Batten Down the Hatches....Obamacare Ruling Possible Monday 6/25

Warfish · 06-24-2012, 09:58 PM

So says pretty much all news outlets.

Let the drama begin.

Bonhomme Richard · 06-24-2012, 10:29 PM

Place your bets... I say the mandate is struck down, but the rest of the law is upheld.

GreenGeek · 06-24-2012, 11:12 PM

I bet the whole law goes.

To sever just the clause the supremes must figure out how the rest stands. The bill is too big & complicated for that. They even joked about it while hearing arguments.

shakin318 · 06-24-2012, 11:41 PM

I have ten dollars on Elena Kagan farting loudly at least once during the announcement.

Jungle Shift Jet · 06-24-2012, 11:49 PM

On top of all the bowing and scraping, blaming America, blaming Bush, overspending by the trillions, coverups of plans to nullify the 2nd amendment, race baiting, class warfare, mismanaging America's economy and general incompetence B. Hussein is now potentially a Constitutional imbecile to boot.

Because "the Supremes" :rolleyes: are nominated by Presidents and ratified by Congress this decision will once again prove how crucial it is to vote with your Conservative brain instead of your dopey Liberal/Crypto-Liberal hive-minded drug-addled DREAM-acting terror-ignoring gay-marrying tattooed- with-the-sign-of-the-beast heart.

Jungle Shift Jet · 06-24-2012, 11:51 PM

[QUOTE=shakin318;4499747]I have ten dollars on Elena Kagan farting loudly at least once during the announcement.[/QUOTE]

You lose, the robes of justice are designed with baffles that muffle unladylike sounds.

shakin318 · 06-24-2012, 11:55 PM

[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4499750]You lose, the robes of justice are designed with baffles that muffle unladylike sounds.[/QUOTE]

Those robes must also be quite frustrating when she needs to scratch her balls.

Frequent Flyer · 06-25-2012, 12:22 AM

[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4499749]On top of all the bowing and scraping, blaming America, blaming Bush, overspending by the trillions, coverups of plans to nullify the 2nd amendment, race baiting, class warfare, mismanaging America's economy and general incompetence B. Hussein is now potentially a Constitutional imbecile to boot.[/QUOTE]

Obama is the Peter Principle on steroids personified.

brady's a catcher · 06-25-2012, 08:14 AM

[QUOTE=shakin318;4499747]I have ten dollars on Elena Kagan farting loudly at least once during the announcement.[/QUOTE]

Does that cover quifs?

JetPotato · 06-25-2012, 08:21 AM

[QUOTE=GreenGeek;4499738]I bet the whole law goes.

To sever just the clause the supremes must figure out how the rest stands. The bill is too big & complicated for that. They even joked about it while hearing arguments.[/QUOTE]

This. Agreed.

Winstonbiggs · 06-25-2012, 09:14 AM

My bet a very narrow decision that doesn't give much clarity and puts the markets in further turmoil.

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 10:20 AM

First Ruling Issued......and it's not Obamacare.

It's Arizona/Immigration.

[QUOTE=CNN]The Supreme Court issues split verdict on Arizona's controversial immigration law, upholding some parts, rejecting others [/QUOTE]

Details pending.

Axil · 06-25-2012, 10:30 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4499921]First Ruling Issued......and it's not Obamacare.

It's Arizona/Immigration.

Details pending.[/QUOTE]

Hysterical:

Fox News: "Supreme Court Upholds Part of AZ Immigration Law Involving Checking Status."

MSNBC: "High Court Strikes Down Most of AZ Immigration Law."

brady's a catcher · 06-25-2012, 10:32 AM

[QUOTE=Warfish;4499921]First Ruling Issued......and it's not Obamacare.

It's Arizona/Immigration.

Details pending.[/QUOTE]

Most important part, imo, stays:

[url]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/[/url]
CNN's Kate Bolduan, clarifying the ruling, said of the provision that was upheld: "If they suspect you have broke a law that is already on the books, they can check your immigration status" if theres reasonable suspicions a person is in the country illegally.

AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite · 06-25-2012, 10:35 AM

[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4499931]Most important part, imo, stays:

[url]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/[/url]
CNN's Kate Bolduan, clarifying the ruling, said of the provision that was upheld: "If they suspect you have broke a law that is already on the books, they can check your immigration status" if theres reasonable suspicions a person is in the country illegally.[/QUOTE]

Not the most important part but sort of surprising... It basically forces Arizona to rewrite the law based on being able to check in the event of normal law enforcement contact with an individual they deem to be here illegally... (i.e. you'll hear quite a few cases of profiling in regards to traffic stops now)... If they cannot produce ID, what can they then do with that suspect?

It's going to be a slippery slope for those officers... We'll see what happens...

brady's a catcher · 06-25-2012, 10:41 AM

[QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4499933][B]Not the most important part but sort of surprising..[/B]. It basically forces Arizona to rewrite the law based on being able to check in the event of normal law enforcement contact with an individual they deem to be here illegally... (i.e. you'll hear quite a few cases of profiling in regards to traffic stops now)... If they cannot produce ID, what can they then do with that suspect?

It's going to be a slippery slope for those officers... We'll see what happens...[/QUOTE]

You don't think? What was the more important piece? The one prohibiting illegal immigrants to seek work?

And what does this mean?

"Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

Read more: [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-upholds-part-controversial-arizona-anti-illegal-immigration-law-article-1.1101799#ixzz1yofl9JKM[/url]

I thought this was it?

AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite · 06-25-2012, 10:46 AM

[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4499938]You don't think? What was the more important piece? The one prohibiting illegal immigrants to seek work?

And what does this mean?

"Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges.

Read more: [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-upholds-part-controversial-arizona-anti-illegal-immigration-law-article-1.1101799#ixzz1yofl9JKM[/url]

I thought this was it?[/QUOTE]

I don't remember the bill entirely but I thought the most important piece was in regards to the way it was written as state enforcement... The SC just upheld that it is federal law to deal with immigration as a whole and the state be damned...

Don't mind being wrong on this one, just going off memory...

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 10:48 AM

To be honest, the Arizona ruling holds very little import now IMO. Given the Executive Decision to not enforce Immigration Law outside of "serious criminals", checking or not checking at the State Level is pretty much 100% irrelevant now. The Feds won't prosecute and won't deport just because they are illegal immigrants, so what purpose does State-based checking do?

This ruling is an Anti-Climax to the already made Obama Administration "selective non-enforcement/prosecutorial discretion" announcement.

brady's a catcher · 06-25-2012, 10:49 AM

Sigh, I guess the Mexicans really do win just about all of this one:

Cole said the court did not necessarily uphold the provision allowing law enforcement officers to check people’s immigration status when they are pulled over for a traffic violation or arrested for a crime.

“All they said was it’s too early to tell before it’s actually implemented whether it’s inconsistent with federal law,’ Cole said.
[url]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/comment-page-7/#comments[/url]

How long before an illegal wins a multi-million dollar civil suit for being deported, even though he's illegal, because his civil rights were violated when he was pulled over for having a broken taillight and had his status checked. :rolleyes:

I wonder what Finland's immigration policy is and if they get Sunday Ticket. :(

Warfish · 06-25-2012, 10:57 AM

[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4499945]I wonder what Finland's immigration policy is and if they get Sunday Ticket. :([/QUOTE]

Here you go.

[QUOTE]Citizenship of Finland can be obtained on the basis of birth, marriage of parents, adoption, or the place of birth. In addition, it may be acquired by application or by declaration to authorities. Finnish citizenship acquisition is based primarily on the legal principle of jus sanguinis. However, for many practical purposes, the concepts of municipal domicile and domicile in Finland are as important to the relation between the individual and the Finnish authorities as the individual's citizenship status.

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_nationality_law[/url][/QUOTE]

06-24-2012, 09:58 PM	#1
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	Batten Down the Hatches....Obamacare Ruling Possible Monday 6/25 So says pretty much all news outlets. Let the drama begin.

06-25-2012, 10:30 AM	#13
Axil Rookie Join Date: Apr 2010 Posts: 792	[QUOTE=Warfish;4499921]First Ruling Issued......and it's not Obamacare. It's Arizona/Immigration. Details pending.[/QUOTE] Hysterical: Fox News: "Supreme Court Upholds Part of AZ Immigration Law Involving Checking Status." MSNBC: "High Court Strikes Down Most of AZ Immigration Law." Last edited by Axil; 06-25-2012 at 10:33 AM.

06-24-2012, 10:29 PM	#2
Bonhomme Richard Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Posts: 4,103	Place your bets... I say the mandate is struck down, but the rest of the law is upheld.

06-24-2012, 11:12 PM	#3
GreenGeek Cautiously optimistic thanks to Idzik. Veteran Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Stony Brook Posts: 1,662	I bet the whole law goes. To sever just the clause the supremes must figure out how the rest stands. The bill is too big & complicated for that. They even joked about it while hearing arguments.

06-24-2012, 11:41 PM	#4
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,181	I have ten dollars on Elena Kagan farting loudly at least once during the announcement.

06-24-2012, 11:49 PM	#5
Jungle Shift Jet Occasionally stoops to uploading hotties pix to boost his postcount All Pro Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Alive with a superior intellect in an erudite world of fine tastes that you will never, EVER acquire Posts: 5,045	On top of all the bowing and scraping, blaming America, blaming Bush, overspending by the trillions, coverups of plans to nullify the 2nd amendment, race baiting, class warfare, mismanaging America's economy and general incompetence B. Hussein is now potentially a Constitutional imbecile to boot. Because "the Supremes" :rolleyes: are nominated by Presidents and ratified by Congress this decision will once again prove how crucial it is to vote with your Conservative brain instead of your dopey Liberal/Crypto-Liberal hive-minded drug-addled DREAM-acting terror-ignoring gay-marrying tattooed- with-the-sign-of-the-beast heart.

06-24-2012, 11:51 PM	#6
Jungle Shift Jet Occasionally stoops to uploading hotties pix to boost his postcount All Pro Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Alive with a superior intellect in an erudite world of fine tastes that you will never, EVER acquire Posts: 5,045	[QUOTE=shakin318;4499747]I have ten dollars on Elena Kagan farting loudly at least once during the announcement.[/QUOTE] You lose, the robes of justice are designed with baffles that muffle unladylike sounds.

06-24-2012, 11:55 PM	#7
shakin318 Beslubbering beef-witted lout Board Moderator Jets Insider VIP Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: Funkytown Posts: 7,181	[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4499750]You lose, the robes of justice are designed with baffles that muffle unladylike sounds.[/QUOTE] Those robes must also be quite frustrating when she needs to scratch her balls.

06-25-2012, 12:22 AM	#8
Frequent Flyer Now....infrequent. Banned Join Date: Aug 2010 Posts: 1,903	[QUOTE=Jungle Shift Jet;4499749]On top of all the bowing and scraping, blaming America, blaming Bush, overspending by the trillions, coverups of plans to nullify the 2nd amendment, race baiting, class warfare, mismanaging America's economy and general incompetence B. Hussein is now potentially a Constitutional imbecile to boot.[/QUOTE] Obama is the Peter Principle on steroids personified.

06-25-2012, 08:14 AM	#9
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,696	[QUOTE=shakin318;4499747]I have ten dollars on Elena Kagan farting loudly at least once during the announcement.[/QUOTE] Does that cover quifs?

06-25-2012, 08:21 AM	#10
JetPotato fermenting Hall Of Fame Join Date: Sep 2005 Location: New York, NY Posts: 12,142	[QUOTE=GreenGeek;4499738]I bet the whole law goes. To sever just the clause the supremes must figure out how the rest stands. The bill is too big & complicated for that. They even joked about it while hearing arguments.[/QUOTE] This. Agreed.

06-25-2012, 09:14 AM	#11
Winstonbiggs Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 12,939	My bet a very narrow decision that doesn't give much clarity and puts the markets in further turmoil.

06-25-2012, 10:20 AM	#12
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	First Ruling Issued......and it's not Obamacare. It's Arizona/Immigration. [QUOTE=CNN]The Supreme Court issues split verdict on Arizona's controversial immigration law, upholding some parts, rejecting others [/QUOTE] Details pending.

06-25-2012, 10:32 AM	#14
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,696	[QUOTE=Warfish;4499921]First Ruling Issued......and it's not Obamacare. It's Arizona/Immigration. Details pending.[/QUOTE] Most important part, imo, stays: [url]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/[/url] CNN's Kate Bolduan, clarifying the ruling, said of the provision that was upheld: "If they suspect you have broke a law that is already on the books, they can check your immigration status" if theres reasonable suspicions a person is in the country illegally.

