• Walker Administration Announces Implementation Of Anti-Union Law
    42 replies, posted
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28869594]the differences are that the "obamacare" wasn't ruled unconstitutional nor was it heavily contested after republican guttings of the bill, which I do remember you advocating for at one point I could swear, so you're aware of them. The current state of the healthcare bill is due to republican gutting of the bill and you know this. The reasons it was found unconstitutional was due to republican bill gutting. Why do you insist on doing this?[/QUOTE] glaber, I'd like to see why you're ignoring this, it's not exactly small potatoes. [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Glaber;28872380]Who is at the Federal level. Just because they're a shithead doesn't mean that President can ignore a Fedreal ruling any more than Walker ignored this ruling.[/QUOTE] now besides the fact we're talking about walker and not obama, why can walker ignore that ruling? obama's not ignoring any ruling. [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] and if you don't reply to me because I'm being condescending or whatever reason you ignored me for, you're just proving me more right.
glaber doesn't know the difference between state and federal
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28876808]glaber doesn't know the difference between state and federal[/QUOTE] He probably thinks of the phrase "it's for the good of the state" and assumes that state means federal.
[QUOTE=Zeke129;28876808]glaber doesn't know the difference between state and federal[/QUOTE] I dont think he knows the difference between his little world and the real world, now lets stop before people start getting banned
[QUOTE=Glaber;28871201]Health Care Law Florida court ruling by a [B]FEDERAL JUDGE[/B]. Administration going through with implementation even though Judge said his Ruling was just as good as an Injunction. Ringing any bells? If not review these topics: [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1055332-MSNBC-Florida-judge-rules-health-care-law-unconstitutional?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1058787-CNS-News-Obama-Administration-Continues-Spending-under-Unconstitutional-HC-law.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1065979-Judge-Vinson-maintains-Healthcare-law-Unconstitutional.-Gives-Obama-7-days-to-appeal.?highlight=[/url] [url]http://www.facepunch.com/threads/1068018-Obama-administration-appeals-healthcare-ruling?highlight=[/url] to Discredit a Lower court that Obama ignored is to also discredit the court that walker ignored.[/quote] Wrong. A restraining order was specifically put in place by Judge Sumi against Walker's bill that attacked the unions until the state legislature either reconvened and voted it into law again, until the restraining order itself has expired, or until the necessary hearings she has called for as part of the order have taken place. The order explicitly forbids the bill's implementation into law, and furthermore barred under its provisions its publishing by the Secretary of State Doug La Follette. No such restraining order was at any time issued by Florida's Judge Vinson against the Health Care Reform bill, or, for that matter, by any other judge in the United States of America, that called under its provisions for its implementation (the bill itself) into law to be held off temporarily. He merely stated that, in his opinion, the bill was unconstitutional, but nothing more. [b]In short: Because Walker's bill specifically has a restraining order against it that forbids its implementation into law until further notice on the aforementioned conditions, it cannot be correctly claimed by anyone that it is in effect as a law- nor can it be legally implemented yet. Walker, the bill, and La Follette are in trouble because the bill was published- something that the restraining order issued by Judge Sumi strictly prohibited-- and because of the dubious claims stemming from the formermost about it being officially implemented into law.[/b] [quote=Glaber]You can't have it both ways.[/QUOTE] Indeed.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;28876259]glaber, I'd like to see why you're ignoring this, it's not exactly small potatoes. [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] now besides the fact we're talking about walker and not obama, why can walker ignore that ruling? obama's not ignoring any ruling. [editline]29th March 2011[/editline] and if you don't reply to me because I'm being condescending or whatever reason you ignored me for, you're just proving me more right.[/QUOTE] Republicans were responsible for the Mandate this time? Even if they are, Obama still signed the thing and that makes him just as responsible in my eyes. Of course as you should know, the President always gets the blame or the credit. Obama actually did ignore the Flordia Judge's ruling for a while. ([url]http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-continues-spending[/url]) At least until the Judge spoke up and threatened to pull the plug on the whole thing if they didn't appeal. ([url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/03/court.health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url]) In this topic's case, Walker is also now ignoring a judge and is implementing a law that was more than likely, improperly passed in the first place and will more than likely require the Activist Judge to speak up just like the Federal Florida Judge did. Now in reality, Walker can no more ignore this State judge as Obama could ignore that Federal Judge. The reasoning for this is that Walker is a part of the State Government just like Obama is a part of the Federal Government and no branch of either level of government is above the law. There is an old phrase I think you should know. "If it's good for the Goose, it's good for the Gander." In this case, the US Federal Government is the Goose, and Walker and his state administration are the gander. There is also another old phrase, "Monkey see, Monkey do". In this case the Republicians are the Monkeys for doing things similar to how Obama handled the Healthcare bill after passage. Of course, this also applies to the Indiana Democrats for following the Wisconsin Democrats example of running away when you don't get your way. But that's another matter. Only difference here though is Walker is in bigger trouble.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28880499]Republicans were responsible for the Mandate this time? Even if they are, Obama still signed the thing and that makes him just as responsible in my eyes. Of course as you should know, the President always gets the blame or the credit. Obama actually did ignore the Flordia Judge's ruling for a while. ([url]http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-continues-spending[/url]) At least until the Judge spoke up and threatened to pull the plug on the whole thing if they didn't appeal. ([url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/03/court.health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url]) In this topic's case, Walker is also now ignoring a judge and is implementing a law that was more than likely, improperly passed in the first place and will more than likely require the Activist Judge to speak up just like the Federal Florida Judge did. Now in reality, Walker can no more ignore this State judge as Obama could ignore that Federal Judge. The reasoning for this is that Walker is a part of the State Government just like Obama is a part of the Federal Government and no branch of either level of government is above the law. There is an old phrase I think you should know. "If it's good for the Goose, it's good for the Gander." In this case, the US Federal Government is the Goose, and Walker and his state administration are the gander. There is also another old phrase, "Monkey see, Monkey do". In this case the Republicians are the Monkeys for doing things similar to how Obama handled the Healthcare bill after passage. Of course, this also applies to the Indiana Democrats for following the Wisconsin Democrats example of running away when you don't get your way. But that's another matter. Only difference here though is Walker is in bigger trouble.[/QUOTE] please stop posting about politics glaber, its obviouse you have no understanding of how it works, and equaly obviouse that you're just spewing out words that you think sound smart, a judges opinion means nothing and is just an opinion, and has no power, that is what that florida judge did, he stated his opinion, in this case, there is an actual restraining order, that actualy means something, now your ether A) butthurt about the person you voted for not winning B) just plainly stupid C) suffering from some sort of mental handicap D) all of the above E) just plainly racist now please, for your sake, get yourself some help.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28880499]Republicans were responsible for the Mandate this time? Even if they are, Obama still signed the thing and that makes him just as responsible in my eyes. Of course as you should know, the President always gets the blame or the credit. Obama actually did ignore the Flordia Judge's ruling for a while. ([url]http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-administration-continues-spending[/url]) At least until the Judge spoke up and threatened to pull the plug on the whole thing if they didn't appeal. ([url]http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/03/03/court.health.care/index.html?iref=allsearch[/url]) In this topic's case, Walker is also now ignoring a judge and is implementing a law that was more than likely, improperly passed in the first place and will more than likely require the Activist Judge to speak up just like the Federal Florida Judge did. Now in reality, Walker can no more ignore this State judge as Obama could ignore that Federal Judge. The reasoning for this is that Walker is a part of the State Government just like Obama is a part of the Federal Government and no branch of either level of government is above the law. There is an old phrase I think you should know. "If it's good for the Goose, it's good for the Gander." In this case, the US Federal Government is the Goose, and Walker and his state administration are the gander. There is also another old phrase, "Monkey see, Monkey do". In this case the Republicians are the Monkeys for doing things similar to how Obama handled the Healthcare bill after passage. Of course, this also applies to the Indiana Democrats for following the Wisconsin Democrats example of running away when you don't get your way. But that's another matter. Only difference here though is Walker is in bigger trouble.[/QUOTE] so you support a party that mimics the party you hate? no wonder arguing with you is like this.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28880499]Of course, this also applies to the Indiana Democrats for following the Wisconsin Democrats example of running away when you don't get your way.[/QUOTE] [url=http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/03/indiana-dems-to-return-home-with-big-concessions-from-gopers.php?ref=fpa]About that[/url]
do they realize this violates free-speech, and freedom of assembly?!
He needs to read this: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_rights[/url]
[QUOTE=Glaber;28880499]the Activist Judge[/QUOTE] Judge Vinson is far more of a "activist judge" than this judge is. Also using the term activist judge makes you look fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=Glaber;28880499]Now in reality, Walker can no more ignore this State judge as Obama could ignore that Federal Judge. The reasoning for this is that Walker is a part of the State Government just like Obama is a part of the Federal Government and no branch of either level of government is above the law.[/QUOTE] I'm going to say the exact same thing here as I did on the last page. The judge in Florida is exactly on par with the two other judges who AFFIRMED the federal health care plan, meaning that his ruling is only binding in that an appeal would send it to a higher judge who's opinion actually matters. The president and his administration have handled things correctly by appealing the decision and following the set schedule. Walker on the other hand has been hit with an unchallenged court ruling from his state and has chosen to ignore it, rather than appeal it. The only way his situation would be the same as the federal situation is if either A) Obama's administration had not appealed the decision in Florida and declared openly that the law would go through regardless, or B) Walker's government immediately delayed the enactment of the bill and appealed the decision in hopes of an appellate ruling that would overturn the decision.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.