Supreme Court saves Obamacare

[Not a Tailor 1,370]

You can drive all you want in USA and not have to pay for Insurance. Ever heard of company car, or driving someone else vehicle?

Home Insurance - So you think everyone in the USA pays HomeOWners Insurance? Last time I checked usually a family lived in a house, and then a lot of people live in apartments or rentals and never pay HomeOwners.

Life Insurance - Lots of people don't have it

So back to Obamacare - Forced upon everyone..... If you like being told what to do then you have became just another sheep following the herd. but seeing you come for the left coast and I would consider you a typical west coast yankee. Then no surprise.........

Re: Home Insurance--Every decent landlord I have EVER known of has required tenants to have renter's insurance. It turned out to be a good thing a couple years ago when my wife's apartment building burnt down while she was out of the country for work. We were able to replace everything. She would have been left living in abject poverty for ages if we hadn't had that, unable to even afford a decent mattress.

If they DON'T require you to carry renter's insurance, then they're probably a slumlord.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

When living becomes a privilege like driving, you'll have a valid comparison.

I didn't make the comparison. I responded to the person that did and claimed that auto insurance was optional and not government mandated.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Actually, I think that was Roberts, not Scalia, that introduced that hypocrisy on the two decisions.

I mentioned Scalia because of his SCOTUS Care comment

[Dashinka 23,242]

I mentioned Scalia because of his SCOTUS Care comment

Yes, but in both cases Scalia voted in the minority, so I do not see the hypocrisy there. In the case of Roberts, he actually became a legislator in the Obamacare case in his majority opinion, then came out the next day saying the court should not be a tool for legislating in the same sex marriage case. So I don't really see Scalia being two-faced, but Roberts certainly was.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Yes, but in both cases Scalia voted in the minority, so I do not see the hypocrisy there. In the case of Roberts, he actually became a legislator in the Obamacare case in his majority opinion, then came out the next day saying the court should not be a tool for legislating in the same sex marriage case. So I don't really see Scalia being two-faced, but Roberts certainly was.

Scalia always lectures about non-activist strict constitution interpretation - he has has a very narrow view of what the courts purpose and power is. That was consistent with his vote on gay marriage - he has come out and said he is not against gay marriage, he just does not think the court should be forcing that view onto the states.

He threw this philosophy out on the Obamacare vote - he voted against it for ideological reasons. That is activist and against interpreting the constitution. He did not like the law so he decided "screw it"

That's two faced. He can't expect anyone to take his complaints about an activist court seriously again in the future - I won't anyway.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Again, Scalia had no issue with activism when it served his corporate overlords in Citizen United.

[Dashinka 23,242]

Scalia always lectures about non-activist strict constitution interpretation - he has has a very narrow view of what the courts purpose and power is. That was consistent with his vote on gay marriage - he has come out and said he is not against gay marriage, he just does not think the court should be forcing that view onto the states.

He threw this philosophy out on the Obamacare vote - he voted against it for ideological reasons. That is activist and against interpreting the constitution. He did not like the law so he decided "screw it"

That's two faced. He can't expect anyone to take his complaints about an activist court seriously again in the future - I won't anyway.

I disagree a bit on Scalia position on the ACA. He made the comment that it should be now called SCOTUScare because the majority decided to interpret the law as poor and instead of sending it back to congress to fix it, they decided to fix it themselves. He interpreted the law on legal grounds and with the way our government is supposed to work. Roberts himself called it a poorly worded law, but instead of doing his duty under our supposed system of checks and balances, decided to join with five of his colleagues to take on the unelected role of congress and change it much like his first ruling (a fine is really a tax). Scalia never said they should take on the role of legislating, but instead should send this back to congress. Isn't that what should have happened?

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

I disagree a bit on Scalia position on the ACA. He made the comment that it should be now called SCOTUScare because the majority decided to interpret the law as poor and instead of sending it back to congress to fix it, they decided to fix it themselves. He interpreted the law on legal grounds and with the way our government is supposed to work. Roberts himself called it a poorly worded law, but instead of doing his duty under our supposed system of checks and balances, decided to join with five of his colleagues to take on the unelected role of congress and change it much like his first ruling (a fine is really a tax). Scalia never said they should take on the role of legislating, but instead should send this back to congress. Isn't that what should have happened?