06-25-2012, 10:35 AM	#15
AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite is all out of fuCks to give... All Pro Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,454	[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4499931]Most important part, imo, stays: [url]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/[/url] CNN's Kate Bolduan, clarifying the ruling, said of the provision that was upheld: "If they suspect you have broke a law that is already on the books, they can check your immigration status" if theres reasonable suspicions a person is in the country illegally.[/QUOTE] Not the most important part but sort of surprising... It basically forces Arizona to rewrite the law based on being able to check in the event of normal law enforcement contact with an individual they deem to be here illegally... (i.e. you'll hear quite a few cases of profiling in regards to traffic stops now)... If they cannot produce ID, what can they then do with that suspect? It's going to be a slippery slope for those officers... We'll see what happens...

06-25-2012, 10:41 AM	#16
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,696	[QUOTE=AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite;4499933][B]Not the most important part but sort of surprising..[/B]. It basically forces Arizona to rewrite the law based on being able to check in the event of normal law enforcement contact with an individual they deem to be here illegally... (i.e. you'll hear quite a few cases of profiling in regards to traffic stops now)... If they cannot produce ID, what can they then do with that suspect? It's going to be a slippery slope for those officers... We'll see what happens...[/QUOTE] You don't think? What was the more important piece? The one prohibiting illegal immigrants to seek work? And what does this mean? "Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. Read more: [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-upholds-part-controversial-arizona-anti-illegal-immigration-law-article-1.1101799#ixzz1yofl9JKM[/url] I thought this was it?

06-25-2012, 10:46 AM	#17
AlwaysGreenAlwaysWhite is all out of fuCks to give... All Pro Join Date: Dec 2008 Posts: 7,454	[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4499938]You don't think? What was the more important piece? The one prohibiting illegal immigrants to seek work? And what does this mean? "Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. Read more: [url]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/supreme-court-upholds-part-controversial-arizona-anti-illegal-immigration-law-article-1.1101799#ixzz1yofl9JKM[/url] I thought this was it?[/QUOTE] I don't remember the bill entirely but I thought the most important piece was in regards to the way it was written as state enforcement... The SC just upheld that it is federal law to deal with immigration as a whole and the state be damned... Don't mind being wrong on this one, just going off memory...

06-25-2012, 10:48 AM	#18
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	To be honest, the Arizona ruling holds very little import now IMO. Given the Executive Decision to not enforce Immigration Law outside of "serious criminals", checking or not checking at the State Level is pretty much 100% irrelevant now. The Feds won't prosecute and won't deport just because they are illegal immigrants, so what purpose does State-based checking do? This ruling is an Anti-Climax to the already made Obama Administration "selective non-enforcement/prosecutorial discretion" announcement.

06-25-2012, 10:49 AM	#19
brady's a catcher R.I.P Goofy Maloof All Pro Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Alexandria, VA Posts: 6,696	Sigh, I guess the Mexicans really do win just about all of this one: Cole said the court did not necessarily uphold the provision allowing law enforcement officers to check people’s immigration status when they are pulled over for a traffic violation or arrested for a crime. “All they said was it’s too early to tell before it’s actually implemented whether it’s inconsistent with federal law,’ Cole said. [url]http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/25/will-supreme-court-rule-on-major-health-care-and-immigration-cases/comment-page-7/#comments[/url] How long before an illegal wins a multi-million dollar civil suit for being deported, even though he's illegal, because his civil rights were violated when he was pulled over for having a broken taillight and had his status checked. :rolleyes: I wonder what Finland's immigration policy is and if they get Sunday Ticket. :(

06-25-2012, 10:57 AM	#20
Warfish JetsInsider.com Legend Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 35,000	[QUOTE=brady's a catcher;4499945]I wonder what Finland's immigration policy is and if they get Sunday Ticket. :([/QUOTE] Here you go. [QUOTE]Citizenship of Finland can be obtained on the basis of birth, marriage of parents, adoption, or the place of birth. In addition, it may be acquired by application or by declaration to authorities. Finnish citizenship acquisition is based primarily on the legal principle of jus sanguinis. However, for many practical purposes, the concepts of municipal domicile and domicile in Finland are as important to the relation between the individual and the Finnish authorities as the individual's citizenship status. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_nationality_law[/url][/QUOTE]