Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsOpposition to Obamacare has little legal grounds to stand on, only political & that doesn't count
Good legal-speak read about the A.C.A
http://prospect.org/article/now-law-their-discontent
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
6 replies, 1313 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (4)
ReplyReply to this post
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Opposition to Obamacare has little legal grounds to stand on, only political & that doesn't count (Original Post)
FarLeftFist
Mar 2012
OP
It said number 4 should be ruled first. Was that not discussed by the Court today?
joeglow3
Mar 2012
#5
phantom power
(25,966 posts)1. I would have agreed before I witnessed Bush V Gore.
But clearly, we now live in a world where the political does definitely count.
muntrv
(14,505 posts)2. This is the same court that said corporations are people.
Motown_Johnny
(22,308 posts)4. Dartmouth College v. Woodward
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
^snip^
The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts
This court expanded on a previous ruling. They are not really the ones who started this insanity.
^snip^
The Supreme Court of the United States (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 1819), recognized corporations as having the same rights as natural persons to contract and to enforce contracts
This court expanded on a previous ruling. They are not really the ones who started this insanity.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)3. Exactly..
SCOTUS would have to jump though several hoops to strike down ACA.
joeglow3
(6,228 posts)5. It said number 4 should be ruled first. Was that not discussed by the Court today?
I am going off what I heard on NPR on the way home from work.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)6. Yes, the "tax or not a tax" issue was the focus today.
not sure whats next.