I understand where you are coming from but.. The issue at hand on the Obamacare case came down to the interpretation of *one line* that was poorly written in the bill. This is not the usual issue where they look at 250 year old documents and try to apply original intent. They only needed to figure out the original intent of one line in a document that is six years old. A document that was signed into law by a Democratically controlled house and senate and signed into law under a still sitting president who is pissed at the reinterpretation. The original intent is beyond obvious. Scalia chose to expand it because he didn't like the legislation as a whole.

Edited June 28, 2015 by OnMyWayID

[Dashinka 23,242]

I understand where you are coming from but.. The issue at hand on the Obamacare case came down to the interpretation of *one line* that was poorly written in the bill. This is not the usual issue where they look at 250 year old documents and try to apply original intent. They only needed to figure out the original intent of one line in a document that is six years old. A document that was signed into law by a Democratically controlled house and senate and signed into law under a still sitting president who is pissed at the reinterpretation. The original intent is beyond obvious. Scalia chose to expand it because he didn't like the legislation as a whole.

You forgot the part about passed in the dead of night by a single party without reading it since the Dem leader's position is you have to pass it blindly to find out what was in it. You are correct, they we ruling on a single item in the law, but that single item was an acknowledged linchpin for the entire law. When the Supremes are charged with reviewing a law's constitutionality, their only recourse is to send it back if it is worded wrong, not re-write it. The main architect (even though the WH denied it) even said it was written that way on purpose to put political pressure on the Republican state governors. Well, it didn't work, and SCOTUS, taking a political stand said oh well, let's change it. My main point is that all of the federal government is broken, both sides lie continually to keep their jobs, or take unusual powers in the case where their jobs are secure. This ruling was just another example of this government failure.

[lostinblue 1,989]

Re: Home Insurance--Every decent landlord I have EVER known of has required tenants to have renter's insurance. It turned out to be a good thing a couple years ago when my wife's apartment building burnt down while she was out of the country for work. We were able to replace everything. She would have been left living in abject poverty for ages if we hadn't had that, unable to even afford a decent mattress.

If they DON'T require you to carry renter's insurance, then they're probably a slumlord.

Sorry ... Renters insurance is not a requirement.to rent ... That would be a form of discrimination

Edited June 28, 2015 by lostinblue

[VOL 425]

Re: Home Insurance--Every decent landlord I have EVER known of has required tenants to have renter's insurance. It turned out to be a good thing a couple years ago when my wife's apartment building burnt down while she was out of the country for work. We were able to replace everything. She would have been left living in abject poverty for ages if we hadn't had that, unable to even afford a decent mattress.

If they DON'T require you to carry renter's insurance, then they're probably a slumlord.

As usual you missed the point. It's called Home Owners Insurance for a Home Owner, Not a Renter. That is called Renters Insurance - K?

When I lived in my prior house in Irving, Nobody required me to have Home Owners Insurance - It was my choice to have it or not have it.

Now back to Renters Insurance I had a couple section 8 a few years ago in the hood, I never required tenat to have renters and I am sure if I did they wouldn't furnish it or pay for it.

So please try to keep on topic, TIA....

[VOL 425]

Not a Tailor (2) Points deducted and yellow card issued for not staying on Subject or Topic

VOL 1

[Póg mo 1,749]

As usual you missed the point. It's called Home Owners Insurance for a Home Owner, Not a Renter. That is called Renters Insurance - K?

When I lived in my prior house in Irving, Nobody required me to have Home Owners Insurance - It was my choice to have it or not have it.

Now back to Renters Insurance I had a couple section 8 a few years ago in the hood, I never required tenat to have renters and I am sure if I did they wouldn't furnish it or pay for it.

So please try to keep on topic, TIA....

Hypocritical as usual. You don't like poor people living off government subsidies, but have little problem doing the same yourself.