Supreme Court Throws Health Care Back Into The Congress

[Gipper]

And when Obama wins again...as he won on doing the first time...your not going to shut up about it and keep pretending somehow he just enforced it on the land without you know the congress and Senate overpowering your childish filibusters of everything.

I really don't know how you think BO wins again. Lets look at the facts (you know those things you refuse to accept or understand due to your 'mental' condition)....2010 elections are a MAJOR blowout for the Ds...they get destroyed in local, state, and national elections in unprecedented ways. And why? Most experts think because of your beloved Obummercare. Now...since that horrendous piece of crap law is upheld by the SC, with ALL polls showing Americans do not want that shit, the turnout in November to vote against your beloved socialist big eared socialist COULD very well be HISTORIC.

And, have you looked at how bad the economy is doing under your Dear Leader???

But, keep the faith. Romney is a moderate progressive...so sadly you socialists win either way. But don't let me stop your immature belief of:

Ds good Rs bad...said like a little school girl on the play ground.​

 

[Johnny Tremain]

And--so it begins,

 

[Johnny Tremain]

And soon, they grow older--

 

[Johnny Tremain]

You will often hear, incorrectly, the Nazis were RIGHT wing.
They were not.
They were LEFT WING.

And, they were SOCIALISTS.

 

[Cruella]

2010 elections are a MAJOR blowout for the Ds...they get destroyed in local, state, and national elections in unprecedented ways. And why? Most experts think because of your beloved Obummercare.

CNN just reported on a poll this morning that Romney had a 15 point lead in the swing states. But I'm not counting my chickens yet, (or until the official Eric Holder vote count) as I didn't with the healthcare ruling. A lot of people are saying this election is very similar to 1980....we shall see.

 

[cashmcall]

You know,I was tempted to denounce this ruling as an example of judicial activism. But in fact the opposite is true. By employing a method of statutory interpretation designed to give Congress and the White House the benefit of the doubt, Roberts exhibited the hallmarks of judicial restraint. “It is not our job,” he declared, “to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”Very well said..IMO

Today’s conservatives frequently complain about the dangers of judicial activism. Perhaps now we will be more alert to the dangers of judicial restraint.

 

[Cruella]

“It is not our job,” he declared, “to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.”Very well said..IMO

I'm sorry, but I think that's a total cop-out. If it's not his job to decide if something is constitutional or not, then what is he doing there? He also said this mandate was a tax while not being a tax. I guess that makes perfect sense in the land of oz lawyers. There are only a few certain types of taxes that congress can impose....Robert's in all his self imposed superiority just declared a new one, a tax on NOT participating in an activity. That is Judicial activism. You watch, this will be used again to force us into doing things we don't want, as Robert's has set a new precedent.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

The Constitution does allow the legislature and the executive to tax us to death if they wish to. 100% taxation is possible.
But--elections, much like the one upcoming in November, will provide the divine guidance of why the participants in tyranny ought to think twice.

Hence the phrase, "Throw the rascals out!"

Alternatively--the people may just refuse to pay taxes at all and place all the tea into Boston Harbor.

 

[Cruella]

Alternatively--the people may just refuse to pay taxes at all ...

Wouldn't that be something? That would shut the country down pretty quickly too.

 

[BigRob]

I could care less if its a tax...and Its not.

The Justice Department build an argument around the idea that it was for the last two years.

Do you have a choice to pay taxes? No

Agree.

DO you have a choice to pay for this? Yes

The only choice you have to not pay is if you go buy health insurance.

If you have health care...what do you pay...zero

Agree

If you don't have it and can't afford it...you actually get money to help buy it....

This was already a program in place.

 

[Gipper]

If you have health care...what do you pay...zero

WRONG! AGAIN!

I pay a lot for healthcare. The coverage is provided by my wife's employer, but we must contribute a considerable sum to cover ourselves and our children.

I can only guess healthcare for you is free, since you are a union thug.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Wouldn't that be something? That would shut the country down pretty quickly too.

Quite true--and the Last Line of Defense.
Any good tactician would keep this in mind--as WE should.
Why the Second Amendment is worth dying for.

 

[Cruella]

If you have health care...what do you pay...zero

Agree

Only if you don't count the 21 new taxes built within the health bill.

People who get "cadillac" insurance from their employers with be taxed on it even though they have it.

 

[Johnny Tremain]

Only if you don't count the 21 new taxes built within the health bill.

People who get "cadillac" insurance from their employers with be taxed on it even though they have it.

I hope that applies to all government workers and Congress.

 

[cashmcall]

I'm sorry, but I think that's a total cop-out. If it's not his job to decide if something is constitutional or not, then what is he doing there? He also said this mandate was a tax while not being a tax. I guess that makes perfect sense in the land of oz lawyers. There are only a few certain types of taxes that congress can impose....Robert's in all his self imposed superiority just declared a new one, a tax on NOT participating in an activity. That is Judicial activism. You watch, this will be used again to force us into doing things we don't want, as Robert's has set a new precedent.

The Roberts ruling in effect says, “Sorry, but you can’t have it both ways. And since you let me decide this, I’m calling it a tax.”

That leaves ObamaCare proponents politically vulnerable in a number of ways.

First, supporters will now have to call the mandate a “tax,” something that will make it even less popular than it is now.

Second, their flank will be unprotected against the charge that ObamaCare is one of the largest tax increases in history.

Third, opponents can now say, “Do you want to be taxed to force you to buy insurance?” and “If you don’t buy insurance, your taxes go up.” I’m betting those are winning soundbites.

Fourth, since the mandate is now a tax, it is a no-brainer that it can be repealed using budget reconciliation rules. In other words, you don’t need 60 votes in the Senate get rid of the mandate.

To know if the above analysis is correct, watch for what the Democrats don’t do. If you don’t see Democrats and others on the left running around proudly touting the mandate as a tax, you’ll know that they know that they don’t have a winning argument.

Longer term, if Obama is not touting that the Court found ObamaCare constitutional in his stump speeches, you’ll know this is an issue that he wants to avoid.

Just guessin’, but telling voters that you’ve just raised their taxes probably isn’t a good reelection strategy.