Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

News and events of the day
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 4493
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Drak »

Ah I see. That makes sense. A lot of people seemed confused by that tweet.
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"

- Rage Against the Machine
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 6:20 pm That’s why they’d love to have the Supreme Court kill it. That way they could deny they ever planned it, and it would be done and nothing could be done about it, short of a Constitutional amendment.
Kill it on what grounds. It’s an entitlement program paid with taxes. It’s settled law. It isn’t going to get challenged in the SC.
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:39 pm Kill it on what grounds. It’s an entitlement program paid with taxes. It’s settled law. It isn’t going to get challenged in the SC.
Settled law means nothing to the five nuts on the court. Only their far-right ideology.

The Federalist Society has been planning this for years. They want to remake our nation as they see fit - whether the people want it or not.
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Number6 »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 5:47 pm You can call them anything you like. But within the government they are entitlement program funds by taxes. The trust funds don’t really mean anything. If they run out the government will monetize all this to pay benefits. Nobody is going to cut them. They may make minor reforms. One day they may actually means test them.

The are safety net programs. At least that was the thought.
So is my military retirement and other federal government employees' pensions "entitlement programs?"
When you vote left, you vote right.
User avatar
Number6
Posts: 3476
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 7:18 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Number6 »

I think we need to wait until the actual bill is presented, voted on, and signed into law before we really can comment on the pros and cons of it. What I'll be looking for is for it to be realistically paid for or close to being paid for and then the individual items and who they'll benefit.
When you vote left, you vote right.
Glennfs
Posts: 10301
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 12:54 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Glennfs »

JoeMemphis wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 10:39 pm Kill it on what grounds. It’s an entitlement program paid with taxes. It’s settled law. It isn’t going to get challenged in the SC.
Tje left always worries about that because they know if wr had 3 more left wing extremists on the court they would be legislating.
So they naturally expect a moderate court to do the same
" I am a socialist " Bernie Sanders
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:11 pm Settled law means nothing to the five nuts on the court. Only their far-right ideology.

The Federalist Society has been planning this for years. They want to remake our nation as they see fit - whether the people want it or not.
Overturn it on what grounds? Is there even a case in front of the court? For the court to overturn, there at least has to be a case and a legal question. The federal government has been levying income taxes on payroll and spending that money on entitlement programs for decades.

Whomever is spreading such rumors is just trying to scare Seniors and undermine SCOTUS for purely political reasons. IMO
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 9:34 am Overturn it on what grounds? Is there even a case in front of the court? For the court to overturn, there at least has to be a case and a legal question. The federal government has been levying income taxes on payroll and spending that money on entitlement programs for decades.

Whomever is spreading such rumors is just trying to scare Seniors and undermine SCOTUS for purely political reasons. IMO
There isn't currently any cases, so it would take time, and probably more justices like the current five nuts. But how many times has the right tried to knock down the ACA?

Answer this: If the ACA is unconstitutional, how can Social Security and Medicare NOT be?

But let's be clear: Conservatives consider things like universal public education, social security and medicare ALL to be "socialism" and "wealth redistribution".

Don't you? The Constitutional "Originalists" say if the original writers of the Constitution didn't allow something, it can't be done. That would include the aforementioned programs. And let's remember that the GOP fought like cats and dogs when both Social Security and Medicare were instituted. Ronald Reagan was very much against Medicare, saying it would destroy our nation. You're welcome to look it up. Or if you don't have the ability, I can give you the actual video of his words.

And let's be clear: When Amy Comey Barrett was in her confirmation hearings, she refused to say whether Social Security and Medicare were Constitutional, she refused to answer.

And Glenn, the other conservative on this board, says that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

And as long as I've been alive, conservatives have always kept telling the working class that "Social Security won't be there for you when you retire".

So, yes, it's likely that if the right gets to completely pack the Supreme Court with their far-right nutjobs, all these things will be in danger, and if they do it, it's DONE. It don't matter how many seniors vote, there's nothing to be done short of Constitutional amendments, and that's just not going to happen. You sure wouldn't vote for such a thing, now, would you?
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:15 am There isn't currently any cases, so it would take time, and probably more justices like the current five nuts. But how many times has the right tried to knock down the ACA?

Answer this: If the ACA is unconstitutional, how can Social Security and Medicare NOT be?

But let's be clear: Conservatives consider things like universal public education, social security and medicare ALL to be "socialism" and "wealth redistribution".

