Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

The Supremes will announce the big Obamacare decision this week. What's your prediction? Will it stand or be shot down? The whole thing or just the mandate? Will the vote be 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, etc?

Damn. I thought this was going to be about The Supremes and how they are getting back together for a tour.

grizzaholic wrote:Damn. I thought this was going to be about The Supremes and how they are getting back together for a tour.

I wonder what the odds are that the idiot in you signature died.

Baldy wrote:

grizzaholic wrote:Damn. I thought this was going to be about The Supremes and how they are getting back together for a tour.

I wonder what the odds are that the idiot in you signature died.

ZERO. DUH. She was wearing a helmet.

I think Obamacares mandate will be struck down and Arizona's immigration issue will be upheld as legal.

HI54UNI wrote:The Supremes will announce the big Obamacare decision this week. What's your prediction? Will it stand or be shot down? The whole thing or just the mandate? Will the vote be 5-4, 6-3, 7-2, etc?

I see them striking down the mandate and leaving the rest in tact for Congress to deal with. You'd hope it would be more than a 5-4 for that part of the decision (i.e. the mandate) but I'm not sure the left side of the court is going to budge at all. Shame, though, because this should be something that is easy to rule against.

Said it before and will say it again - if they had just gone the tax route with this in the first place, rather than the mandate (i.e. punishment for not participating) we'd never be at this point. But then again, you say the word tax and people tend to go to their respective corners and come out fighting.

grizzaholic wrote:

Baldy wrote:
I wonder what the odds are that the idiot in you signature died.

ZERO. DUH. She was wearing a helmet.

I think the helmet was wearing her.

The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/wi ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ibanez wrote:

The Court ruled largely in favor of the U.S. government, striking down three parts of the Arizona immigration law, but the Court did uphold one the most notorious provisions: A requirement that local police officers check a person's immigration status while enforcing other laws if "reasonable suspicion" exists that the person is in the United States illegally.

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/wi ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The part where officers check immigration status should hardly have been controversial. Nobody has the right to an expectation of privacy as to their immigration status. In fact, not sure why it was included in the law in the first place, because it happens everywhere as a matter of course. I used to report migrants to the old INS all the time when I arrested them for DUI (which was primarily what migrants get in trouble for, based on my experience).

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/wi ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The part where officers check immigration status should hardly have been controversial. Nobody has the right to an expectation of privacy as to their immigration status. In fact, not sure why it was included in the law in the first place, because it happens everywhere as a matter of course. I used to report migrants to the old INS all the time when I arrested them for DUI (which was primarily what migrants get in trouble for, based on my experience).

Agreed. And the part that is still under review, and why it was controversial to minority activists, is the racial profiling component - i.e. the tendency of certain branches of AZ law enforcement to view Latinos as guilty until proven innocent, or to suspect someone is illegal SOLELY because they are hispanic.

My call is, I "like."

Kind of a down the middle ruling here. Keep the check on immigration status when detained for some other offense, and getting rid of the stop and detain anyone if you think they are illegal provision. I've got no problem with that. The other two things were pretty minor in the scheme of the law. And the Court was unanimous (8-0) in keeping that part of the law so it seems pretty likely for that to remain.

My call...Individual mandate goes down 5-4, which will effectively obliterate any prayer Obamacare has of actually getting health care costs under control.

Pwns wrote:My call...Individual mandate goes down 5-4, which will effectively obliterate any prayer Obamacare has of actually getting health care costs under control.

The mandate won't have a prayer of getting health care costs under control anyway - we haven't come up with that answer yet.

It has been said that they will announce on Thursday

the Arizona ruling is out

CID1990 wrote:

Ibanez wrote:
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/wi ... ?hpt=hp_t1" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The part where officers check immigration status should hardly have been controversial. Nobody has the right to an expectation of privacy as to their immigration status. In fact, not sure why it was included in the law in the first place, because it happens everywhere as a matter of course. I used to report migrants to the old INS all the time when I arrested them for DUI (which was primarily what migrants get in trouble for, based on my experience).

