Page 9 of 19 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 187

Thread: ACB Hearings

  1. #81
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,158
    Quote Originally Posted by iris lilies View Post
    You sound like Amy C. Barrett.
    We donít demand that referees hand the victory to the most virtuous or popular team. We donít demand auditors certify results based on how deserving the audited party is. We donít demand teachers grade tests based on whoís being tested. Why should we demand judges who seek out penumbras and creative interpretations of the law to achieve an outcome consistent with the current fashion in social justice?

  2. #82
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    6,039
    There's not one "right" way to interpret the laws. If there was we wouldn't need a supreme court, we could just hire IBM, or whoever, to create Big Blue, Supreme Court Edition and let it decide all the cases. Based on what we know about ACB it is reasonable to expect that we'll wind up with Dred Scott v. 2.0 with regards to LGBT people.

  3. #83
    Senior Member iris lilies's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    17,135
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    There's not one "right" way to interpret the laws. If there was we wouldn't need a supreme court, we could just hire IBM, or whoever, to create Big Blue, Supreme Court Edition and let it decide all the cases. Based on what we know about ACB it is reasonable to expect that we'll wind up with Dred Scott v. 2.0 with regards to LGBT people.
    Are there credible lawsuits challenging gay marriage rights Working their way through district courts? I ask sincerely, I don’t know what may come up in front of the supreme court on this topic.

    As far as the chart bae posted, that’s a nice and succinct codification of all these concepts. But I don’t care enough to study it. I just don’t care. The current brouhaha over word choice ( preference? Orientation?) is just for me OK whatever y’all can go off and debate that but I won’t be joining you.

  4. #84
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,158
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    There's not one "right" way to interpret the laws. If there was we wouldn't need a supreme court, we could just hire IBM, or whoever, to create Big Blue, Supreme Court Edition and let it decide all the cases. Based on what we know about ACB it is reasonable to expect that we'll wind up with Dred Scott v. 2.0 with regards to LGBT people.
    Weíve been hearing this sort of thing ever since the perfervid predictions about ďRobert Borkís AmericaĒ.

    If you donít like a law, thatís what legislatures are for.

  5. #85
    Senior Member Teacher Terry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    10,095
    JP, congrats! Some good friends of mine are also worried about their marriage. I never understood people that don’t want others to have rights. Don’t have a abortion, don’t marry someone of the same sex if you are against it but mind your own business. Sensationalism makes for great news but rarely is the truth. Late term abortions are done because the baby will die soon after birth and often the mom’s life is in danger. Or the baby will suffer greatly before dying. These procedures usually involve delivering the baby by induction or C section and the parents are devastated. It’s not done because someone changes their mind. But that’s what the pro life people want you to believe.

  6. #86
    Senior Member jp1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    San Francisco
    Posts
    6,039
    Quote Originally Posted by LDAHL View Post

    If you donít like a law, thatís what legislatures are for.
    Unless youíre a Republican. They held both houses of Congress plus the presidency and didnít change the ACA. Heck, they didnít even participate in the crafting of it. Now they are repeatedly trying to legislate it away through the courts.

  7. #87
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,158
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Unless youíre a Republican. They held both houses of Congress plus the presidency and didnít change the ACA. Heck, they didnít even participate in the crafting of it. Now they are repeatedly trying to legislate it away through the courts.
    I donít disagree with that. They should have fixed or euthanized that thing when they had the chance.

  8. #88
    Simpleton Alan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    7,515
    Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
    Unless you’re a Republican. They held both houses of Congress plus the presidency and didn’t change the ACA. Heck, they didn’t even participate in the crafting of it. Now they are repeatedly trying to legislate it away through the courts.
    If the Democrats take over in January do you think they'll kill the ACA in favor of Medicare for all?
    "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not one bit simpler." ~ Albert Einstein

  9. #89
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    4,633
    Quote Originally Posted by Alan View Post
    If the Democrats take over in January do you think they'll kill the ACA in favor of Medicare for all?
    I wish but no. We might get higher Social Security payments though which could help with all the Medicare letters of the alphabet costs for seniors. They are looking to be a strong demographic for Biden.

  10. #90
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    6,158
    My understanding was that Biden says he would lower the ceiling on ACA premiums to 8.5% of income and lower the Medicare eligibility age to 60. Not sure how he would pay for it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 3 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •