Karpe Diem: "This should bring to the republican party any smart democrat..."
Plus Bigfoot, a couple of unicorns, some "moderate Muslims," and a host of other fictional characters.
also ...
Seventeen76 Wrote
Here's how it ought to work:
-The Republicans pass a law, maybe the Keystone Pipeline, and send it to the President. He probably vetoes it. -The Republicans talk to the constituents of Democratic House and Senate members and point out that Obama vetoed a bill that is favored by a large majority of Americans. -They pass the law again, this time with more Democratic support. The President again vetoes it. -The Republicans go back to the constituents of Democratic members of the House and Senate.
This time the bill is passed with enough bipartisan support that if Obama vetoes it, his veto will be overridden.
Then do the same thing with the next bill. "Lather, rinse, repeat."
It's a long process, but it's the Constitutional Process and Republicans should not be afraid to follow the Constitution.
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
Too many Democrats are too eager to gain distance from Obama before 2016.
Well, to override a veto takes a two-thirds majority of those voting in both houses.
This is tricky, because you'd think it means that it takes 67 Senators (out of 100) and 290 Representatives (out of 435) to override a veto. But that is not so.
It requires a 2/3rds majority of a voting quorum. The quorum for a vote in the Senate is 51 (if all 100 seats are filled). The quorum for a vote in the House is 218 (if all House seats are filled). If there are unfilled seats, the quorum is reduced by the vacancies.
That means that - if every seat in both houses is filled but all members are not present, a Presidential veto can be overturned by 2/3rds majority 34 votes (if only 51 Senators are present - enough for a quorum), and by a 2/3rds majority of 146 votes of a quorum of 218.
Of course, if an issue is contentious, it is unlikely that half of the House or the Senate won't show up.
If everybody shows up, it will take 67 Senators and 290 Representatives to override a veto.
In the next Congress, Republicans will hold 54 seats in the Senate. 13 Democrats - a quarter of the Democrats - would have to actively break ranks to vote against the President.
Republicans will hold at least 244 seats (some Louisiana seats are yet to be decided). If Democrats get all those seats, and Representatives are present and voting, 46 Democrats - about a quarter of the caucus will have to cross the aisle to vote with the Republicans to override the President.
If Obama vetoes the Keystone Pipeline, that might happen. But if Congress rams through a repeal of Obamacare, Obama will veto and there will not be enough Democrat votes to override.
Republicans will get the Keystone Pipeline, because lots of Democrats want it. Otherwise, they will be completely stymied during the next two years.
a two-thirds supermajority in the Senate is 67 out of 100 senators, while a two-thirds super majority in the House is 290 out of 435 representatives.
But if Congress rams through a repeal of Obamacare, Obama will veto and there will not be enough Democrat votes to override.
Considering how many have been kicked to the curb because of voting for it I would just imagine quite a few would vote for repeal in an attempt to save their asses in the next couple of elections. Whether it is enough or not remains to be seen.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
"Can't ObozoCare be gotten rid of in the same manor we got it in the first place, thru budget reconciliation"?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
In theory, yes. In practice, no, because the bill would have to be signed by the President, and he will veto it. Which means that Congress will either have to pass a continuing resolution, and thereby fund Obamacare - or refuse to, thereby shutting down the government. And Mitch McConnell and the Republican leadership have already said multiple times that they will not be shutting down the government.
So, in theory, Obamacare can be struck down, either by the Republican Supreme Court, or by the Republican Congress being willing to shut down the government. But John Roberts (Republican, Va.) is still Chief Justice, and he already upheld Obamacare once. And the Senate Majority Leader (just elected so unanimously by his caucus) won't shut the government.
So Obamacare remains the law of the land, because the Democrats want it, and deep in the back rooms, the Republican alphas also want it.
The bulk of the country doesn't want it, but they went and elected Democrats and Republicans who were always going to uphold it. So it's here to stay.
So, in theory, Obamacare can be struck down, either by the Republican Supreme Court,
Which may happen depending on how they rule on the Subsidies case they took.
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
But John Roberts (Republican, Va.) is still Chief Justice, and he already upheld Obamacare once.
I've heard he was blackmailed into doing that because the Dems found out about "HOW" he adopted his children, supposedly he broke some laws to adopt them.
Have either one of you heard anything about this?
“Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rapidly promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.”
If he was blackmailed then, he'll be blackmailed again this time too. Four Democrats plus Roberts means that Obamacare will be upheld.
Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito granted cert, but if Roberts is a submissive man who is controlled through blackmail, that means 5:4 votes on everything that matters.
I've heard he was blackmailed into doing that because the Dems found out about "HOW" he adopted his children, supposedly he broke some laws to adopt them.
Have either one of you heard anything about this?
I've heard of it but I don't give it much credence. FWIW:
John and Jane (nee Sullivan) Roberts were married in 1996 and about four years later they adopted their two children, both infants at the time, a boy and a girl, about four months apart in age. The adoptions were "private," meaning they were arranged through private parties without the involvement of any agencies. The notion of the Obama White House blackmailing Roberts arose with rumors that the adoptions may have been illegal under the laws of Ireland.
Ireland? Yes. It seems the children were said (by whom is unclear) to be of Latin American origin. Their fair complexions and blonde hair, however, suggested to some that a northern European origin was more likely. Two sets of circumstances to keep in mind: One is that during Roberts's confirmation battle almost nine years ago (he was nominated by George W. Bush), the New York Times was hot on the trail of anything untoward in the nominee's past. Seven years later, in the weeks immediately preceding the ObamaCare ruling, the Obama White House was doing its own digging, and the president himself was out in public decrying a possible ruling against his signature accomplishment.
Now, a question: Which European country makes both private adoptions and out-of-country adoptions illegal? Yep. Ireland. Therefore, as the rumor has it, the Roberts children must have been born in the Emerald Isle and therefore their adoptions in America must have been illegal. Clearly the chief justice was ripe for blackmail if there were facts to back it up. Be a shame to see your family broken up over ObamaCare, wouldn't it, Chief? Then there's that impeachment thing.
Sensational, sure, but rumor and speculation can't be relied upon if that's all there is, and as far as I know, that is all there is. So we'll leave it at that.
Obomba over obombacare hung himself out in a flood - gale !
Why should the repubs - roberts save his blowing in the wind brown stained gotchies !
Just stop the employee - employer mandate !
Just waive everybody from having to participate ... let them choose their own insurance companies --- that doesn't include all the high risk free loaders !
If you ... don't use exclamation points --- you should't be typeing ! Commas - semicolons - question marks are for girlie boys !
I don't give it much credence either. It makes far more sense to me, given the long pattern of Republican support for crony capitalism, that the Republican Alpha establishment made it clear that Obamacare needs to stay for them to make the financial profits off of forced insurance that they have cooked into the program. The only thing that stood in the way was the Supreme Court, and so the Alphas had a heart to heart with Roberts, and he acceded to their wishes.
He'll do it again too. The Supreme Court isn't going to strike down the federal mandate. The Republican Alphas want Obamacare: it makes them rich. Roberts sided with the Dems before, and he will again. Obamacare will only be stopped by the Congress defunding it, and that means a government shutdown that will go on forever - because Obama will never back down. And that means default on the debt.
And that means that loss of billions by the Alphas in their personal wealth. They will never accept that, not in order to kill an insurance mandate that will make some of them a lot of money.
So the Republicans will not strike down Obamacare in the Court, and they will not stop it in Congress. Obamacare will remain the law of the land, and we will adjust to it.
He'll do it again too. The Supreme Court isn't going to strike down the federal mandate. The Republican Alphas want Obamacare: it makes them rich.
Dunno. SCOTUS can strike it down as unconstitutional and a GOP dominated Congress gets to do the rewrite. Dem obstruction with a veto would make their life exceedingly difficult in 2016.
