Supreme Court and Marriage equality/Obamacare ?

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

The latest word out now, is that by June 29th(the last day of the SCOTUS session) that both huge issues will be ruled on.
 
Any predictions  ??????
 
OK, I'll go first.
 
The Supremes will defend BOTH, with begrudging help from at least one CONSERVATIVE .
 
So,
 
IMHO............Gay Marriage Defended ( 5 - 4 ) by Kagen/Ginsberg/Sotomayer/Breyer.............AND.......KENNEDY !
 
O - Care........Defended  ( 5 - 4  )  by Kagen/Ginsberg/Sotomayer/Breyer...............................AND.......ROBERTS !
 
Two Huge ( Pre-Election )   wins  for the ' Good Guys/Gal ' ('HILL ).

 

[Ms Tree]

I think they will rule in favor of marriage equality but I think it will be a narrow ruling so they will kick the can down the street yet again. I don't see how they can rule against it given all the marriages they have allowed to the place since the DOMA ruling.

 

[eolesen]

IMHO, having a positive ruling for Obamacare wouldn't be the worst thing.

It's eventually going to crumble under its own weight as premiums keep going up, and why should Republicans be in the hot seat to fix a problem the Victimcrats created?

 

[delldude]

IMHO, having a positive ruling for Obamacare wouldn't be the worst thing.

It's eventually going to crumble under its own weight as premiums keep going up, and why should Republicans be in the hot seat to fix a problem the Victimcrats created?

 
Its designed to get you to want single payor.
 
Will be equality marriage wise but they'll stop short of redefining the 5000 year old tradition.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

Ol' TOM (the HAMMER)  DE - LAY..was "tub thumping" that there'll be Civil Unrest if they reverse the D O M.
 
HEY,
Wait a Minute.
 
Wasn't ol' DE - LAY....'Taking It IN the SHORTS" ..........in the 'can' .................just a shot time ago  ?
 
(I don't think the Brotha's use....K-Y....in the 'can' )!    OOUCH  !!!!!!!!!!

 

[SparrowHawk]

On gay marriage they will punt the issue where it belongs. At the state level. No government should be in the marriage business. Why, in a country founded upon individual Liberty and religious freedom have a state sanctioned marriage of any kind? Marriages are church, Mosque, synagogue issues and the Supremes will kick it back with a very narrow decision.
 
King v Burwell is another issue. The plaintiffs use a very narrow argument and ObamaCare will likely be upheld, but not without some modifications, like perhaps requiring Congress approve the expenditures for the non exchange states.

 

[Ms Tree]

 

On gay marriage they will punt the issue where it belongs. At the state level. No government should be in the marriage business. Why, in a country founded upon individual Liberty and religious freedom have a state sanctioned marriage of any kind? Marriages are church, Mosque, synagogue issues and the Supremes will kick it back with a very narrow decision.
 
King v Burwell is another issue. The plaintiffs use a very narrow argument and ObamaCare will likely be upheld, but not without some modifications, like perhaps requiring Congress approve the expenditures for the non exchange states.

 

Article IV sec 1.

They can't punt it to the state level. Marriage is portable. Someone who is married in CA who moves to KY is single all of a sudden? Health benefits, insurance .... does not work. The so long as the state is involved in marriage, the SCOTUS will not let them decided who can and cant be married.

 

[La Li Lu Le Lo]

On gay marriage they will punt the issue where it belongs. At the state level. No government should be in the marriage business. Why, in a country founded upon individual Liberty and religious freedom have a state sanctioned marriage of any kind? Marriages are church, Mosque, synagogue issues and the Supremes will kick it back with a very narrow decision.
 
King v Burwell is another issue. The plaintiffs use a very narrow argument and ObamaCare will likely be upheld, but not without some modifications, like perhaps requiring Congress approve the expenditures for the non exchange states.

 

[cltrat]

 
 
(I don't think the Brotha's use....K-Y....in the 'can' )!    OOUCH  !!!!!!!!!!

voice of experience ?

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

 Tom Delay  IS !

 

[SparrowHawk]

  

Article IV sec 1.

They can't punt it to the state level. Marriage is portable. Someone who is married in CA who moves to KY is single all of a sudden? Health benefits, insurance .... does not work. The so long as the state is involved in marriage, the SCOTUS will not let them decided who can and cant be married.

 
Oh but they can kick it back. Drivers Licenses and the 10th Amendment come immediately to mind

 

[Ms Tree]

That is correct but the laws for obtaining DL's are pretty universal through out the country and my TX DL is valid in every state of the union. And all states issue DL's to all persons over the age of 18 (or what ever the age is). Seems to me the 10th and Article IV need to work hand in hand or nothing works.

 

[eolesen]

And yet, your TX license is invalid when you move. You have to apply for a new one subject to the terms of the state you move to.

 

[NewHampshire Black Bears]

GOOD LORD,...Why would anyone want to move OUT of TEX-ASSS  ???

 

[Ms Tree]

 

And yet, your TX license is invalid when you move. You have to apply for a new one subject to the terms of the state you move to.

 

And the standards are the same. Fill out the paperwork and they give me a new one when I turn in the old one. No test is needed. If I do not have an old DL then I have to take the test. No one who has a DL in one state is barred from having a DL in any other state.