Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Forum at

Why should YOU join our forums?

  • Reason #1
  • Reason #2
  • Reason #3

Site Description

obamacare looked like a train wreck today

Discussion in 'Political Issues' started by DOC44, Mar 27, 2012.

  1. aircarver

    aircarver Ride Continues Silver Member

  2. Javelin

    Javelin Got Glock? Silver Member

    Feb 9, 2008
    N. Dallas
    The lawyer was not exactly unprepared in my opinion.

    The poor guy has to argue an unconstitutional law, demonstrate the legalities of an illegal mandate, and do it all in front of the Supreme Court. One hell of a tap dance if you ask me!

    These Supreme Court Justices need to strike this Health Care bill down now and be done with it.

  3. Narkcop


    Jan 12, 2003
    I just hope 5 Supremes have enough courage to do the right thing and strike this down. No telling what will be next if the Kenyan is re-elected as he told the Russian's he will have more flexibility after he is re-elected. In other words he will stop at nothing including the constitution. Better buy your guns now will finally be true.:steamed:
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2012
  4. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    The audio I heard really made him sound incompetent.
  5. Hyksos


    May 15, 2008
    Jupiter/Miami, FL
    In his defense, well, in defense of all attorneys who get up there and sound dumb, it's nerve racking to be up before a panel of state Appeal judges, let alone the SCOTUS. I thought I would be rock solid when we had to argue our briefs in Appellate Advocacy. They brought in three judges from the 3rd DCA. You're trying to focus on one thing and make your arguments flow nicely, but you keep getting interrupted and dragged all over the place. It's tough, and mine didn't even count! Can't imagine what it must be like for them.

    I've also seen the 3rd DCA open Court at a law school (for learning purposes) and had real cases argued in front of hundreds of students. The real lawyers slipped up all over the place too.
  6. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    He did not do a good job. However, it ultimately doesn't matter, because after today Kagan, Sotomayor, and Breyer will go to work on Kennedy behind closed doors.
  7. HexHead


    Jul 16, 2009
    I doubt he respects at least two of them.

    Btw, Monday didn't go so well for 0bamacare supporters either.
  8. stevelyn

    stevelyn NRA Life Member

    Lefties can accomplish a lot when they are operating on emotion, but when they have to back it up with facts they usually fail.
  9. callihan_44

    callihan_44 INFIDEL

    Aug 19, 2010
    I am not getting my hopes up, our freedom hangs in the balance and it should be a no brainer unanimous decision by the court. Unfortunately the lib justices will side with socialism.
  10. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    You think so?

    Everything I've ever read suggests that the justices hardly correspond and don't have influence over one another.

    I'm honestly you think they meet and discuss ala jury or even socially?
  11. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    Hell, as far as I know they decide cases based on them playing nude Johnny-On-A-Pony. :)

    That lack of transparency is a big reason why investing this much power in nine people is ridiculous.

    They would need to get together for conferences and such in order to deliberate, take their votes, and so on. For Heller I do know the opinion had to be crafted for Kennedy to sign off on it, so there had to be some back-and-forth for that to happen pre-delivery. I'm thinking Breyer stops by Kennedy's chamber and says "Hey, Tony! How are Mary and the kids? Say, I was thinking about this ACA thing...what if we look at this as though everyone is taxed but you get a tax credit if you have insurance, like we do with mortgages? Isn't "penalty" a semantics issue....? Anyway, how about going to the Palm tomorrow?"
  12. wjv


    Jan 17, 2002
    Pacific NW
    Except that Sotomayor was one of the judges that was ripping the law apart during the arguments.

    "Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli's claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. The justice and solicitor general were very much at odds on this point."
    Last edited: Mar 28, 2012
  13. Pics or it didn't happen.



  14. CAcop


    Jul 21, 2002
    The "it's not a mandate to buy a product but a tax" argument is what is going to doom this thing.

    I would be willing to bet even some of the liberal justices call it unconstitutional. I think they could see a time when their side of the political aisle is forced to buy something they don't want. Say a law that is passed mandating every person over 18 must buy a firearm or pay a fine.
  15. Goaltender66

    Goaltender66 NRA GoldenEagle

    From the orals I got the sense she was acting more as devil's advocate than principled detractor. Although, given the subject matter, it's telling that even arguments probing the counsel's arguments can be characterized as ripping it apart. :)
  16. scattershot


    Nov 15, 2010
    Denver, CO
    Guess Nancy shoulda read it before she passed it, huh?
  17. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    agreed. I'm honestly curious how it works and then how clerks factor in.
  18. certifiedfunds

    certifiedfunds Tewwowist

    Apr 23, 2008
    I agree with you.

    It appears from early questioning that they all realize this case will fundamentally change the relationship between the government and its citizens.
  19. Geko45

    Geko45 Smartass Pilot CLM

    Nov 1, 2002
    So, the debate now seems to be centered around "whole loaf or half a loaf?" I say that it depends on what kind of "loaf" we are talking about.