was probably bound to happen, anyway.dbackjon wrote:One court. Others have ruled it ok.
While true, this is the first appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling...dbackjon wrote:SuperHornet wrote:FoxNews is reporting that a GA appeals court has ruled that the individual mandate embedded within ObamaCare is uncostitutional. No details yet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08 ... -care-law/
About freaking time!
One court. Others have ruled it ok.
500 Billion New Reasons To Invalidate ObamaCare
By HOWARD RICH Posted 08/10/2011 06:52 PM ET
A few hundred billion dollars here, a few hundred billion dollars there — sooner or later we're talking about the real cost of Barack Obama's new socialized medicine monstrosity.
Former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi once said that "we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Apparently, passing the legislation was also a prerequisite to determining its actual price tag — which as it turns out is much higher than anyone fathomed.
The latest cost overrun associated with ObamaCare? A $500 billion "error" associated with insuring the spouses and children of new entitlement recipients. That's $500 billion in additional deficit spending — although it didn't stem from an "error" so much as it was the result of a deliberate miscalculation.
As it attempted to calculate ObamaCare's true fiscal impact, the Congressional Budget Office was explicitly instructed to ignore the cost of covering family members under new eligibility requirements for low-income private sector employees.
"The Congressional Budget Office has never done a cost-estimate of this (because) they were expressly told to do their modeling on single coverage," researcher Richard Burkhauser told the Daily Caller this month.
Documents obtained from the Democratic-controlled Joint Committee on Taxation confirm Burkhauser's account — and demonstrate the lengths to which Obama supporters went in an effort to hide these costs from the taxpayers.
Numerous other errors and omissions have been uncovered within ObamaCare's fuzzy math — including a $52 billion raid of Social Security and a $72 billion repayment obligation for a new "long-term care trust fund."
According to Congressional Budget Office estimates released on the eve of its passage in March 2010, ObamaCare was originally projected to add $109 billion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
We can now add more than $1 trillion to that total (and counting), shredding once and for all Obama's ridiculous claim that his signature legislation is "one of the biggest deficit-reduction plans in history."
It's also critical to remember that all of this deficit spending comes after the imposition of new tax hikes totaling hundreds of billions of dollars — a double whammy for taxpayers.
In addition to its infamous (and unconstitutional) individual mandate, ObamaCare also includes a new employer mandate tax, a new tax on "Cadillac" health insurance plans, the creation of a new 3.8% surtax on investment income for households that earn more than $250,000, increases in Medicaid payroll taxes, a new tax on medical device manufacturers, a new tanning tax, a tax hike on drug companies and at least a dozen other new "revenue enhancements."
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnalysi ... maCare.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Are you implying that the 6th Cir ruling is somehow less authoritative than the 11th Cir because the 11th Cir upheld the District Court?Col Hogan wrote:While true, this is the first appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling...dbackjon wrote:
One court. Others have ruled it ok.
No appeals court has upheld any court that ruled it Constitutional...
Obamacare is on life support, and the prognosis is not good...
Fantastic news! Perhaps this country can survive after all.SuperHornet wrote:FoxNews is reporting that a GA appeals court has ruled that the individual mandate embedded within ObamaCare is uncostitutional. No details yet.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/08 ... -care-law/
About freaking time!
that is the question.danefan wrote:Are you implying that the 6th Cir ruling is somehow less authoritative than the 11th Cir because the 11th Cir upheld the District Court?Col Hogan wrote:
While true, this is the first appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling...
No appeals court has upheld any court that ruled it Constitutional...
Obamacare is on life support, and the prognosis is not good...
This was always destined for the SCOTUS. Now they have no excuse to not grant Cert. on the 6th Cir. case, which is already pending, and combine it with the 11th Cir.
Now the big question is........what does Anthony Kennedy do?
Another point to be clear on - the 11th Cir. did not rule the whole bill unconstitutional like the Florida District Court did. As the title of the thread indicates, It only ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. The 11th Cir. overturned the rest of the Florida court's decision.
