The Rulling is In

[taterpeeler]

It would be real let down if the Supreme Court ruled that because the Penalty associated with the Individual Mandate is a tax and that they can't rule on that until after it's actually in effect...in 2014. There was talk about this happening on the radio today. They likely would rule on the other 3 ACA arguments at the end of this month, though.

go to bed... freekin party pooper...

 

[0b1kanobee]

Whatever is the crappiest thing for this country and effects my wallet in a negative way is the way in which they will rule.

My personal opinion is they won't shoot the whole thing down but they won't allow it as it stands. Gonna find some kinda middle ground. Nothing drastic going to happen but I think whatever happens will benefit agents to a degree (short term). Won't be good for the country. Long term agent benefit won't be good.

I'm only going by what the universe is telling me.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

shut the crapola up moon pie... can you not read my tag line below???

and another thing... change your picture... you are making me dizzy with that pic

No doubt man! He made it stop moving but it still is screwing with my eyes. I tried to put tape over it but that isn't helping.

 

[gussle285]

It would be real let down if the Supreme Court ruled that because the Penalty associated with the Individual Mandate is a tax and that they can't rule on that until after it's actually in effect...in 2014. There was talk about this happening on the radio today. They likely would rule on the other 3 ACA arguments at the end of this month, though.

Based on the impression I got from the Supreme Court from the transcripts, some of the justices stated that there is no language in the bill that says "tax" anywhere..Based on that alone, I feel that they will rule on this now then kicking the can down the road until 2014.

 

[arnguy]

Gussie do you mean "....rule on this now then kicking the can down the road until 2014." or "rule on this now [rather] than kicking the can down the road until 2014." I am confused. Two different meanings.

 

[gussle285]

Gussie do you mean "....rule on this now then kicking the can down the road until 2014." or "rule on this now [rather] than kicking the can down the road until 2014." I am confused. Two different meanings.

Yes, I do mean "rather than". If they deem the penalty a tax, then most likely they would deferjudgement until the taxes are actually collected in 2014. I don't think this will be the case though.

 

[somarco]

My prediction, for whatever that is worth.

Mandate overruled, everything else in play.

 

[taterpeeler]

No sever clause... Dead law

 

[Ann H]

My prediction, for whatever that is worth.

Mandate overruled, everything else in play.

Your prediction has merit, and you may be right.

My prediction is that the whole law goes. Why? Because Ginsburg indicated on Friday that she may be writing the dissenting opinion when she said, ""I have spoken on more than one occasion about the utility of dissenting opinions, noting in particular that they can reach audiences outside the court and can propel legislative or executive change,"

Ginsburg knows that Obama has a better chance at starting over completely rather than trudging through the mess that's left if the individual mandate is removed. He can simply point out that this was Pelosi's law, and he has better ideas. Ginsburg also knows that removal of the individual mandate means the whole law dies on the vine anyway.

She also indicated that the PPACA decision may not have been made yet when she said, ""As one may expect, many of the most controversial cases remain pending," she noted. "So it is likely that the sharp disagreement rate will go up next week and the week after."

Justice Ginsburg suggests 'sharp disagreement' over hot-button cases - CNN

 

[Winter_123]

Ginsburg knows that Obama has a better chance at starting over completely rather than trudging through the mess that's left if the individual mandate is removed.

I dont know. I can agree with a modified version of that view. Ginsburg and the libs know that politically Obama is better off with a clean kill here, rather than having the beast trying to get up and bleeding all over the place and people trying to figure out how to kill the parts that dont look dead before now and the election. They may have reached that point relucatantly but many are there now. Things just have not gone well.

As far as Ginsburg trying to give Obama a better chance at starting over. Well, it is just a complete mess so Ginsburg and others can project their hopes onto whatever the train wreck is. The reality is that Obama's best shot at this was when the dems had both house and after he had put the country through a year long ordeal to focus on this. If Ginsburg thinks that having Obama start over with a Congress that is now controlled and probably will be controlled by republicans then I can't disagree that she might be hallucinating that. Politically what Obama needs is a clean kill here and to focus on the economy, for once.

This whole thing is a made-for-republicans movie regardless of which way it goes. The republicans are just waiting to force a floor vote on anything that is left to force the dems in the senate on record before the election. What does Obama get even if he wins everything in court? Just a chance to go out and tell people that the only way you can kill Obamacare now is to make sure he is not re-elected. Yeh, that's gotta be a zippy scenario for him.

What a complete mess this has been and is.

 

[somarco]

The republicans are just waiting to force a floor vote on anything that is left to force the dems on record before the election.

Yup. Passes the House, goes nowhere in the Senate. Doubt it would even be brought up for a vote.