If nothing is done, I believe the current system will collapse under its own weight, again making life exceedingly difficult in 2016 for Dems.
As Obamacare plan prices increase will increase. The mandate tax has scheduled and significant increases. Opposition will only go up.
Dunno. SCOTUS can strike it down as unconstitutional and a GOP dominated Congress gets to do the rewrite. Dem obstruction with a veto would make their life exceedingly difficult in 2016.
If nothing is done, I believe the current system will collapse under its own weight, again making life exceedingly difficult in 2016 for Dems.
Yes, the Supreme Court COULD, but I predict that it won't. The four Democrat judges will all uphold Obamacare, and John Roberts will do the same thing he did before: side with them to uphold it. He COULD go the other way and end the program, but he isn't going to. And that means that Obamacare stays.
Without a Supreme Court decision, Congress cannot abolish it over a Presidential veto. The only thing they could do is cut off the funding, but that would mean a government shutdown. Obama would let the shutdown go on and on, piling up the damage and anger, and the media would focus on the Republicans as the problem. They would say: (1) the law was passed and the Supreme Court upheld it, twice, and (2) the Republicans are legislative terrorists, holding the whole country hostage.
But in any case, the Republicans WON'T shut down the government. Mitch McConnell opposed the shutdown before, and has stated flatly that there will be no default. Well, see, that's the thing. Obama can force the Republicans to either shutdown the government and default or to capitulate. Obama has the power, himself, to absolutely refuse to compromise with the Republicans on Obamacare and immigration, forcing the Republicans to either (a) shutdown the government and ultimately accept a default on the national debt, or (b) let Obama win.
And Obama WILL put the Republicans to precisely that game of chicken on both immigration and Obamacare. Obama will permit the United States to default and economically collapse rather than surrender on either Obamacare OR immigration. He knows that the Republicans will NEVER accept a default, and he knows that he can stand firm and force the Republicans to accept default or capitulate. So he will do just precisely that, and the Republicans WILL capitulate. They cannot stand against the super-rich who own their party. Default would mean the destruction of the personal fortunes and power of the Republican Alphas. They will not permit that.
Bottom line: Obama will win on Obamacare and on amnesty, because he is willing to take the US into default in order to win, and the Republicans are not. Which means Obama wins.
COULD the Supreme Court defuse this by striking down Obamacare and amnesty? Sure. But John Roberts is a man who is ultimately under the control of very powerful figures that he will not defy. John Roberts will not strike down Obamacare, and he will not strike down Amnesty either.
The Supreme Court will not stop Obama, and the Republican Senate won't either.
John Roberts will do the same thing he did before: side with them to uphold it. He COULD go the other way and end the program, but he isn't going to.
You certainly could be correct. I don't know.
FWIW, I believe the PPACA is clear in its language and it's intent was clearly stated to be the squeezing of the states to force them to set up exchanges by withholding subsidies from the state residents if the state did not set up its own exchange. Two thirds of the states refused to be coerced. There is no authority in the PPACA to grant subsidies except via exchanges set up by a state.
A grant of amnesty to five millions is unconstitutional and illegal and cannot meet the tests set forth by SCOTUS.
The political situation has changed. The court could go either way. They can wordsmith around anything when they have the will to do so.
They can and will do as they damn well please. In a sales tax case, they ruled that tomatoes were vegetables and the tax had to be paid. I think tomatoes are still fruit. There is only so much that legal pixie dust can do.
In a sales tax case, they ruled that tomatoes were vegetables and the tax had to be paid. I think tomatoes are still fruit. There is only so much that legal pixie dust can do.
Cucumbers, squashes, peppers and nuts in the shell are also fruits.
Interestingly, CONGRESS made an exception in the laws for one commodity. Trade in the futures of all vegetables, grains and fruits is subject to the regulatory authority of the Commodities Futures Trade Commission (the "CFTC")...EXCEPT for onions. Trading in onions contracts is not regulated by the CFTC. Why?
