Supreme Court rules in spite of what the law says

[VMI77]

Law, what law? The law is what TPTB say it is. They've simply stopped pretending there is rule-of-law.

First, it wasn't the entire court, it was a very slight majority.
Second, I feel they acknowledged the fact that they ignored the law. The majority just felt like the consequences were too great. How you justify that decision when you're a judge.. well, I don't know.. but then again, I've never had the kind of responsibility that a supreme court justice has.

Had they struck it down, per how it's written, the immediate impact would have been devastating on a huge part of the population. Yes, it would have debilitated the law and that may be a popular thing, but I'm not sure that the cost isn't too high....

Obamacare isn't necessarily here forever. We'll get a Republican administration this go-round (as long as the Republican party doesn't decide on our Governor or Donald Trump) - so there will be an opportunity to remove it without the massive consequences to the part of the population that has subsidies for healthcare...

I think the TPC/TPP/TPA situation gives us good insight into the likelihood of any significant change to Obamacare. There is a massive infusion of corporate contributions to the members of congress to pass it and not only have the key Republicans stepped up to do just that but have taken punitive steps against other Republicans who were not on board. Today's SCOTUS decision produced a big spike in healthcare related stocks. Those same companies plus big Pharma will be back with a political contribution vengeance if it looks like there any groundswell of movement toward any major Obamacare change. Having a GOP President will do nothing to change those financial fundamentals. Once the subsidies have been in place for several years, the concrete will be poured around them. The number of informed and active people tripling against Obamacare is not an answer to those conditions, at least for me.

I know it doesn't meet the statutory definition but I view voting for the TPP stuff as treason. Obamacare is a license to steal for the insurance and medical industries.

[rotor]

Gays want to get married doesn't bother me although I don't agree with it on a philosophical basis. More money for lawyers though as the divorce courts will be filled with vicious cases and I can tell you that the child custody cases will be terrible and they do have children. I know many lesbian couples that decide to have children where one has the first, the other is supposed to have the next and they split up. Nasty fights. Now at least the courts can decide who mommy and mommy really are.

The ACA case really bothers me and touches me financially though as my insurance premium for my wife is $532 a month for a $6000 deductible now and it was about $220 with a $5000 deductible before ACA. We don't get any of those subsidies that make it "affordable" I guess. I am on Medicare and my premiums with plan D and supplement run probably another $550 or so a month. So I am **ssed that Joe Schmoe that never worked a day in his life can still keep his affordable health insurance (paid for by my taxes- and yours) while we try to struggle through retirement and are told that what we are getting is an entitlement which we are not really entitled to but Joe Schmoe is entitled to getting subsidized or free health insurance, food stamps, housing vouchers, free cell phones, and whatever other goodies there are. Now all the big insurance companies are consolidating, Humana, Cigna, Aetna, all going to try to merge. You realize what this means don't you? Target pharmacy being sold to CVS. All one big controlled universe. Massive government-industrial complex. Watch the prices go through the roof.

[Vol Texan]

To be honest, I'm disgusted with both decisions this week.

Regarding the travesty of justice known as ACA, it seems we'll never be able to get out of this hole. It might have been possible when the Republicans first took back the congress, but it seems they were Republicans only...not conservatives at all. Like every other entitlement program, this one is a cancer that will never go away.

Regarding the other decision, (and trying to tie this back to a firearms topic since that's what the TexasCHLForum is supposed to be about) I refer to a posting I made back in 2013 when we were discussing the antics of the 'in your face' open carry crowd and Starbucks' completely understandable reaction to it:

viewtopic.php?f=94&t=69068&start=15#p853858

A unique parallel exists here with the gay community. I don't care a person's orientation any more than I care their religion or whether they prefer Peter Pan vs. Jif peanut butter. Do what you want in your own room, and I don't care. In the business world I have hired and promoted both straight vs. gay people, and their orientation did not matter one bit, as long as they were the right person for the job.

But acceptance is not the same as embracing - and I'm not interested in embracing or celebrating alternative lifestyle choices. My wife and I have a much more conservative belief structure, and we're encouraging that in our daughter as well. So, if you force my hand on the subject, then you might not like my answer. Just be happy that I accept it, and will not use your personal choices against you in my business decisions.