But here's a question for everyone - does the bill work without the mandate?
I think the Florida District court said the mandate was integral to the entire bill. That was one of the cost savings function of getting young folks to take care of us old folks. I actually don't see how any of the bill saved costs, it was more that the insurance pool would be bigger effectively lowering the premiums on all. The increase in demand would have probably increased the cost just shifted and broadend the burden.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:the individual mandate IS unconstitutional IMO - particularly without any kind of public option...
.
I am not implying that one is more or less important than another...what I am simply pointing out that as it progresses to SCOTUS...and I think most people agree that that is its ultimate destination...the rulings against this ill-conceived...poorly written...and totally unknown (see Bronco's post above) piece of legislation are starting to line up against it...danefan wrote:Are you implying that the 6th Cir ruling is somehow less authoritative than the 11th Cir because the 11th Cir upheld the District Court?Col Hogan wrote:
While true, this is the first appeals court to uphold a lower court ruling...
No appeals court has upheld any court that ruled it Constitutional...
Obamacare is on life support, and the prognosis is not good...
This was always destined for the SCOTUS. Now they have no excuse to not grant Cert. on the 6th Cir. case, which is already pending, and combine it with the 11th Cir.
Do you believe the ruling will come down to his position...danefan wrote: Now the big question is........what does Anthony Kennedy do?
No...the rest of the bill would fall apart under its own lack-of-funding weight...they have to have the individual mandate to suck the money out of those who can pay to prop up the remainder of the legislation...and as Bronco pointed out...those costs are rising faster than a Space Shuttle launch...danefan wrote: Another point to be clear on - the 11th Cir. did not rule the whole bill unconstitutional like the Florida District Court did. As the title of the thread indicates, It only ruled the individual mandate unconstitutional. The 11th Cir. overturned the rest of the Florida court's decision.
But here's a question for everyone - does the bill work without the mandate?
Certainly agree with the unconstitutionality standpoint. It's odd, because it's certainly fine if it was a tax - fine from a Constitutional standpoint. I understand how that would be more difficult from a bill passage standpoint, but going down the road of individual mandate just opens up a can of worms in the future that will just ultimately doom that part of the bill. And it was a bill that was never going to pay for itself like it was made out to be (not sure who ever bought into the whole "it will provide more health coverage for everyone and actually cost less" idea) so without the $500 for everyone who breathes it will be less attactive cost-wise.TwinTownBisonFan wrote:I know this is a shock coming from a Donk political operative...
the individual mandate IS unconstitutional IMO - particularly without any kind of public option...
personally, I'm in favor of a "medicare for all" system that will allow users to purchase additional private coverage.
Federal judge throws out Obama drilling rules
Associated Press ^ | August 12, 2011 | MEAD GRUVER
Posted on Friday, August 12, 2011 6:48:53 PM by Free ThinkerNY
CHEYENNE, Wyo. (AP) -- A judge on Friday threw out Obama administration rules that sought to slow down expedited environmental review of oil and gas drilling on federal land.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Freudenthal ruled in favor of a petroleum industry group, the Western Energy Alliance, in its lawsuit against the federal government, including Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
SCOTUS is going to shoot this down like a friend of DIck Cheney on a dove hunting trip. Get your digs while you can, because your boy and his mandate are going to take it in the greasy starfish on this one.danefan wrote:Not surprised this flew under the radar around here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/ ... story.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
A conservative legal hero and Reagan appointee (Laurence Silberman) wrote the majority opinion to boot.
Judge Silberman is a feeder program for the clerks for conservative SCOTUS justices.
SCOTUS considering Cert this week.
Yup, and I think it will be upheld, 5-4. CJ Roberts has an expansive view of the Commerce Clause. It won't take the issue off the table for the elections, though. Although that Constitutional issue will be resolved, the calls for repeal won't be.danefan wrote:Cert granted for the individual mandate.
http://sg.news.yahoo.com/supreme-court- ... 59881.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Hearings in March.
Decision likely well before the November elections.
Looking forward to this being decided once and for all.
