|
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend Bookmark this thread |
This topic is archived. |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:17 PM Original message |
An Error By Dems May Allow The Lawsuit Against Health Care Reform To Succeed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
aquart (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:19 PM Response to Original message |
1. Succeed or proceed? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:23 PM Response to Reply #1 |
3. Succeed |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Poll_Blind (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:22 PM Response to Original message |
2. Lack of severability clause is an act of sabotage, not omission. n/t |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:25 PM Response to Original message |
4. This is a screw up of major impact. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:27 PM Response to Reply #4 |
7. Remember, everyone assumed there would be a conference committee, and that is always where they make |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:28 PM Response to Reply #4 |
8. And now on top of that the Food Safety Bill fuck-up! |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Poll_Blind (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:30 PM Response to Reply #4 |
9. I guarantee you that the lack of a severability clause was intentional. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:32 PM Response to Reply #9 |
10. Poll_Blind, no one EVER thought the Senate bill would have to pass word for word. They always stick |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Poll_Blind (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:52 PM Response to Reply #10 |
18. C'mon, if I didn't see this on EVERY SINGLE contract I've ever read or agreed to I would be... |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:56 PM Response to Reply #18 |
21. I have seen it on every contract I've read, but not every internal draft of a contract never meant |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
badtoworse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 10:05 PM Response to Reply #21 |
23. Again, I'm not up to speed - what provisions are vulnerable? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 11:41 PM Response to Reply #23 |
25. It's preferable to have such a clause, which is why it's usually done. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TorchTheWitch (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:35 PM Response to Reply #4 |
13. had to have been done on purpose |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 10:15 PM Response to Reply #13 |
24. Sure seems like it. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-02-10 12:20 AM Response to Reply #24 |
26. I really don't think it was done on purpose. They HAD the clause in the reconciliation bill. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
TexasObserver (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Thu Dec-02-10 06:33 AM Response to Reply #26 |
27. Yeah, you're probably right. They intended to fix it, but couldn't. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:26 PM Response to Original message |
5. This came up in a previous Supreme Court case with similar circumstances, and they severed the |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
badtoworse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:32 PM Response to Reply #5 |
11. I'm not a lawyer |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:34 PM Response to Reply #11 |
12. The proper standard is that the court has to decide what would pass and what would be workable |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
badtoworse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:35 PM Response to Reply #12 |
14. Thanks - nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
MannyGoldstein (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:27 PM Response to Original message |
6. 'Error'? |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Name removed (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:46 PM Response to Original message |
15. Deleted message |
BzaDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:48 PM Response to Reply #15 |
16. Of course, you would apparently be fine with telling the cancer patient who can afford 5% of her |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
GrantDem (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:50 PM Response to Reply #15 |
17. Enjoy your stay |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
Better Believe It (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:52 PM Response to Reply #17 |
19. I think it will be a very short visit here. |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
ellie (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:55 PM Response to Reply #15 |
20. How will people |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
badtoworse (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore | Wed Dec-01-10 09:57 PM Response to Reply #15 |
22. I don't understand your post - nt |
Printer Friendly | Permalink | | Top |
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) | Mon May 06th 2024, 01:45 AM Response to Original message |
Advertisements [?] |
Top |
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) |
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.
Home | Discussion Forums | Journals | Store | Donate
About DU | Contact Us | Privacy Policy
Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.
© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC