Blow to Obamacare (Page 3): Back on point regarding the original post, here's an interesting OP written by Jennifer Rubin in the Wash Post. Batting .500 on Obamacare suits, Democrats...

FrumCA

Back on point regarding the original post, here's an interesting OP written by Jennifer Rubin in the Wash Post.

Batting .500 on Obamacare suits, Democrats still suffer a loss

http://wapo.st/1A2DHM3

ole sarg Loc: south florida

We have term limits!

We vote for a rep every 2 years

a senator every 6

a president every 4

ole sarg Loc: south florida

The VA court said it does have the authority. Interesting the 3 panel DC court which found the law not legal has 3 judges of which 2 are republican appointees. The dissenting judge wrote a scathing contrary opinion.

The case will go onto SCOTUS and I would bet they find the law as it is currently practiced to be legal.

usnpilot wrote:

The Federal Appeals Court just determined that the... (show quote)

RDH

ROCKY JA wrote:

It is my observation, in my 74 years as a citizen,... (show quote)

What about the Pure Foods and Drugs Act, Social Security, Civil Rights Legislation, Establishing the National Parks? I could go on and on.

usnpilot Loc: Ft Myers Fl

ole sarg wrote:

We have term limits!

We vote for a rep every 2 years

a senator every 6

a president every 4

You missed the point, or are you just being sarcastic?

RDH

usnpilot wrote:

The Federal Appeals Court just determined that the Federal Government cannot subsidize premiums for health insurance in the 34 states that did now set up exchanges.

It was not "The" Federal Appeals Court which ruled, but "A" Federal Appeals Court that ruled thus. However, several other Appeals Courts have given the opposite opinion, all unanimous opinions. This was a split 2 to 1 decision. One never knows what the Supreme Court will due, but it seems unlikely it support the decision in question.

usnpilot Loc: Ft Myers Fl

RDH wrote:

It was not "The" Federal Appeals Court which ruled, but "A" Federal Appeals Court that ruled thus. However, several other Appeals Courts have given the opposite opinion, all unanimous opinions. This was a split 2 to 1 decision. One never knows what the Supreme Court will due, but it seems unlikely it support the decision in question.

I should have said the DC FAC. Sorry.
Fact is law was poorly written and not read until passed. Would you sign a contract without reading it?

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

usnpilot wrote:

You missed the point, or are you just being sarcastic?

I think he hit the nail on the head.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

ROCKY JA wrote:

It is my observation, in my 74 years as a citizen,... (show quote)

You're right, but then again you guys up north have elected a WWF Governor and a mediocre comedian Senator, so what da ya expect?

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

usnpilot wrote:

We cannot just establish term limits. Congress nee... (show quote)

I agree, but, unless I missed something.....NONE of that has anything to do with term limits.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

chrisscholbe wrote:

Term limits just means that you wait around and do nothing until the limit kicks in.

In my expreience, people want term limits because they think that getting the current "guy" out will solve anything.

The REAL solution, IMHO, is to elect the people you want at the next election....without waiting for term limits.

I wholly disagree. We need term limits as power does corrupt. We have limits for the top job, president, so why not for all federal offices? What are you and others afraid of?

The current rules and laws heavily favor incumbents, and the widespread malaise and apathy among American voters makes these advantages close to all-powerful.

chrisscholbe Loc: Kansas City, MO

Cykdelic wrote:

I wholly disagree. We need term limits as power does corrupt. We have limits for the top job, president, so why not for all federal offices? What are you and others afraid of?

The current rules and laws heavily favor incumbents, and the widespread malaise and apathy among American voters makes these advantages close to all-powerful.

Let's say that we have term limits and let's say you can only serve 3 terms.

For a US Senator that means you have to WAIT 18 YEARS before you can elect someone new???????

Why not vote someone else in after only 6 years.

If you don't like the person in office....VOTE SOMEONE ELSE IN at the next election.

It's really quite simple.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

chrisscholbe wrote:

Let's say that we have term limits and let's say you can only serve 3 terms.

For a US Senator that means you have to WAIT 18 YEARS before you can elect someone new???????

Why not vote someone else in after only 6 years.

If you don't like the person in office....VOTE SOMEONE ELSE IN at the next election.

It's really quite simple.

Well, I think we already know it ain't that simple (see previous post for obstacles, etc.) also, you need to understand what the term "term limit" means.....it is a MAX, not a guarantee!

Who said three terms was right for Senators? Why not one, or two?

Also, having a term limit does not mean you get it for that term.......we can still try and vote them out.

NYjoe Loc: US/UK

chrisscholbe wrote:

If our country isn't being run the way we want, then it's OUR responsibility to change it.

I agree, but when WE are so disparate in our opinions on how things should be run we are being divided, polarized and conquered....and not by any politician or known political group. Very very very rich men run this country..not Obama, Bush, Cheney, Senate, House, Supreme Court, etc. Our elections and legislations are bought and payed for in the dark. Just my opinion...

RichieC Loc: Adirondacks

chrisscholbe wrote:

Term limits just means that you wait around and do nothing until the limit kicks in.

In my expreience, people want term limits because they think that getting the current "guy" out will solve anything.

The REAL solution, IMHO, is to elect the people you want at the next election....without waiting for term limits.

In the design of our constitution of checks and balances intended to avoid many of the impasses we see in government today, the original intent of the Founding fathers was that congress be a one term position for the bourgeois class . Where regular people would take a 2 year hiatus from their day job, put in their time as a duty and make decisions with regular people in mind and be able to return to their farms and stores- with the idea that thse sorts of business could go unattended for 2 years without going out of business. Congress was designed to balance against the house of representatives (lords) which was expected to be populated by the typical elite classes of government everywhere else in the world.

That's why the term is the only one at 2 years, the unintended consequence is that they are continuously running for re-election, that takes lots of money and favors called in, pork and it is now a profession itself, which creates corruption, power centers, etc. etc., and bedfellows who have money and all the the trappings that office was specifically intended to fight against!

So, if you want the system of checks and balances returned, and votes for the common good of the country, rather then re-election concerns... TERM LIMITS - or give in, think you are smarter then those who set it up and are happy with how things move in government, and make them at least 4 year terms, so we can get people doing their job for a least 2 yeas before they have to run for re-election.

A clue in all this for you- It ain't working 'cause they changed it, answer... Change it back.