Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
is anyone really unsure of the eventual outcome at this point
Sure. Lots and lots of people.
I think you're confusing what people want with what is an almost certain reality. Lots and lots of people want the healthcare act to stand, so they want the ruling to come out in a way that allows it to do so.
But if you were to step this outside the context of the health care law itself, the mandate is pretty obviously unconstitutional. You can *only* view it otherwise if you start with wanting the law to remain and work backwards. Which, unfortunately, some judges still do. Unlikely to happen at the SCOTUS level though and most honest people know it.
Quote:
Last I read, the safe money was still on it being ruled constitutional but that doesn't mean I'll run out to bet on it.
Where'd you hear this? Seriously? You actually think that a law which mandates that every single person in the entire country must purchase a specific product will be held to be constitutional? I hope you're just saying that as a show of support for "your side" and don't honestly believe it. Because otherwise, that's a scary absolute lack of even a basic understanding of the concept of liberty you're showing.
Quote:
We've had two Democratic appointed judges rule that it is and two Republican appointed judges ruling that it isn't.
Which does not discount the possibility that one side is represented by judges who understand the constitution, and the other side is represented by judges who rule based on how well the case supports their side's political agenda. I mean, we could call that a 50/50 split and conclude that this means that there's a 50% chance the law is constitutional, but can't you actually engage your own brain and see that it's not?
I mean, if 2 people said that shooting yourself in the head was perfectly safe and 2 people said it was dangerously stupid, would you ignore your own common sense and reason and assume you had a 50% chance of being just fine if you pulled that trigger?
Quote:
If this case was ruled in the CA branch of the courts, you'd be saying how it doesn't matter until it hits the SCotUS because it's all liberal activist judges anyway (I'm not just putting words in your mouth, this is your argument for every gay marriage ruling you don't agree with).
Yes. And I'd be right. What part of "Democrats appoint judges who rule based on their political agenda and not on the constitution" have you failed to get all these years?
Quote:
Hell, this last guy even threw out a tea party reference in his ruling.
Huh? Haven't read the ruling myself, but I'm curious what the reference was.