You aren’t listening to the response. I didn’t dodge or otherwise refuse to take the question.
If you get enough people on your side of the issue, the politicians, at some threshold simply do not matter
Non-Change is the default of things yes (not necessarily Rep or Dem)
I always forget, which rule of the Congress is that again?
This whole conversation started with you insisting that both sides need to compromise. Do you stand by this?
All polls show that a substantial majority of the people do support the ACA. The 2018 election was largely fought over it. Even SCOTUS understands this. That’s why they are waiting till after the election to strike it down. They knew that that would redound badly on their party.
Yes, I do
If the ACA gets struck down, you automatically assume it is partisan.
In my mind, it is bad law with good intent. Better could be drafted. And yes currently with the obstructionist policy makers in the Senate it is unlikely that it would pass but that shouldn’t stop the process and it should be worked upon to make it what is espoused by politicians everywhere (the greatest, the most comprehensive, the best coverage, for less money) IF all that gets done, I see little opposition for it not getting passed.
Who is working on that again?
In fact, it needs to be so good that the people drafting it will have to use it too!
I forgot to add , SCOTUS doesn’t have a party.
In your opinion, is it the Supreme Court’s place to decide if a law is a “bad law” or if “better could be written”?
Bad Law = unconstitutional so yes, I do.
Why else would it get struck down?
Bad law does not necessarily equal unconstitutional; for example, the fugitive slave act was constitutional, until the constitution was amended. But I digress.
Whether a law is constitutional or not is a matter of legal fact, not opinion. So I suppose you have proof that the ACA was unconstitutional?
No but then again, I wasn’t the one that is saying it is going to get struck down.
So is your point that if it was struck down you would assume it was a bad law by virtue of being struck down and not worry about the evidence?
Come on bro, be better.
If it gets struck down for being unconstitutional, do you honestly believe they will have little to no evidence?
Since it isn’t unconstitutional, IF they struck it down, I would look into what evidence they provide, but I don’t see how they could convincingly prove something that isn’t true.
Where did you get your law degree from again?
You got me: I would mostly read analysis about the decision, and read it myself just to make sure the analysis isn’t full of crap.
This line from “The American President” always stuck with me:
“We have serious problems to solve, and we need serious people to solve them. And whatever your particular problem is, I promise you: [Donald Trump] is not the least bit interested in solving it. He is interested in two things, and two things only: making you afraid of it, and telling you who’s to blame for it. That, ladies and gentlemen, is how you win elections. You gather a group of middle age, middle class, middle income voters who remember with longing an easier time, and you talk to them about family, and American values and character, …”
The charges that Trump and his supporters have leveled at virtually everybody on the left, and a ridiculous number of people on the right, are tantamount to an accusation of rape in one very real sense: they tend to stick (like napalm) even when they’re unmitigated bullshit.
I just keep coming back to demagoguery. Unless you can keep a demagogue from amassing power … it’s an extremely hard bell to un-ring.
Put another way …
Politically, Trump is the textbook definition of an iconoclast – a person who attacks cherished beliefs or institutions.
I think it was Megyn Kelly who said
Some of those things probably needed to be broken, but some of those things are very precious to us.
The relentless and insidious subterfuge designed to wrest trust in the institutions of Democracy from Americans, and rely Only On Him To Save You is an unringable bell within an unringable bell, and straight out of the demagogue’s playbook.
It’s now naught but a mere wave of the hand to claim “fake news,” “deep state,” “rigged election,” “enemies of the people,” or any of a passel of other incendiary phrases that act, to his supporters, like post-hypnotic suggestions.
Trump’s supporters were the archetypal frogs in boiling water. I can only hope that Biden can bring the heat down, and that nothing immediately takes the incendiary place of Trump.
But Trump’s followers constitute established, identified, and significant demand, and supply tends to arise to meet that demand … absent effective (legal ?) impediments to its doing so.
TL:DR … sorry. I got nothing. Had to rant a bit 
Don’t be sorry - that was great 
Ok. Progress. Do you contend that the Democrats have a history, over the last 16 years, of not compromising?
They have for sure been the party that has offered to compromise.
Damn right it is partisan. God knows the Ds tried to work with the Rs to draft a better law. I know the Rs have a much better bill that will do it cheaper, but it won’t be ready for two weeks. And if you really believe that SCOTUS doesn’t have a party, I have a very beautiful bridge I would like to sell you.