Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
03 29, 24, 01:53:41:AM

Login with username and password

Biden Does NOT need a BILL to close the border
He only needs a PEN. Thats all he needed to open it.
Thats all he needed to close it. Thats all Trump needed.
Maybe this is just Proof Trump is better than Biden.

Search:     Advanced search
2653663 Posts in 297946 Topics by 306 Members
Latest Member: chachamukhtar
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: What do DOMA and the Wisconsin have in common? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Print
Author Topic: What do DOMA and the Wisconsin have in common?  (Read 9803 times)
John Adams
Before a free people can be oppressed they must first be idealogically disarmed....
Sr. Member

Posts: 43255

Repeal the 17th Amendment, No direct elections


« Reply #24 on: 02 25, 11, 08:03:31:AM » Reply

Please show the board where in the Constitution the Attorney General has the authority to strike down a Federal Law....

My GOD you are stupid but, are you really that stupid....
hoosier_daddy
Don't hate me because I am beautiful
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

how cool that chemtrail can change profiles


« Reply #25 on: 02 25, 11, 08:05:32:AM » Reply

you cannot be more wrong....3 FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE RULED IT CONSTITUTIONAL.  FEDERAL JUDGES HAVE NO SUPERIORITY OVER EACH OTHER...what the fuck are you talking about, idiot?  if obama follows two dumbfuck conservative judges, then HE IS GOING AGAINST WHAT 3 SANE JUDGES HAVE SAID....why would or should obama follow 2 instead of 3?  why do you think he should?  you are fucking crazy.
John Adams
Before a free people can be oppressed they must first be idealogically disarmed....
Sr. Member

Posts: 43255

Repeal the 17th Amendment, No direct elections


« Reply #26 on: 02 25, 11, 08:09:48:AM » Reply

So, when Mark Levin is named Attorney General, he will abolish obamacare because two conservative Judges ruled in his favor....
 
Is that your understanding of how the Judiciary works, brilliant....

So, by your analysis, the score is 40-30....brilliant


Scoring a game...

A game consists of a sequence of points played with the same player serving, and is won by the first player (or players) to have won at least four points by two points or more over their opponent. In scoring an individual standard game of tennis, the server's score is always called first and the receiver's score second. Score calling is unique to the sport of tennis in that each point has a corresponding call that is synonymous with that point value.

Number of points won Corresponding call[1]
0 "love"
1 "15"
2 "30"
3 "40"
4 "game"

In tennis, scoring in tie situations in which both players have won the same number of points also varies. If each player has won three points, the score is described as "deuce" rather than "40–all". From this point on, whenever the score is tied, it is described as "deuce" regardless of how many points have been played.

In standard play, scoring beyond a "deuce" score, in which both players have scored three points a piece, requires that one player must win two consecutive points in order to win the game. This type of tennis scoring is known as "advantage scoring" (or "ads"). In this type of scoring, the player who wins the next point after deuce is said to have the advantage. If the player with advantage loses the next point, the score is again deuce, since the score is tied. If the player with the advantage wins the next point, that player has won the game, since the player now leads by two points. When the server is the player with the advantage, the score may be stated by him before the next point as "advantage in." When the server's opponent has the advantage, the server may state the score as "advantage out." These phrases are sometimes shortened to "ad in" and "ad out." Alternatively, the server may simply use players' names; in professional tournaments the umpire announces the score in this format (e.g., "advantage McEnroe" or "advantage Borg").

Why are you the only moron board liberal here that seems to take this opinion of how the Judiciary works....

Are all of your fellow travelers wrong or are you wrong....
hoosier_daddy
Don't hate me because I am beautiful
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

how cool that chemtrail can change profiles


« Reply #27 on: 02 25, 11, 08:17:27:AM » Reply

you show what a tiny mind every time you ask a question....here is the deal....congress passed health care reform.  it is the law of the land.  state attorney generals cannot decide what federal laws they will enforce or not.  they can take it to court, but they cannot decide on their own.  period.  two out of 17 federal judges have found parts of the law unconstitutional.  that does not strike the law down, it does not stop the law from going forward, if the DOJ gets a stay or challenges that ruling, which it has.   until the SUPREME COURT DECLARES THE LAW UNCONSTIUTIONAL, IT IS THE LAW OF THE LAND.  so is DOMA.  Obama and the DOJ are still ENFORCING THE DOMA LAW...but they have declined defending it as it moves up the court system.  why cannot you see the difference?
John Adams
Before a free people can be oppressed they must first be idealogically disarmed....
Sr. Member

Posts: 43255

Repeal the 17th Amendment, No direct elections


« Reply #28 on: 02 25, 11, 08:19:50:AM » Reply

if the DOJ gets a stay or challenges that ruling, which it has.   
 
