That's challenging in that the House acquiesced to the Senate doing they because nothing could be passed in the House acceptable to the Senate. There were also some critical time constraints that allowed the Senate to create and pass the bill down. Not only that, it is not unusual for legislation to be created that way so long as the House approves it and passes it back to the Senate.

OldGringo, you didn't call me a liar. DennisDee did. I really do apologize if I accused you of that. I THOUGHT I was responding to DennisDee at the time. My mistake. SORRY.

In addition, there may be a procedural bar for failing to bring all available issues to begin with. Depends on what the initial case was and whether or not the new issues were available at the time of the first challenge.

If they do file a writ of certiorrari about ACA they'll have to bring issues that haven't been decided. They wont be allowed to rehash old issues.

The whole point I've tried to make is that absent a new issue that hasn't already been decided, the Supreme Court will not revisit Obamacare because of THE DOCTRINE OF STARE DECISIS..

"I checked Black's. You lied as usual". If that's not calling me a liar I'll kiss your backside until the hair flies off your head.

Well, you think wrong. I'm 100% right about the Court's application of it and when you get down to it, the spelling is unimportant at this point. We all know what we're referring to. It's in this respect like the Constitution and how The Supreme Court interprets it. IT doesn't read the Constitution the same way you do. That's why you disagree with the Court. What I've said and continue to say is: The court will not usually revisit an issue already decided without compelling evidence to warrant reconsideration. That does not include popular opinion as sufficient evidence to revisit.

Plainly speaking, you're just a lying S.O.B.. Do you know what that means? If not, look it up.

So now I'm deficient? that must make you inefficient, unqualified, unnecessary, and worthless.

Stare Decisis is a new and evolved spelling. It literally means 'to stand by things decided' or stand by things already decided. The spelling I used is from 15 years or more ago. You know as well as I that Black's Law Dictionary issues a new upgraded volume every ten years. It's been more than 15 years since I picked one up. You called me a liar and you wouldn't know a lie unless you were the author of it. I gave information from memory. Do you even have a memory?

Sure. I try to avoid multiple posts but this android doesn't always cooperate.

I gave the applicable use of it according to The Supreme Court.

Yeah, you might be right but mights are on a chickens butt and that's more your territory. Isn't it?

Didn't that used to be uppity?

Yeah, you're right. I apologize.