So...I may be required by the force of law to acknowledge that gay marriage exists, but don't ever expect me to embrace it. The 'in your face' tactics that have been employed by that VERY SMALL vocal minority has been successful in changing the law, but not in forcing me to openly embrace or support anything they stand for.

Funny...they didn't change the law. The people and the states have voted over and over against it. It took a bit of judicial activism to get their way forced down our throats. Like I said, disgusting.

So, how do we tie this back to a firearms discussion? Simple. I think that in the future, my ability (or my daughter's ability) to keep and bear arms will likely be restricted. My wife holds citizenship in two countries, and my daughter does as well. I'm an American citizen only, but I'm pretty sure that I can get an Italian passport as well, due to jure sanguinis.
I see this society in a flat spin right now, with nothing slowing us down. I can imagine that within a few years, the good old USA won't be the best place to live anymore. We won't be a the world's superpower, so our safety from foreign threats won't be as secure as we had hoped. We'll be so crippled in debt due to (name your favorite social program or handout) that the land of opportunity that we knew while growing up will be no longer. When these things finally reach a boiling point, I'm going to do precisely what my wife did and what my ancestors did...immigrate to somewhere that's not as bad as here. I'm sure that wherever that is, I'll not have the RKBA that I currently have here (but then again, by the time I leave, perhaps we won't have it here either).

And to close this out on a cheerful note...I think that my thread above in 2013 was the only time that TAM and I disagreed fully on one subject:

And by the way...Peter Pan is clearly better than Jif.

First of all, you're wrong. Planter's extra crunchy is the best, and I'll fight you for it if I have to.

[VMI77]

It's safe to say that unless there is a major change in the Republican party, you can expect more of the same. They have no spine and will lie about repealing obamacare, stopping Obamas illegal amnesty, fix the IRS, and many more but when push comes to shove, they get shoved or shove it to us. I believe we are screwed unless major changes happen and I don't know if it will. The scotus has no backbone or desire to uphold the Constitution and today is just more proof that you can no longer trust the courts to do the right thing.

God help us cause we need it.

Voting for TPP pretty much assures amnesty for illegals and more immigration. legal and illegal.

[RoyGBiv]

[VMI77]

Had they struck it down, per how it's written, the immediate impact would have been devastating on a huge part of the population.

I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

What I think would happen is that my family insurance premium would return to a more reasonable rate. I used to pay around 4K per year for my family of four, now I pay close to 12K per year for an inferior plan. YMMV.

You got your quotes mixed up....cb1000 is the one who said striking it down would impact a huge part of the population. To me that's irrelevant. Many SC decisions impact a huge part of the population, so what? The SC is supposed to interpret the Constitutionality of the law, not the impact of the law.

[VMI77]

When insurance is required to accept 'pre-existing conditions' it is no longer insurance. It becomes straight out 'healthcare'.
Further, when insurance has a crazy high deductible then it really helps no one except those companies taking in the premiums. Sick person still cannot use it.

The system is badly broken. How many years before we go medicare for everyone ?

Probably never, same for the flat simple tax. Cannot put all the insurance companies and accountants out of work.

You mean I can't get me some fire insurance on my house after it burns down? How am I supposed to afford rebuilding it then?

[VMI77]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

Don't count on it. Methodists and Catholics aren't in a privileged class unless they possess some other distinguishing characteristic. Forcing the churches to marry homosexuals is what's coming next.

[cb1000rider]

I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

I don't know what the basic demographic is for the Houston ER. Obamacare doesn't subsidize people who aren't here legally (despite what opponents say).

The part of the population that it would impact is 6-7 million people. Apparently that's the number of government subsidized health insurance plans.


Like VM, I don't understand why this wasn't decided as a legal issue on the writing of the law.

[mojo84]

I disagree that striking it down would impact a a "huge" part of the population. I work in emergency departments in Houston. Since the law was enacted I see the same population of patients utilizing the ER as their primary care provider now ,without providing proof of insurance, as before the ACA was passed. What that tells me is that those who abused the system before the ACA will continue to abuse the system because there is no disincentive.

I don't know what the basic demographic is for the Houston ER. Obamacare doesn't subsidize people who aren't here legally (despite what opponents say).

The part of the population that it would impact is 6-7 million people. Apparently that's the number of government subsidized health insurance plans.


Like VM, I don't understand why this wasn't decided as a legal issue on the writing of the law.

At least not any longer.

http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/12/hhs-t ... al-aliens/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[cb1000rider]

Gays want to get married doesn't bother me although I don't agree with it on a philosophical basis. More money for lawyers though as the divorce courts will be filled with vicious cases and I can tell you that the child custody cases will be terrible and they do have children. I know many lesbian couples that decide to have children where one has the first, the other is supposed to have the next and they split up. Nasty fights. Now at least the courts can decide who mommy and mommy really are.

That doesn't make sense to me. Marriage has nothing to do with having children in this day and age and divorce courts have nothing to do with how well people can divide assets. It can be just as ugly among non-married couples and potentially just as litigious. Just because we've now got a potential divorce court, that doesn't result in additional break-ups and broken households.

The ACA case really bothers me and touches me financially though as my insurance premium for my wife is $532 a month for a $6000 deductible now and it was about $220 with a $5000 deductible before ACA. We don't get any of those subsidies that make it "affordable" I guess. I am on Medicare and my premiums with plan D and supplement run probably another $550 or so a month. So I am **ssed that Joe Schmoe that never worked a day in his life can still keep his affordable health insurance (paid for by my taxes- and yours) while we try to struggle through retirement and are told that what we are getting is an entitlement which we are not really entitled to but Joe Schmoe is entitled to getting subsidized or free health insurance, food stamps, housing vouchers, free cell phones, and whatever other goodies there are. Now all the big insurance companies are consolidating, Humana, Cigna, Aetna, all going to try to merge. You realize what this means don't you? Target pharmacy being sold to CVS. All one big controlled universe. Massive government-industrial complex. Watch the prices go through the roof.

1) Entitlements are progressive. It's not exactly all or nothing.
2) Joe Schmoe who never worked a day in his life and has medical bills, you and I are already paying for them. We're paying for them with $10 / aspirins and our already-ridiculous healthcare costs pre-Obamacare. Largely, the difference is that you and I weren't as directly billed for it before Obamacare. Where do you think Joe got his healthcare before?
3) It wasn't on a sustainable path before. It's not on a sustainable path now.
4) Your listed premiums pre and post Obamacare are striking. Are your coverages exactly the same? Apples to Apples. Not discounting your story at all, but again, all of the data is important. One thing that makes Obamacare much more expensive for many people is that they threw out some plans that had much lower levels of coverage.

[Tracker]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

Don't count on it. Methodists and Catholics aren't in a privileged class unless they possess some other distinguishing characteristic. Forcing the churches to marry homosexuals is what's coming next.

That's not true, the Catholic church can marry a Methodist and a Catholic. It'll likely be a wedding ceremony without a mass. I have my doubts that churches will be forced to legally marry homosexuals precisely because gays have other legal options, such as a JP.

I would not be surprised to see states cancel state issued marriage licensing altogether. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/poli ... /29327433/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; At that point a legal marriage is simply a civil contract between two people and/or common law.

[VMI77]

SCOTUS is full of disappointment this week, this and the other decision just now.

I personally have no problem with all Americans having equal protection under the law. Whether you agree with it or not, their right to have equal protection outweighs your right to perceived harm done to "the sanctity of marriage". I may get flamed on this, but it's the way our current society regards this no matter what the past has been. It's a freight train and it's not going to stop.

Additionally with this wedge issue off of the table, it will be easier for Republicans to compete with Dems in the minds of some independent voters.

Do you agree the same equal protections extend to religious liberties for those deciding not to participate in activities which go against their religious beliefs?

Absolutely. A Catholic church won't marry a Methodist and a Catholic, they shouldn't have to and won't have to marry two men or to two women either.

Don't count on it. Methodists and Catholics aren't in a privileged class unless they possess some other distinguishing characteristic. Forcing the churches to marry homosexuals is what's coming next.

That's not true, the Catholic church can marry a Methodist and a Catholic. It'll likely be a wedding ceremony without a mass. I have my doubts that churches will be forced to legally marry homosexuals precisely because gays have other legal options, such as a JP.

I would not be surprised to see states cancel state issued marriage licensing altogether. http://www.clarionledger.com/story/poli ... /29327433/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; At that point a legal marriage is simply a civil contract between two people and/or common law.

My comment wasn't really about different religions being married in a Catholic church, but that there is not going to be a movement to try to force the Catholic church to marry people of different religions.

Whether or not the SJWs will be successful in forcing Churches to marry homosexuals is another question....it might go either way. What I'm saying is that the left will try to force them to do so. And probably succeed, given that the SC is now just openly making up law as it goes along. Gays have other options for procuring wedding cakes than Christian run bakeries too, doesn't stop them from using the legal system to force a Christian baker to provide one. That's the whole point....to use the power of the State to force those with contrary views into line. The other options are irrelevant since the objective is to force people to embrace homosexuality (not mere tolerance) and destroy the Christian church (all denominations).

[Tracker]

My comment wasn't really about different religions being married in a Catholic church, but that there is not going to be a movement to try to force the Catholic church to marry people of different religions.

Whether or not the SJWs will be successful in forcing Churches to marry homosexuals is another question....it might go either way. What I'm saying is that the left will try to force them to do so. And probably succeed, given that the SC is now just openly making up law as it goes along. Gays have other options for procuring wedding cakes than Christian run bakeries too, doesn't stop them from using the legal system to force a Christian baker to provide one. That's the whole point....to use the power of the State to force those with contrary views into line. The other options are irrelevant since the objective is to force people to embrace homosexuality (not mere tolerance) and destroy the Christian church (all denominations).

Forcing a christian business to make a gay wedding cake.....I mean... is that any different than forcing a business to accept CHL customers? According to the Supreme Court both have equal protection under the law.

[Tracker]

Here you go, Obama, I fixed your speech:

Our nation was founded on a bedrock principle that we are all created equal. The project of each generation is to bridge the timeless meaning of those founding words with the realities of changing times—a never-ending quest to ensure the 2nd amendment rings true for every single American.

Progress on this journey often comes in small increments. Sometimes two steps forward, one step back, compelled by the persistent effort of dedicated citizens. And then sometimes there are days like this, when that slow, steady effort is rewarded with justice that arrives like a thunderbolt.

This morning, the Supreme Court recognized that the Constitution guarantees 2nd amendment rights. In doing so, they have reaffirmed that all Americans are entitled to the equal protection of the law; that all people have the right to defend themselves, regardless of who they are and which state they live.

This decision will end the patchwork system of 2nd amendment laws we currently have. It will end the uncertainty hundreds of thousands of gun owners face from not knowing whether they’re legitimate in the eyes of one state, will remain if they decide to move or even visit another.

This ruling will strengthen all of our communities by offering anyone the assurance who desires to own and carry a gun for self-protection the capacity to do so.

This ruling is a victory for those like Carol Bowne, who sought a gun permit to defend herself from her ex but was killed by him while waiting on the lengthy permitting process. It’s a victory for gun owners in may-issue states who have so long for their basic civil rights but have been repeatedly denied a carry permit. It’s a victory for their children, whose families can now defend them against armed aggressors. It’s a victory for the allies and friends and supporters who spent years, even decades working and praying for change to come.

And this ruling is a victory for America. This decision affirms what millions of Americans already believe in their hearts. When all Americans are treated as equal, when their 2nd amendment rights are affirmed, we are all more free.

I know that Americans of good will continue to hold a wide range of views on this issue. Opposition, in some cases, has been based on sincere and deeply held beliefs. All of us who welcome today’s news should be mindful of that fact and recognize different viewpoints, revere our deep commitment to 2nd amendment freedoms.

We are people who believe every child is entitled to life and liberty and the pursuit of happiness. There is so much more work to be done to extend the full promise of America to every American. But today, we can say in no uncertain terms that we’ve made our union a little more perfect.

That’s the consequence of a decision from the Supreme Court, but more importantly, it is a consequence of the countless small acts of courage of millions of people across decades who stood up, who came out, talked to parents, parents who loved their children no matter what, folks who were willing to endure bullying and taunts, and stayed strong, and came to believe in themselves and who they were.

And slowly made an entire country realize that armed self-defense is a fundamental Right reaffirmed by the Constitution.

Those countless, often anonymous heroes, they deserve our thanks. They should be very proud. America should be very proud.
Thank you.