Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Judge Uses Pizza to Defend Recent Pro-Obamacare Ruling
Townhall.com ^ | July 23, 2014 | Mike Shedlock

Posted on 07/23/2014 8:08:12 AM PDT by Kaslin

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

1 posted on 07/23/2014 8:08:12 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Well, the judge isn’t exactly working with a full set of transisters, is he?

What’s the frequency, judge?


2 posted on 07/23/2014 8:10:07 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When will Obama Admin declare Obamacare is really Single Payer ,so shut up, D’oh


3 posted on 07/23/2014 8:15:20 AM PDT by molson209 (Blank)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Short summary: It’s whatever.


4 posted on 07/23/2014 8:17:40 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy ("Harvey Dent, can we trust him?" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBsdV--kLoQ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When it gets to the USSC we have to remember that Roberts has been bought, at least on this issue.


5 posted on 07/23/2014 8:18:07 AM PDT by arthurus (Read Hazlitt's Economics In One Lesson ONLINEhttp://steshaw.org/economics-in-one-lesson/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order.

This is not the case with the ACA law. While a pizza from Pizza Hut that has ham and pepperoni can be substituted with a pizza from Dominoes, the ACA states that the ham and pepperoni can be used only if it comes from Pizza Hut and not Dominoes. ...................

6 posted on 07/23/2014 8:19:10 AM PDT by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The issue is one of intent.

How can we judge their intent when no one actually read the law before they voted. They even bragged that they hadn't read it.

It is like in a criminal case where you have to prove intent or there was no crime.
In this case there was no way to know what the legislators were intending since they were voting on a law that they had not read. Therefore no one knows what was intended.

7 posted on 07/23/2014 8:25:49 AM PDT by oldbrowser (We have a rogue government in Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

There is absolutely no doubt about the intent of the clause for excluding subsidies from Federal programs.

The Federal exchanges were barred from providing subsidies to prevent the program costs from exceeding what were already staggeringly expensive levels - a Trillion dollars as scored by CBO.

This is a part of the record - a ban on Federal Exchange subsidies were a deliberate, fully considered Cost Control measure intentionally drafted into the bill to make the costs close.


8 posted on 07/23/2014 8:28:38 AM PDT by rdcbn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger
While a pizza from Pizza Hut that has ham and pepperoni can be substituted with a pizza from Dominoes, the ACA states that the ham and pepperoni can be used only if it comes from Pizza Hut and not Dominoes. ...................

You are missing the point. It is beneficial to the liberal cause, so none of that matters. All that matters is what the "intent" was. Now, if it were reversed, and it benefited the Conservative cause, then the courts, the Dems, the GOP-e, and the media would all be insisting that the letter of the law be followed exactly.

9 posted on 07/23/2014 8:30:58 AM PDT by Turbo Pig (...to close with and destroy the enemy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

I wonder if this judge will be praised by the liberals for his wisdom, for talking about pizza.

The liberals were outraged when Justice Scalia asked if the government can force us to buy and eat broccoli. Which is why I bring up the pizza analogy. Which food analogies are considered okay with liberals, and which ones are absurd. What are the liberal criteria here?


10 posted on 07/23/2014 8:31:17 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

You are spot on.

The liberals want to have it both ways, and they may get it.

When the liberal view of an issue calls for review of legislative intent or some other inexact criteria, then the liberals will talk about that as being how the decision should be made.

If the liberal view of an issue calls for the letter of the law to be followed exactly, then liberals tell us that this is how a case and a law should be interpreted.


11 posted on 07/23/2014 8:32:59 AM PDT by Dilbert San Diego (s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Great, now I can pay my taxes to my cousin instead of the IRS because I still complied with a literal construction of paying taxes!


12 posted on 07/23/2014 8:35:27 AM PDT by Lockbox
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Where do they find these Judges? At the bottom of a box of Cracker Jacks?


13 posted on 07/23/2014 8:47:58 AM PDT by sjmjax (Politicans are much like bananas. They start off green, turn yellow then rot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Just another libtard indulging in what libtards do - hair-splitting exercises.

It doesn’t matter if it doesn’t comport with the letter of the law, the spirit of the law, or traditional precedent - I want what I want and I’ll torture language, the law, and anything else in my way until I get what I want.

(Cue 6 year old child on his back stomping his feet)


14 posted on 07/23/2014 8:54:47 AM PDT by rockrr (Everything is different now...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The premium tax credit calculation subprovision later specifies certain conditions regarding state-run Exchanges, but that does not mean that a literal reading of that provision somehow precludes its applicability to substitute federally-run Exchanges or erases the contingency provision out of the statute.

Oh OK. Now I understand.
I am glad he cleared that up. Me and my brothernlaw Bubba was just down at the garage having this same conversation under the lift trying to figure this out.
15 posted on 07/23/2014 8:56:24 AM PDT by envisio (Its on like Donkey Kong!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Turbo Pig

The road to ‘hell’ is paved with good ‘intent’ions.................


16 posted on 07/23/2014 8:59:42 AM PDT by Red Badger (If you compromise with evil, you just get more evil..........................)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

Why didn’t the judge declare that the Federal government is a state since it has a State Department?


17 posted on 07/23/2014 9:02:10 AM PDT by N. Theknow (Kennedys-Can't drive, can't ski, can't fly, can't skipper a boat-But they know what's best for you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: oldbrowser

That’s the wrong argument to make. If that is the argument, then the judges will feel that they have every right to correct what amounts to nothing more than an error in the text. The correct argument is that it WAS their intent to exclude federal exchanges from the subsidies.


18 posted on 07/23/2014 9:22:05 AM PDT by RightFighter (It was all for nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Da Coyote
The "logic."

Appeal: 14-1158 Doc: 83 Filed: 07/22/2014 Pg: 42 of 46 43

So does common sense: If I ask for pizza from Pizza Hut for lunch but clarify that I would be fine with a pizza from Domino’s, and I then specify that I want ham and pepperoni on my pizza from Pizza Hut, my friend who returns from Domino’s with a ham and pepperoni pizza has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order.

And this has what exactly to do with the text of the law?

Was there a Pizza Hut bammycare application or a Domino's bammycare application ?

Maybe it was just a check-box somewhere... .

19 posted on 07/23/2014 9:28:38 AM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
has still complied with a literal construction of my lunch order

Immaterial since no one FORCED you to have pizza for lunch, you judicial dipstick!

20 posted on 07/23/2014 9:31:23 AM PDT by MamaTexan (I am a Person as created by the Laws of Nature, not a person as created by the laws of Man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-30 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson