Yes I do, madam wordsmith.
If you understood, you would have engaged a discussion about it, either reasserting your position from a different angle or picking apart my arguments, rather than just changing the subject.
But I may be too hard on you re your lack of understanding. After all, in your country, health care and income tax are inextricably entwined. It's probably hard to get your head around a different paradigm, even when you are patiently spoon fed. A certain willingness is required to be able to get your head around ideas that are different from your own.
Your Supreme court is in a corner and they won't strike down the individual mandate, because the corner they are forced into, is labeled common sense, something that "has been" lacking there, and here on wordsmith street.
The role of politics and ideology vs constitutional and judicial duty is interesting to watch.
I don't see common sense having much to do with anything. The Supreme Court isn't charged with introducing or enforcing common sense. Actually, it is proscribed from doing so. That would be imposing their judgment over and above that of a duly elected Congress, which is allowed to be as sensible or nonsensical as it may be as long as it stays within constitutional boundaries. The default is to defer to the Congress.
If they don't strike down the individual mandate, which IMO is most likely, it will not be due to common sense but rather the factors that I mentioned. They either think that government ought to have that power or they don't. Then each will find a way to constitutionally justify his preference.
What are you doing to rectify YOUR injustice?...here
Injustice? Which injustice would that be? Alleged collusion? Even if there is collusion, a case for which you have not made, how would that be injustice?
Are you ever going to engage me in a debate of any of these topics or are you just going to continue to toss around unsupported assertions? |