Except in the big, liberal sanctuary cities where the police are prohibited by their bleeding heart politicians from asking.

dbackjon wrote:

CID1990 wrote:
The part where officers check immigration status should hardly have been controversial. Nobody has the right to an expectation of privacy as to their immigration status. In fact, not sure why it was included in the law in the first place, because it happens everywhere as a matter of course. I used to report migrants to the old INS all the time when I arrested them for DUI (which was primarily what migrants get in trouble for, based on my experience).

Agreed. And the part that is still under review, and why it was controversial to minority activists, is the racial profiling component - i.e. the tendency of certain branches of AZ law enforcement to view Latinos as guilty until proven innocent, or to suspect someone is illegal SOLELY because they can't speak a lick of English.

FIFY

Bronco wrote:It has been said that they will announce on Thursday

the Arizona ruling is out

10 AM EST

Now BHO admin will be telling AZpolice to relase illegals..

Homeland Security suspends immigration agreements with Arizona police

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.

“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.

The official said that despite the increased number of calls, which presumably means more illegal immigrants being reported, the Homeland Security Department is unlikely to detain a significantly higher number of people and won’t be boosting personnel to handle the new calls.

“We do not plan on putting additional staff on the ground in Arizona,” the official said.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally.

That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

Federal officials said they’ll still perform the checks as required by law but will respond only when someone has a felony conviction on his or her record. Absent that, ICE will tell the local police to release the person.

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer said the court’s decision frees police up to perform immigration checks. In anticipation of the ruling, she issued an executive order calling for guidance to be issued to every police department on how to fairly carry out the law.

“We will move forward, instructing law enforcement to begin practicing what the United States Supreme Court has upheld,” she said.

But the Obama administration is under pressure from immigrant-rights groups to cut down on the number of people it is deporting and has taken a number of steps to try to limit deportations of rank-and-file illegal immigrants and focus instead on those with criminal records or repeated immigration violations.

Last week, Mr. Obama said he would halt deportations for most illegal immigrants under 30 who were brought here as children.

On Monday the administration officials also said they are ending the seven 287(g) task force agreements with Arizona law enforcement officials, which proactively had granted some local police the powers to enforce immigration laws.

The task forces, named for the section of law that allows them, have proved popular among many localities but have been a political headache for the Obama administration, with immigrant-rights groups saying they led to abuses.

On Monday the administration officials said they had concluded the seven agreements they had signed with various departments in Arizona weren’t working and took the Supreme Court’s ruling as a chance to scrap them.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/201 ... reements-/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good for DHS - until Arizona LEA can show they are willing to go by the Constitution, fuck em.

GannonFan wrote:

Pwns wrote:My call...Individual mandate goes down 5-4, which will effectively obliterate any prayer Obamacare has of actually getting health care costs under control.

The mandate won't have a prayer of getting health care costs under control anyway - we haven't come up with that answer yet.

Seriously??

dbackjon wrote:Good for DHS - until Arizona LEA can show they are willing to go by the Constitution, fuck em.

But you're completely happy with Obama not going by the constitution with the executive order he signed 2 weeks ago?

Baldy wrote:

dbackjon wrote:Good for DHS - until Arizona LEA can show they are willing to go by the Constitution, fuck em.

But you're completely happy with Obama not going by the constitution with the executive order he signed 2 weeks ago?

Supreme Court addressed that - perfectly constitutional what Obama did.

One reason why Scalia almost blew a gasket.

Wedgebuster wrote:

GannonFan wrote:
The mandate won't have a prayer of getting health care costs under control anyway - we haven't come up with that answer yet.

Seriously??

Do you seriously think the individual mandate is going to curtail health care costs?

I say the mandate is struck down 5-4, and the rest of the statute goes too because the Congressional dumbasses forgot the severability clause.