No Alternative Yet??

[SamIam]

How is it possible that were a month away from the Supremes deciding if the law will stay or not and the Republicans haven't come up with an alternative plan that they will back. I know a couple of senators have come up with different versions but by now they should be backing one plan and selling it to the public.

 

[somarco]

I see no reason for them to put forth an option with so much in flux.

Then too, some are satisfied to play rope-a-dope and let Obamacrap collapse under its' own weight.

 

[Yagents]

I don't know one politician that would put their name on an alternative when the SCOTUS outcome is not yet determined.

Why not ask what we should do about our national debt? Until creditors stop lending us money, why present an alternative.

Politics is reactive, not proactive.

 

[somarco]

Why not ask what we should do about our national debt?

Good question, but too few really care.

The big topic next year will be jobs creation and lighting a fire under the economy. Short of ISIS pulling off another 9/11 type attack, nothing else really matters to the voters. Obamacare is mostly a foregone conclusion that is terminal but no one (yet) has the guts to pull the plug.

 

[VolAgent]

I don't know one politician that would put their name on an alternative when the SCOTUS outcome is not yet determined.

Why not ask what we should do about our national debt? Until creditors stop lending us money, why present an alternative.

Politics is reactive, not proactive.

Not only that, but being first is rarely a good thing. The more time you spend out front, the more time your enemies have to tear you down.

 

[houcoogster]

By the same token it shows the Supremes the level of dysfunction in Congress and therefore cannot rely on them to act responsibly.

 

[scagnt83]

By the same token it shows the Supremes the level of dysfunction in Congress and therefore cannot rely on them to act responsibly.

And that is the problem. SCOTUS should be making decisions based on the LAW, not their perception of the functionality of other branches of government. At the same time, Congressional leaders should be acting in the best interest of their constituents, not in the best interest of their campaign.

SCOTUS knows this, but they do not want to be branded as the ones who throw this countries health system into disarray.

Of course if Congress was acting responsibly, SCOTUS would not have this conundrum to add to their plate...

At the end of the day Congress is to blame for either outcome. People call it politics as usual... but this level of dysfunction is not usual for this country historically speaking imo.

Congress will continue to fock things up until we the people grow some balls, vote out all of the incumbents, & demand serious reform (term limits & campaign financing).

 

[houcoogster]

And that is the problem. SCOTUS should be making decisions based on the LAW, not their perception of the functionality of other branches of government. At the same time, Congressional leaders should be acting in the best interest of their constituents, not in the best interest of their campaign.

SCOTUS knows this, but they do not want to be branded as the ones who throw this countries health system into disarray.

Of course if Congress was acting responsibly, SCOTUS would not have this conundrum to add to their plate...

At the end of the day Congress is to blame for either outcome. People call it politics as usual... but this level of dysfunction is not usual for this country historically speaking imo.

Congress will continue to fock things up until we the people grow some balls, vote out all of the incumbents, & demand serious reform (term limits & campaign financing).

I agree with everything you said except "SCOTUS should be making decisions based on the LAW" in theory yes they should. However if a decision based solely on Law would destroy our Republic (not saying this one would) they would have to hold off on the LAW and preserve the Republic. The United States comes first then Law because without the former the latter is irrelevant.

 

[scagnt83]

I agree with everything you said except "SCOTUS should be making decisions based on the LAW" in theory yes they should. However if a decision based solely on Law would destroy our Republic (not saying this one would) they would have to hold off on the LAW and preserve the Republic. The United States comes first then Law because without the former the latter is irrelevant.

Striking down one law will not destroy this Republic. And I should have said based on the Constitution.

If a SCOTUS decision creates havoc in the US it is up to the other branches of Gov to make things right. What you suggest is a slippery slope.... what happens if Congress refuses to act because they feel that SCOTUS is dysfunctional? Or what happens when POTUS starts making excessive executive decisions because they feel that one of the other branches is dysfunctional? The other branches of gov are there to balance out each other... not pick up their slack...

 

[somarco]

Striking down one law will not destroy this Republic.

You get extra points today for not saying Democracy.