Don't you? The Constitutional "Originalists" say if the original writers of the Constitution didn't allow something, it can't be done. That would include the aforementioned programs. And let's remember that the GOP fought like cats and dogs when both Social Security and Medicare were instituted. Ronald Reagan was very much against Medicare, saying it would destroy our nation. You're welcome to look it up. Or if you don't have the ability, I can give you the actual video of his words.

And let's be clear: When Amy Comey Barrett was in her confirmation hearings, she refused to say whether Social Security and Medicare were Constitutional, she refused to answer.

And Glenn, the other conservative on this board, says that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme.

And as long as I've been alive, conservatives have always kept telling the working class that "Social Security won't be there for you when you retire".

So, yes, it's likely that if the right gets to completely pack the Supreme Court with their far-right nutjobs, all these things will be in danger, and if they do it, it's DONE. It don't matter how many seniors vote, there's nothing to be done short of Constitutional amendments, and that's just not going to happen. You sure wouldn't vote for such a thing, now, would you?
I can’t help what others have told you.

But you are making an issue where no issue exist. There is no case seeking to end FICA or Medicare on constitutional grounds. So to suggest it’s going to happen is just engaging in the politics of fear.

The challenges to the ACA were based on constitutional issues regarding having government force individuals purchase products. That’s why the administration flipped their script and insisted that it was a tax and not a fine. That was despite the fact that it wasn’t sold that way to the public. In fact, the administration fell all over themselves insisting it wasn’t a tax when they were selling it to the taxpayers. False advertising if you ask me. But the Robert’s Court ruled it was a tax and they affirmed that the government can levy taxes.

So all this hand wringing is for naught.
Last edited by JoeMemphis on Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Drak
Posts: 4493
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 3:02 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Drak »

Glennfs wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 9:18 am Tje left always worries about that because they know if wr had 3 more left wing extremists on the court they would be legislating.
So they naturally expect a moderate court to do the same
Left wing extremists on the court = projection.
"Some of those that work forces,
Are the same that burn crosses"

- Rage Against the Machine
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:26 am I can’t help what others have told you.

But you are making an issue where no issue exist. There is no case seeking to end FICA or Medicare on constitutional grounds. So to suggest it’s going to happen is just engaging in the politics of fear.

The challenges to the ACA were based on constitutional issues regarding having government force individuals purchase products. That’s why the administration flipped their script and insisted that it was a tax and not a fine. That was despite the fact that it wasn’t sold that way to the public. In fact, the administration fell all over themselves insisting it wasn’t a tax when they were selling it to the taxpayers. False advertising if you ask me. But the Robert’s Court ruled it was a tax and they affirmed that the government can levy taxes.

So all this hand wringing is for naught.
"oh, no, we'd NEVER do that! Roe v Wade is settled law!"

Famous last words.

Oh, and if the ACA were unconstitutional on those grounds, then Social Security and Medicare would also be. And how many judges voted against the ACA being Constitutional on any grounds? Did all the judges agree?

And the GOP and Federalist Society has now packed the court with a majority of those nuts.

I started a new thread here on the Supreme Court. Gotta run.
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:38 am "oh, no, we'd NEVER do that! Roe v Wade is settled law!"

Famous last words.

Oh, and if the ACA were unconstitutional on those grounds, then Social Security and Medicare would also be. And how many judges voted against the ACA being Constitutional on any grounds? Did all the judges agree?

And the GOP and Federalist Society has now packed the court with a majority of those nuts.

I started a new thread here on the Supreme Court. Gotta run.
The judges ruled that ACA could stand without the mandates. They ruled the mandates unconstitutional. To my knowledge, FICA and Medicare contain no such mandates. They are entitlement programs funded with taxes. Nobody is challenging the legal authority of the government thru the legislature creating programs and paying for them with taxes.

You keep trying to make the same point over and over. The government can tax. They can spend. They can’t make you buy a product. That’s what the court ruled. Medicare and FICA are constitutional and it appears you are the only one suggesting that’s an issue. I’m not.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Bludogdem »

gounion wrote: Thu Oct 28, 2021 11:11 pm Settled law means nothing to the five nuts on the court. Only their far-right ideology.

The Federalist Society has been planning this for years. They want to remake our nation as they see fit - whether the people want it or not.
Recent Federalist publications.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/02/ru ... ve-option/

https://thefederalist.com/2016/04/22/ho ... fixing-it/

https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/12/re ... r-thought/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/19/pl ... -hopefuls/


Not a lot of intent for the SC to nullify SS.


There has been one SC case. In 1937.

There simply is no SC threat.
User avatar
Libertas
Posts: 6468
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Libertas »

TAx the rich? OH no, that would be terrible




Image
I sigh in your general direction.
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 10:58 am The judges ruled that ACA could stand without the mandates. They ruled the mandates unconstitutional. To my knowledge, FICA and Medicare contain no such mandates. They are entitlement programs funded with taxes. Nobody is challenging the legal authority of the government thru the legislature creating programs and paying for them with taxes.

You keep trying to make the same point over and over. The government can tax. They can spend. They can’t make you buy a product. That’s what the court ruled. Medicare and FICA are constitutional and it appears you are the only one suggesting that’s an issue. I’m not.
Oh, the judges ruled that way? So it was a 9-0 decision? And do you recall in that case, how many states brought the case National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius before the court? And they all said it was Constitutional?
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:21 pm Recent Federalist publications.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/02/ru ... ve-option/

https://thefederalist.com/2016/04/22/ho ... fixing-it/

https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/12/re ... r-thought/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/19/pl ... -hopefuls/


Not a lot of intent for the SC to nullify SS.


There has been one SC case. In 1937.

There simply is no SC threat.
For not being a conservative, you sure defend conservatives all the time. Reminds me of someone... :D

Yes, the Federalist Society will also tell you they don't want to ban abortion... :lol: :lol: :lol:

But to your links, it seems that "The Federalist" doesn't have anything to do with the Federalist Society. It's an independent publication.

Having said that - the third article had an interesting passage:
If I could wave a magic wand, I would not have created Social Security in the first place. It is not just because I’m a classical liberal who fundamentally believes taxation is theft, but because Social Security is fundamentally a terrible program.

It is predicated on taking money from working people and giving it to non-working people. It’s a great program for those receiving benefits in the beginning, but eventually as there are fewer and fewer working people to support the program the money runs out. If I created an investment based on Social Security, I would be sent to prison for running a Ponzi scheme. But there is little if any support for ending Social Security.
Does the right want to get rid of these programs? Sure, let's remember Rep. Paul Ryan:
Ryan has long championed the privatization of social insurance programs. His last two budget blueprints put forth in fiscal 2012 and 2013—both called The Path to Prosperity—would turn Medicare into a system of vouchers that individuals could use to buy private insurance. These vouchers would not keep pace with rising health care costs, forcing seniors to bear an increasingly greater burden of their health care costs in years to come.

Privatization of government programs seems to be a theme with Ryan. On Social Security, Ryan—a Social Security recipient himself as a young man—helped lay the groundwork for George W. Bush’s push to privatize Social Security, as described in a recent New Yorker profile of the congressman. Ryan worked with former Sen. John Sununu (R-NH) to create a plan which was centered on the creation of personal savings accounts. Under the plan, a portion of an individual’s payroll tax contribution would be diverted from the OASDI trust fund into an individual account, which would then be invested. Such a diversion of funds would have decreased Social Security’s revenue and required a transfer of funds from the rest of the budget to fund benefit obligations, as this Center on Budget and Policy Priorities analysis reported. In other words, the Ryan-Sununu plan to bring long-term solvency to Social Security would have required the federal government to borrow heavily to finance promised benefits.

We all know how the story ended: President Bush spent significant political capital promoting a somewhat more cautious version of this plan, going on a “Social Security Road Tour” that ultimately went nowhere. Ryan didn’t end his quest there, however. In fact, the Social Security actuaries have, on their website, analyses of five different Social Security reform plans since 2004 that list Ryan as a key author:

In 2004 and twice in 2005 he proposed various iterations of personal savings accounts
In both 2008 and in his 2010 Roadmap for America’s Future he proposed a plan that would raise the retirement age and cut benefits for all but the lowest 30 percent of earners through progressive price indexing, while also offering personal savings accounts and calling for transfers of general revenue to assure trust fund solvency.

In his 2012 and 2013 budget blueprints, Ryan was vaguer in his approach to Social Security. In both plans, he mistakenly characterizes Social Security as contributing to the rapid growth of spending on entitlement programs. In the 2012 plan, he suggests Social Security changes be fast-tracked through Congress (currently prohibited by law to protect the program).
This has been the problem - Americans WANT these programs, so doing away with them openly is unpopular. That's why they will next try it in the courts. Let's take a look at the head of the Federalist Society, Leonard Leo:
Last week, the Washington Post published a profile of Federalist Society Executive Vice President Leonard Leo, focusing in part on a speech he gave to the Council for National Policy in which he warmly predicted the Supreme Court would soon return to the pre–New Deal era of “limited, constitutional government.” Leo believes, in other words, that the court’s view of the Constitution was better off 85 years ago than it is today.

“I think we stand at the threshold of an exciting moment in our republic,” Leo told the council at a closed-door meeting in February, audio of which was obtained by the Post. “This is really, I think, at least in recent memory, a newfound embrace of limited constitutional government in our country. I don’t think this has really happened since probably before the New Deal.”

*snip*

As Leo knows, constitutional law was very different in the 1930s from what it is today. And in a word, it sucked.

In the 1930s, the courts were fully complicit in maintaining the country as a thoroughgoing ethnocracy, governed openly for the benefit of white men. Public schools in 21 states were racially segregated by law. “Separate but equal” schools had been affirmed by the Supreme Court as late as 1927, in a unanimous decision allowing Mississippi to kick a Chinese American girl out of her local “white” school for being a member of the “yellow” race. The outlawing of segregation is settled law in our country, and nobody would dare dream of returning to those antiquated judicial interpretations, you might say? Several of Trump’s judicial nominees have conspicuously, outrageously, refused to say whether they thought Brown v. Board of Education, which ended legal school segregation in 1954, was correctly decided.

In the 1930s, through a combination of discriminatory literacy tests, poll taxes, “good character” requirements, and straight-up violence, less than 1 percent of black people in the Deep South—where they represented more than a third of the population—were registered to vote. The Supreme Court had blessed these intimidation practices for decades, ever since a 1903 decision in which the court said it couldn’t do anything about Alabama’s self-described effort “to establish white supremacy in this state” by refusing to register black voters. Discriminatory voting practices of this sort weren’t banned until the 1965 Voting Rights Act, the most significant provision of which was gutted six years ago in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts (whom Leo also helped elevate to the court).

In the 1930s, women had no constitutional right to equality. They could legally be kept off juries, given different work hours, paid less money, and imprisoned for using birth control. It would be another four decades before the Supreme Court struck down even a single law for discriminating against women. Kavanaugh and Gorsuch—again, both products of Leo’s vetting—recently dissented from the court’s temporary blocking of a Louisiana law that would have left the entire state with just a single doctor able to perform abortions.

In the first half of the 20th century, the police could beat confessions out of arrestees. Poor defendants had no right to a lawyer. Evidence could be illegally seized and used in prosecutions. In 1944, for example, South Carolina executed a 14-year-old black boy named George Stinney for the murders of two white girls. He was questioned alone, without his parents or a lawyer present, and convicted by an all-white jury after a two-hour trial and 10 minutes of deliberation. He wasn’t allowed to appeal. He had to sit on books to fit into the headpiece of the electric chair. Only in 2014, 70 years too late, did a circuit court judge vacate the 14-year-old Stinney’s murder conviction. The Stinney case tells you all you need to know about criminal justice in the age Leo wants to bring back.

The 1930s was of course the decade of the Great Depression, when unemployment hit 25 percent and most Americans lived in poverty. The post–New Deal court decisions Leo wishes to repudiate are the ones that gave the government the power to enact minimum wage laws, to create unemployment insurance and Social Security, to provide health insurance to the aged and destitute, and to give workers collective bargaining rights. In the 1930s, those too old to work and too poor not to could often expect a quick but painful death. This is the human toll of “limited government.”
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 12:21 pm Recent Federalist publications.

https://thefederalist.com/2018/02/02/ru ... ve-option/

https://thefederalist.com/2016/04/22/ho ... fixing-it/

https://thefederalist.com/2018/06/12/re ... r-thought/

https://thefederalist.com/2019/06/19/pl ... -hopefuls/


Not a lot of intent for the SC to nullify SS.


There has been one SC case. In 1937.

There simply is no SC threat.
You are wasting your time BD. During the Detroit Bankruptcy case, GoU went on for weeks about how everybody involved was corrupt and that the outcome was rigged. Nothing came of it. He was completely wrong on pretty much everything. Same here.

You and I and most reasonable people know that the SC isn’t going to outlaw Social Security. It’s no different from any other program and it’s paid for with tax dollars. They aren’t going to rule government spending unconstitutional and they aren’t going to rule taxation of income is unconstitutional. GoU has yet to name a single legal argument being sought to overturn the programs.

He’s just here to make something from nothing.
Bludogdem
Posts: 2054
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 5:16 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by Bludogdem »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:19 pm You are wasting your time BD. During the Detroit Bankruptcy case, GoU went on for weeks about how everybody involved was corrupt and that the outcome was rigged. Nothing came of it. He was completely wrong on pretty much everything. Same here.

You and I and most reasonable people know that the SC isn’t going to outlaw Social Security. It’s no different from any other program and it’s paid for with tax dollars. They aren’t going to rule government spending unconstitutional and they aren’t going to rule taxation of income is unconstitutional. GoU has yet to name a single legal argument being sought to overturn the programs.

He’s just here to make something from nothing.
I actually believe he wholeheartedly thinks what he’s saying is true. Which means I’m probably wasting my time.
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:19 pm You are wasting your time BD. During the Detroit Bankruptcy case, GoU went on for weeks about how everybody involved was corrupt and that the outcome was rigged. Nothing came of it. He was completely wrong on pretty much everything. Same here.

You and I and most reasonable people know that the SC isn’t going to outlaw Social Security. It’s no different from any other program and it’s paid for with tax dollars. They aren’t going to rule government spending unconstitutional and they aren’t going to rule taxation of income is unconstitutional. GoU has yet to name a single legal argument being sought to overturn the programs.

He’s just here to make something from nothing.
The legal argument is that the New Deal and everything that came after it is illegitimate.

And I knew you couldn't answer my questions. You certainly have learned your limitations. Instead of debating, you make some ad hominem attacks, and run away. You're good at it.
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:28 pm I actually believe he wholeheartedly thinks what he’s saying is true. Which means I’m probably wasting my time.
When they tell you they want to do away with it, believe them. I note you too can't respond. Not surprised.

We understand your actual views.
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

Bludogdem wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:28 pm I actually believe he wholeheartedly thinks what he’s saying is true. Which means I’m probably wasting my time.
He thinks everything he says is true and he thinks everything he thinks and says is fact. Anyone who disagrees with him just can’t deal with the facts. He’s a regular Carnack.
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:35 pm He thinks everything he says is true and he thinks everything he thinks and says is fact. Anyone who disagrees with him just can’t deal with the facts. He’s a regular Carnack.
And yet you're unable to refute me. It's hilarious. :lol: :lol: :lol: So all you have left is personal attacks. Everyone can see you're flailing!
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:28 pm The legal argument is that the New Deal and everything that came after it is illegitimate.

And I knew you couldn't answer my questions. You certainly have learned your limitations. Instead of debating, you make some ad hominem attacks, and run away. You're good at it.
On what ground legal grounds do they say it’s illegitimate? You’ve been asked that several times and have yet to answer. If I’m wrong point me to it.
JoeMemphis

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by JoeMemphis »

gounion wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:37 pm And yet you're unable to refute me. It's hilarious. :lol: :lol: :lol: So all you have left is personal attacks. Everyone can see you're flailing!
My refutation of your opinion is that you have not offered a single legal argument being made to the courts to rule social security and Medicare unconstitutional.

It may be your opinion. But it isn’t factual.
gounion
Posts: 17245
Joined: Sun Oct 24, 2021 4:59 pm

Re: Pres Biden gives update on $1.75T spending bill, infrastructure plan | WATCH LIVE

Post by gounion »

JoeMemphis wrote: Fri Oct 29, 2021 4:38 pm On what ground legal grounds do they say it’s illegitimate? You’ve been asked that several times and have yet to answer. If I’m wrong point me to it.
As was pointed out in the article about Leonard Leo, It's because by reading the Original Constitution, everything after the New Deal is unconstitutional because it's not allowed by their reading. Leo, the leader of the Federalist Society, wants to take our nation back to the 1930's in what laws are allowed.

Now, I know you have no clue about history, but the right-wing courts before the New Deal didn't allow laws on minimum wage, hours of work, or whether children could work. Every law that the government or a state passed was knocked down by the Court. And, if it wasn't for one man changing his views, Justice Owen Roberts, the entire New Deal would have been blocked by the Supreme Court.

You can look it up. I'll provide links if you still can't understand how to do a search on Google.
Post Reply