Politics
Out of context: Reply #11410
- Started
- Last post
- 33,770 Responses
- ukit0
I love how Republicans are saying they plan to run on "repealing" the bill.
News flash, guys. In order to repeal the bill, Republicans need a two thirds majority because Obama will slap any repeal down with the veto pen. That means they would need a 67-vote edge in the Senate, i.e., they would need to win 26 Senate seats. They would need a 290-vote margin in the House, meaning they would need to win about 150 seats in the House.
Based on how many seats are up for grabs, the estimates are along the lines of a 10-20 seat gain in the House. Maybe if there's a total sweep they win 30, 40 seats.
In the Senate, where far fewer people are up for election, you're looking at, maybe, a 2-5 seat gain.
Someone tell me with a straight face they can repeal this bill and then look at the campaign posters and letters asking you to donate your hard-earned cash to them based on exactly that premise. These guys are full of shit.
- They'll take it to the courts and leave it up to activist judges.********
- They love them activist judges..I mean..oh wait..don't they run against activist judges?********
- ...and I thought they hated lawsuits? Or do they just say some bullshit and do something else?********
- Aren't the lawsuits only filed against one small part of the bill, the mandate?ukit
- Even if they took this to the Supreme Court in 3,4,5 years, my understanding is that the most extreme case would be declaring ONLY the mandate unconstitutionalukit
- that ONLY the mandate part would get taken out. Which ain't so bad actually.ukit
- People are already circulating the idea of an opt-out for the mandate http://www.prospect.…ukit
- Example: http://answers.encyc…ukit
- Note how it says "Parts of the bill were challenged and invalidated"ukit
- They'll take it to the courts and leave it up to activist judges.