It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Congressman Michael Burgess claims to know the outcome of King v. Burwell

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 05:03 AM
link   
In the following video entitled "Rep. Burgess talks King v. Burwell, Illegality of the ACA", Burgess doesn't claim what he thinks the decision will be in King v. Burwell, he claims to know it for sure.

"...this health care law was a big mistake, it's time that it be fixed and this will be a first step in the right to so..."

I think he must know the decision for sure to be saying that on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives. He is really putting his reputation on the line. If it turns out he's wrong, this speech could be used against him to make him look incompetent in the future in my opinion. He may be so excited about it that he may have spilled the beans speaking off the cuff.

The issue I want to explore here is if anyone can remember a congressperson speaking as if he or she knew a Supreme Court ruling before it was announced and doing it in a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives no less.


www.youtube.com...

I have another thread about the potential consequences of King v. Burwell if anyone is interested (this thread is not meant to be on that specific topic):

www.abovetopsecret.com...
edit on 17-6-2015 by Profusion because: (no reason given)




posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:10 AM
link   
How is that any different than a politician saying "when we take back the White House"

Or a coach saying "when we win this game"

Or a boxer saying "I'm gonna win the title"

SCOTUS decisions are guarded extremely carefully. Even the Justices' clerks aren't allowed to tell people what they are.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 06:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
How is that any different than a politician saying "when we take back the White House"

Or a coach saying "when we win this game"

Or a boxer saying "I'm gonna win the title"

SCOTUS decisions are guarded extremely carefully. Even the Justices' clerks aren't allowed to tell people what they are.


In those first three examples the person making the statement would have some influence on the outcome. What Burgess did in his speech would be more like a roullette player guaranteeing victory on some random trip to a casino. And that's a very apt analogy in my opinion based on how hard it can be to predict Supreme Court rulings.

What does Burgess have to gain by predicting the outcome of King v. Burwell like he's doing in the video? I can't think of one thing. Can you?

You're trying to make it sound like Burgess is just rooting for his team (so to speak) by claiming that he knows the outcome. But, that doesn't fit the facts in my opinion. The Supreme Court is not his team (metaphorically speaking). One could argue that the five conservative justices are on his team (so to speak) but is that really true? I would say that based on the Supreme Court's first decision on Obamacare, that assumption was put in doubt.

The way I see it, Burgess has everything to lose and nothing to gain by claiming to know the outcome of King v. Burwell in a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives.

What could he lose?

1. His reputation

I already addressed this in the original post.

2. Loyal voters

Can you imagine the backlash if some of his loyal voters heard his speech and took distract measures thinking that they would lose their subsidies very soon?

3. He could lose a future election

In a future election, his opponent could use this speech to make Burgess look incompetent. He would like a fool if he was wrong here.

So, let's get back to the original question I asked:

The issue I want to explore here is if anyone can remember a congressperson speaking as if he or she knew a Supreme Court ruling before it was announced and doing it in a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives no less.

If you can't give me another example of it happening then we're left with something very very extraordinary and possibly unprecedented. I think that's very important.

Despite the fact that Supreme Court decisions are secrets up until the end, I can't see why a congressman with nothing to gain and everything to lose by making that speech made that speech.

What was his motive?

We can only speculate but my guess is that he's sending a message to everyone that's listening to prepare for what he knows is coming. That's certainly exactly how he's talking in the speech.

If he doesn't know what's coming for sure, why would he risk so much to make that speech?

Burgess does not strike me as a foolish man and I believe that would be very foolish.
edit on 17-6-2015 by Profusion because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:11 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

Yea I don't think it requires any deep thinking. He's a republican. He gets constituents. He demonstrates how against the ACA he is. And if it doesn't go his way, what's the actual fallout?

Nothing. What are his constituents going to say? Well you said it was going to go our way and it didn't so....you suck! Burgess has won every election he's been in with between 60% and 70% of the vote. The last one he was in, the democrats didn't even bother trying.

I'm surprised that you're acting like "tough talk" is something foreign on the floor of the House. "Tough talk" is what they live for. You're assigning infinitely more gravitas to this than it merits.

As to your question specifically - people try to predict SCOTUS decisions every year. From congress to TV, it happens. Your entire premise is based off the notion that somebody who is connected enough, politically savvy enough, and has enough political capital to play with that he can gain inside knowledge of a SCOTUS decision would then be so monumentally stupid as to reveal his inside knowledge on the debate floor, on live TV.

Fantasy.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:25 AM
link   
as far as a bad reputation hurting these guys, well, wasn't there someone who was elected to office while in jail? I think it's just political rambling or maybe, just maybe someone who actually gives a darn firing an early warning shot just in case the supreme court does rule against the law. I mean wouldn't it be nice is they actually did act a little preemptively and had a few discussions as to how to handle the blowout if the supremes did blow up obamacare? it would probably also give the supreme court a little peace of mind if they knew that congress did have a plan ready to put into place if such a ruling was decided. might actually give them a little more freedom to decide.

but all that would require foresight on the part of someone in congress and well we know that is too much to ask of these guys, so it's probably just political rambling.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 07:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Profusion

Yea I don't think it requires any deep thinking. He's a republican. He gets constituents. He demonstrates how against the ACA he is. And if it doesn't go his way, what's the actual fallout?

Nothing. What are his constituents going to say? Well you said it was going to go our way and it didn't so....you suck! Burgess has won every election he's been in with between 60% and 70% of the vote. The last one he was in, the democrats didn't even bother trying.


I think there is a risk of this coming back to hurt him for the reasons I mentioned. You could be right.


originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Profusion
I'm surprised that you're acting like "tough talk" is something foreign on the floor of the House. "Tough talk" is what they live for. You're assigning infinitely more gravitas to this than it merits.


That's because political "tough talk" is what Obama did concerning King v. Burwell:


“This should be an easy case. Frankly, it probably shouldn’t even have been taken up,” Obama said to reporters following the G-7 summit.
dailysignal.com...


I'm no fan of Obama but when it comes to Supreme Court cases, that's appropriate political "tough talk" in my opinion. Obama isn't claiming to know how the Supreme Court will decide the case with any certainty, only a fool would do that, right? But, Obama still defended his view of the case well I would say.

Here's another example political "tough talk" on this case that I think is appropriate. Again, there's nothing about the result said with certainty. I don't think anyone with credibility tries to predict Supreme Court cases with certainty. That's why I made this thread, it's shocking to me. I'm looking for answers concerning why that was done by Burgess.


www.youtube.com...

Obama and Hatch's examples above are the difference between normal, rational political "tough talk" and doing what Burgess did. He gave a speech on the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives claiming that he knows with certainty what the Supreme Court's decision will be...

Maybe he's just lost his mind? You still haven't given me any thoughts about why he would talk with absolute certainty, you didn't give me a motive for that yet.


originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Profusion
As to your question specifically - people try to predict SCOTUS decisions every year. From congress to TV, it happens. Your entire premise is based off the notion that somebody who is connected enough, politically savvy enough, and has enough political capital to play with that he can gain inside knowledge of a SCOTUS decision would then be so monumentally stupid as to reveal his inside knowledge on the debate floor, on live TV.

Fantasy.



Predicting what you think will happen is light years from saying with certainty that you know what will happen. In my experience, saying that you know with certainty how things will turn out is very dangerous in terms of credibility.

And again, Burgess has no reason to claim he knows the result of the case (as far as we know). There is no advantage to doing that I see. Just compare what Obama and Hatch said about the case to what Burgess said. It's night and day. Maybe Burgess is just careless with his words?

In my opinion there's nothing "monumentally stupid" about revealing the result as long as he has plausible deniability as he probably does. We don't even know if he has inside information of course.

Assuming he does have inside information, we don't know where it came from. Maybe it came from a third party that he trusts completely or it could have come from a secret society. Or maybe he's delusional?

I don't have anything else to say on this issue. It's all speculation at this point so I think I'll leave this thread now.

Since this thread comes down to speculation, I wish people would post what their intuition is telling them and we might get some kind of consensus on this. It could be interesting.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:17 AM
link   
a reply to: Profusion

My intuition:

Obama says it should never have even made it to SCOTUS. Burgess says "As I see it..."

Both are opinions. They're both "tough talk" but from different sides of the aisle.

My intuition tells me you want this to be something it's not. Burgess has no more reason to say "as I see it the president broke the law" than Obama has to say "this should never have been made a case."

I've figured out the angle now though.



posted on Jun, 19 2015 @ 12:27 AM
link   
"You're assigning infinitely more gravitas to this than it merits."
Well-said.
It's not even tough talk, it's hot air.




top topics



 
1

log in

join