In response to:

Take the Liberal Brain Scan: Am I Sarcastic Now? How ‘Bout Now?

Capitalist at Birth1 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 11:10 AM
Just because the law was wrongly upheld by SCOTUS does not make it right. If he law goes forward with the current exemptions, there will be a class action law suit filed for not upholding the Constitution under the equal under the law clause. I think it would be wise to allow the law to go forward without the changes proposed by the Republicans. Yes, it will cause more pain, but not much more damage can be done to the economy than has already transpired. The deficits and our debt are more painful than anything else. The SCOTUS is not always right. Check out the history and you will see that it has made many errors before. Roe v Wade and the Dred Scott decisions for two examples.
Jerome49 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 11:21 PM
The SCOTUS also ruled at one time that "separate, but equal" (Plessey v Furgeson) was Constitutional.
Alex_P Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 12:58 PM
Didn't you hear? SCOTUS has decided that violation of the Constitution is not sufficient ground for tossing the law, and anyway "we the people" do not have any standing because violation of the Constitution does not make us an injured party.
Moonbat Exterminator Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 11:48 AM
The court might overturn the numerous waivers, exemptions and extensions which Emperor Barry I has granted to favored subjects but the current ruling indicates a strong reluctance by the SCOTUS to involve itself in legislative matters. This means we can only discard it by a vote of Congress, but that the court is unlikely to overturn such a vote.
Jerome49 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 11:28 PM
I am not sure what you mean. SCOTUS involves itself in legislative matters all the time. But a law suit must be filed on behalf of a party or parties who claim that unequal enforcement of the law has caused them harm or loss. The extension of time for compliance with the ACA granted to businesses, but denied to individuals would be an example of unfair enforcement of a law on a certain group of people causing them harm and loss. If lower courts ruled against complainants, this could provide a path to judicial review by SCOTUS.
Carlos7 Wrote: Oct 06, 2013 11:47 AM
Yes.

Authority gives one the right to enforce laws.

That is, Bronco Bamma has the right to enforce Obamacare.

But on the same note: Bronco Bamma does not have the right (the authority) to enforce the particular parts of the Law he likes, while just as arbitrarily disregarding/changing/delaying the parts he does not like.

Only a Liberal Democrat would pass a Law he himself can not follow. But that might be the point; that the Liberal Democrat never intends to follow his Laws from the first.