No, they has axed for the Judge to clarify his ruling.....
 
There is no stay currently on Judge Rodger Vinson's opinion....
hoosier_daddy
Don't hate me because I am beautiful
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

how cool that chemtrail can change profiles


« Reply #29 on: 02 25, 11, 08:32:47:AM » Reply

oh, yeah...there is.  here is part of it...
 
n a procedural motion that may prove more significant than its low-key framing may suggest at first glance, the Department of Justice this week filed a "Motion To Clarify" with Judge Roger Vinson of the Northern District of Florida in Pensacola. The Motion asked the judge to "clarify" that his two-and-a-half-week old January 31 declaratory judgment invalidating the "individual mandate" or "individual responsibility provision" of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) "does not relieve the parties of their rights and obligations [under the ACA]" until appeals are exhausted. In this case, that date is unlikely to occur without a definitive Supreme Court ruling, perhaps two years from now. 
The motion was filed because Judge Vinson not only held that this provision was unconstitutional, but that his ruling necessitated holding the entire 2,500-plus-page statute invalid. He reached this conclusion despite the fact that he acknowledged that he was unfamiliar with many of the provisions in the law and, indeed, that at least some of them were unrelated to the stricken provision, and, moreover, were affirmatively constitutional. The judge declined to issue an injunction barring the Obama Administration or other parties from taking any further steps to implement the law. But he issued a cryptic reference to a "long-standing presumption" that Executive Branch officials will respect a judge's determination of the applicable law, and hence, that a "declaratory judgment is the functional equivalent of an injunction."
In part, no doubt, because of the startling breadth and logical leaps involved in Judge Vinson's determination - much criticized by commentators as judicial overreach - the decision has appeared to have relatively little impact on the ground. While Republican officials in some states have asserted that the decision relieves them of any obligation to comply with or implement the ACA, in most states, including most of those participating in the constitutional challenge before Judge Vinson, officials are continuing to accept funds and take steps necessary to implement portions of the law that are already effective as well as to prepare for others, such as the establishment of exchanges to offer affordable health insurance policies to individuals not covered by group health plans. For its part, the Administration has emphatically not in any way reined in its broad-scale and intensive game plan for implementing the new law.
The motion avoids frontally confronting or challenging Judge Vinson with the large gaps and deficiencies of his ruling. Instead, it details the myriad and far-flung provisions of the law - many conferring substantial benefits on state governments, private businesses, and individual citizens - that have already taken effect and/or which have little or no connection to the stricken individual responsibility provision. The Motion proceeds to state that, because of the adverse impacts, confusion, and costs threatened by rolling back or halting work on these provisions, the Department concludes that Judge Vinson did not intend his ruling to have any such effect.
Similarly, the Motion points out that, had he intended to impose such massive and costly effects, the Judge would have determined that an injunction was, indeed, in order. But in such an event, he would, the Department observed, have been required to "apply the familiar four-factor test, which consists of not only the likelihood of success on the merits, but also the respective equities of the parties and where the public interest lies, including an injunction's effect on parties not before the Court." Given the vast scope of the ACA, this contention implicitly made clear, a very long and complex proceeding would have been necessary. Since he made no such order and avoided any such inquiry, the Department explained that this too reinforced its conclusion that Judge Vinson "intended" no halt to compliance or implementation, pending the completion of appellate review.
In effect, the Motion, while couched in iterative form and a respectful tone, not only throws the ball back to Judge Vinson, but puts directly on his shoulders the legal and political onus of the fate of the law and all its specific provisions, including its many already-implemented and highly popular provisions, as well as the large and growing investment in them by governments, the private and nonprofit sectors, and individuals. The Motion also in effect offers a compelling preview of what an emergency motion for a stay to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit would look like, should the judge give a dismissive response to the Department. In effect, the Department's Motion to Clarify seems to provide a face-saving route for Judge Vinson to withdraw the threat he seemingly could not bring himself in his January 31 decision either to clearly make or clearly decline to make. To decline the Department's offer could risk a confrontation with the Obama administration, which, even in the Eleventh Circuit, with its reputation for judicial conservatism, could seem highly problematic. If the judge does, indeed, choose the path of caution and grant the Department's motion, the Administration will have cleared away much of the objections opponents can mount to proceeding apace with ACA implementation.
mikefx
Honored Member

Posts: 2892


« Reply #30 on: 02 25, 11, 08:35:55:AM » Reply

Perhaps DOJ is refusing to support DOMA so it can focus on Health Reform constitutional status?  Sort of a Defense of Health Care Insurance reform focus???   Seems reasonable to me.  This way DOJ doesn't have to hire more lawyers to file so many briefs???   Also the Gays have so much money to contribute to 2012 campaign, while red neck DOMA types are often out of work and out of money.  That could be an issue as well, don't you agree!!!
John Adams
Before a free people can be oppressed they must first be idealogically disarmed....
Sr. Member

Posts: 43255

Repeal the 17th Amendment, No direct elections


« Reply #31 on: 02 25, 11, 08:39:36:AM » Reply

A motion to clarify is not a stay and as of yet, Judge Vinson has yet to respond to the motion....

 What is to clarify?

He ruled the law null and void....

Page 75 of his ruling grants no stay, it is a declaratory judgement...

It is a delay tactic

Where do you get such bogus information.....
hoosier_daddy
Don't hate me because I am beautiful
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!

how cool that chemtrail can change profiles


« Reply #32 on: 02 25, 11, 08:43:22:AM » Reply

try to read it, bitch.  get some 4th grader to help you.  you clearly do not understand.  as usual.  this little bitch's ruling against carries no more weight than the 3 FEDERAL JUDGES WHO SAID IT WAS CONSITUTIONAL...ARE YOU FUCKING CRAZY?  why do you think what one federal judge says carries more weight than what 3 other federal judges say? 
John Adams
Before a free people can be oppressed they must first be idealogically disarmed....
Sr. Member

Posts: 43255

Repeal the 17th Amendment, No direct elections


« Reply #33 on: 02 25, 11, 08:48:40:AM » Reply

Because in the Judicial process, only one Judge, ruling that a law is unconstitutional becomes the binding ruling until and unless through the appelate process, that ruling is overturned....
 
That is a basic as it gets.....
 
That is how the Judiciary works....
 
I think we have found the board clone to dardmex....

Have you ever heard of the appelate process....
sweetwater5s9
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 99142


« Reply #34 on: 02 25, 11, 09:00:58:AM » Reply

The individual mandate, which imposes a fine on individuals who do not purchase health insurance, is unconstitutional and not “severable” from the full law. Therefore, the entire act must be declared void.

The individual mandate is so critical to the design of the law that it cannot be struck down in isolation.

D.C. federal district judge Gladys Kessler, a Clinton appointee,  writes in her decision
that the individual mandate must be viewed not as a stand-alone reform but as an essential part of the law Obama signed 11 months ago.

 

The ruling of U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, in Richmond, Va., ruled the individual mandate is beyond the historical reach of the Commerce Clause and is unconstitutional.

 

Somewhat shockingly, Sebelius argued forcefully that the penalty imposed by the individual mandate was not a penalty but was instead a tax, and therefore permissible under Congress’ taxation powers (which are hypothetically broader than Congress’ powers to regulate interstate commerce). This was a rather half-hearted argument and one which the Court disposed of with extreme prejudice - noting, after all, that if the Act works as intended, it will raise zero revenue because no one will pay the penalty.


 


wvit1001
Sr. Member

Posts: I am a geek!!


« Reply #35 on: 02 25, 11, 10:09:31:AM » Reply

You guys just go on and on to each other but nobody pays any attention.  The Healthcare Act continues unabated.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Moved Hot Topics  |  Topic: What do DOMA and the Wisconsin have in common?
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats


Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam



Lend a hand


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 0.177 seconds with 37 queries.