• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.

US PoliEra 2019 |OT3| YOU WERE AT MY WEDDING, DENISE

Status
Not open for further replies.
Oct 30, 2017
1,014
I remember distinctly that there were Congressman on the left willing to give Barr the benefit of the doubt prior to his appointment and said he's a decent, honest guy. There were plenty of pundits and former lawyers on MSNBC who worked with/under him before who said that we should trust him until we see what he does. That we were wrong to simply assume that since Trump appointed him he was automatically a stooge.

Welp, it's crystal fucking clear after reading some of these quotes today that he's 100% a stooge who will do everything in his power to shield anything bad from coming out about the president.
He's literally obstructing justice for Trump, the Mueller Report may have not come to a conclusion but the crime isn't over yet
 
Nov 14, 2017
5,651
I remember distinctly that there were Congressman on the left willing to give Barr the benefit of the doubt prior to his appointment and said he's a decent, honest guy. There were plenty of pundits and former lawyers on MSNBC who worked with/under him before who said that we should trust him until we see what he does. That we were wrong to simply assume that since Trump appointed him he was automatically a stooge.

Welp, it's crystal fucking clear after reading some of these quotes today that he's 100% a stooge who will do everything in his power to shield anything bad from coming out about the president.
I had a Twitter troll try to convince me that getting votes from Manchin and Sinema meant Barr had bipartisan Senate support.
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,839
OK so if we look at what Roberts said in regard to the individual mandate:

The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A [of the Internal Revenue Code] would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax.
Fast forward to 2017, the mandate is nullified because of the tax law passed in that year. What I'm trying to figure out is how does eliminating the mandate justify throwing out the entire law? It was merely a question of if the federal government can force people to buy health insurance, and Roberts already said no they cannot but the law continued on. How did the mandate surviving for a time as a tax then justify holding up the entire law? Is that even what Roberts was saying? To me it seemed like a narrow question. The rest of the law can survive with our without the mandate.
 
Last edited:
Oct 26, 2017
6,596
Director of Communications for noted conservative activist group TPUSA, key speaker at CPAC, her own youtube has a headlining video where the title is literally 'I'm a conservative'
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,114
OK so if we look at what Roberts said in regard to the individual mandate:



Fast forward to 2017, the mandate is nullified because of the tax law passed in that year. What I'm trying to figure out is how does eliminating the mandate justify throwing out the entire law? It was merely a question of if the federal government can force people to buy health insurance, and Roberts already said no they cannot but the law continued on. How did the mandate surviving for a time as a tax then justify holding up the entire law? Is that even what Roberts was saying? To me it seemed like a narrow question. The rest of the law can survive with our without the mandate.
That's why most people don't really think SCOTUS will get chucked out. The five members who upheld the law's constitutionality before are still there. Even the later ruling with Kennedy siding with the liberals was 6-3 with Roberts.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,001
Trump just said to reporters "Obama separated the children. I stopped it. But you see what happens when you stop it, they just keep coming over. Obama separated the children, I changed it."
 

Diablos

has a title.
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,839
That's why most people don't really think SCOTUS will get chucked out. The five members who upheld the law's constitutionality before are still there. Even the later ruling with Kennedy siding with the liberals was 6-3 with Roberts.
Right. As for King v. Burwell it was an entirely different question though... one asking if the federal marketplace is even valid when a State refuses to set up its own. Meaning if it wasn't, then every state relying on the federal marketplace wouldn't be able to and people couldn't shop for ACA plans there nor could they get an ACA plan. The mandate was still in effect at that time of course. But they didn't really speak to that one way or another from what I can remember, because it didn't really go after the mandate as it was partially upheld with the tax in place at the time, so it was merely a question of the validity of HHS setting up the federal marketplace when the State won't do so. That is, if I am remembering right. Anyway it seems like Trump and his DOJ are honing in on revisiting NFIB v. Sebelius now that some things (well, one thing) has changed.

I do think what's happening now is the Trump administration basically throwing Roberts' 2012 ruling right back in his face and challenging him to justify a continuation of upholding the law now that the mandate is gone. If 5000A was unconstitutional on the question of forcing individuals to buy health insurance alone, and with what he referred to as a tax now being null, what does this mean in a broader context? 5000A is basically repealed between judicial and congressional actions taken between 2012 and 2017.
 
Last edited:
Oct 29, 2017
739
Paris, France
Speaking in the Oval Office, Trump said he would not restart child separation at the border and blamed Obama for the policy

“Just so you understand, President Obama separated the children. Those cages that were shown--I think they were very inappropriate--were by President Obama’s administration not by Trump. President Obama had child separation,” said the president said.

“Take a look. The press knows it. You know it. We all know it. I’m the one who stopped it. President Obama had child separation.”
This gaslighting fucker is at it again.
 
Oct 25, 2017
10,585
Trump just said to reporters "Obama separated the children. I stopped it. But you see what happens when you stop it, they just keep coming over. Obama separated the children, I changed it."
"Obama did it! But also you should do it! But Obama did it and it's bad! But also it's the only way to do it!"
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,301
Fucking hell. This is getting out of hand.
Fantastic... *sigh*

Reminds me of that thread where someone was actually arguing that banning un-vaccinated in a predominately Jewish area could be viewed anti-semetic and the judge was right to overturn the decision to do so.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,001
This is like Smeagol talking about Gollum.
Yeah. Before he started talking about this he had already told the gaggle "Thank you very much" but they didn't leave and spent the next 30 seconds or so shouting questions. For whatever reason he just suddenly started speaking up about it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.