Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
The only good I see coming from this decision is how it will motivate the voting public.
If you like Pelosi's "pass it so we can read it" bullshit, then you damned sure better show up at the polling booth.
The 60% of Americans that disagree with the legislation WILL show up to vote.
You just thought Obama's voting turnout was monumental in 2008.
Stay tuned, boys and girls
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
Naughty, horty....
Careful what you wish for.
Would you rather have a Justice Brennan???
Justice Wm. Brennan, jr 1985 Georgetown speech supported the transformative purpose of the Constitution, in which he argued for an aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity
The only good I see coming from this decision is how it will motivate the voting public.
If you like Pelosi's "pass it so we can read it" bullshit, then you damned sure better show up at the polling booth.
The 60% of Americans that disagree with the legislation WILL show up to vote.
You just thought Obama's voting turnout was monumental in 2008.
Stay tuned, boys and girls
Yup....in November, the public will invalidate this bill.
Then, will you forgive Roberts?
Naughty, horty....
Careful what you wish for.
Would you rather have a Justice Brennan???
Justice Wm. Brennan, jr 1985 Georgetown speech supported the transformative purpose of the Constitution, in which he argued for an aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity
I'd just rather have someone with a SPINE.
Quantum floated an interesting theory that, maybe, Roberts' language helps make it easier to repeal.
*shrug*
Naughty, horty....
Careful what you wish for.
Would you rather have a Justice Brennan???
Justice Wm. Brennan, jr 1985 Georgetown speech supported the transformative purpose of the Constitution, in which he argued for an aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity
I'd just rather have someone with a SPINE.
Quantum floated an interesting theory that, maybe, Roberts' language helps make it easier to repeal.
*shrug*
The only good I see coming from this decision is how it will motivate the voting public.
If you like Pelosi's "pass it so we can read it" bullshit, then you damned sure better show up at the polling booth.
The 60% of Americans that disagree with the legislation WILL show up to vote.
You just thought Obama's voting turnout was monumental in 2008.
Stay tuned, boys and girls
Yup....in November, the public will invalidate this bill.
Then, will you forgive Roberts?
If his intent was to give the voting public the power, rather than the SCOTUS, sure.
But he'd have to come right out and say it.
Naughty, horty....
Careful what you wish for.
Would you rather have a Justice Brennan???
Justice Wm. Brennan, jr 1985 Georgetown speech supported the transformative purpose of the Constitution, in which he argued for an aspiration to social justice, brotherhood, and human dignity
I'd just rather have someone with a SPINE.
Quantum floated an interesting theory that, maybe, Roberts' language helps make it easier to repeal.
*shrug*
I think he did show courage...and, more importantly, he kept his word.
We're both upset that the decision didn't go the way we wished, but remember this:
"...if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests.' . . . The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do."
Judge Roberts at his nomination hearing.
He's a good man, and a fine Justice. This will work out.
The only good I see coming from this decision is how it will motivate the voting public.
If you like Pelosi's "pass it so we can read it" bullshit, then you damned sure better show up at the polling booth.
The 60% of Americans that disagree with the legislation WILL show up to vote.
You just thought Obama's voting turnout was monumental in 2008.
Stay tuned, boys and girls
Yup....in November, the public will invalidate this bill.
Then, will you forgive Roberts?
This is why I have posted in the past that I believed the court would uphold the Act...
...if two branches had found the Act constitutional.....even if I believe it was a political decision.....
it was the job of the Supreme Court to find it so unless there is specific language in the Constitution
that forbids same.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
The court decision was correct; it was the election of '08 that was the mistake.
I'm pleased with a Supreme Court decision directly related to the language of the Constitution.
I'd just rather have someone with a SPINE.
Quantum floated an interesting theory that, maybe, Roberts' language helps make it easier to repeal.
*shrug*
I think he did show courage...and, more importantly, he kept his word.
We're both upset that the decision didn't go the way we wished, but remember this:
"...if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That's the oath. The oath that a judge takes is not that 'I'll look out for particular interests.' . . . The oath is to uphold the Constitution and laws of the United States, and that's what I would do."
Judge Roberts at his nomination hearing.
He's a good man, and a fine Justice. This will work out.
I just can't climb over this sentence:
The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance.
The basis of the mandate is that it's a tax which the Congress can levy. Obama can deny it all he wants to, or call it something else, but it's a tax. I don't think they should be able to tax EVERYTHING, but maybe it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen. I'm not thrilled with the ACA, but this action does put this issue front and center. Which is a good thing IMHO, it should be up tot he voters to decide this thing.
from his ruling:
Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nations elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.
Very refreshing. I'm sure I'll be back to hating him next year but that was a very perceptive statement.
It is NOT required that there be specific language forbidding an Act.
What IS required is specific language AUTHORIZING it.
It wasn't found in the Commerce Clause.
It wasn't found in the Necessary and Proper Clause.
It was CLAIMED to be found in the taxing authority of Congress when even Congress declined to call it a "tax," as did the Executive Branch. Still the CJ twisted and contorted the words USED in the actual ACT by Congress itself to convert "penalty" into "tax."
That distortion of the meaning of words didn't sneak past the 4 dissenting Justices who called it for what it was. Wrong and without precedent.
And, if it is a "tax" somehow, then it should have to be apportioned, but the CJ got around that too, by a similarly slippery manipulation of language.
It was a dishonest majority opinion in those ways.
ObamaCare SHOULD have been voided. Instead, because the CJ declined to do what he should have done, we are all now saddled with it at least though the start of the next Administration and a new Congress, if we can seize control of the Senate.
This upcoming election is now the most important one in U.S. history.
The court decision was correct; it was the election of '08 that was the mistake.
I'm pleased with a Supreme Court decision directly related to the language of the Constitution.
No. The Court decision was horribly flawed. There is NO validity to the claim that when Congress SAYS "penalty" they "meant" to say "tax." They chose. The MADE the choice out of concern that a tax would require apportionment. It should have, too, but the SCOTUS decision double-talked that point, too. And it did so in a dishonest fashion. Which only gets us back to the fact that the job of the SCOTUS is not to interpret the meaning of already clear words. Congress is ALSO presumed to mean what the fuck it says. But the CJ's opinion didn't concern itself with THAT nicety of the law, either.
The Election of '08 WAS a mistake, but not one that can be corrected until Election Day. That fact doesn't alter what the job of SCOTUS was -- and how badly they fucked it up today.
They directly related their language to the Constitution to ignore what the Constitution clearly commands.
Shame on the CJ.
The court decision was correct; it was the election of '08 that was the mistake.
I'm pleased with a Supreme Court decision directly related to the language of the Constitution.
No. The Court decision was horribly flawed. There is NO validity to the claim that when Congress SAYS "penalty" they "meant" to say "tax." They chose. The MADE the choice out of concern that a tax would require apportionment. It should have, too, but the SCOTUS decision double-talked that point, too. And it did so in a dishonest fashion. Which only gets us back to the fact that the job of the SCOTUS is not to interpret the meaning of already clear words. Congress is ALSO presumed to mean what the fuck it says. But the CJ's opinion didn't concern itself with THAT nicety of the law, either.
The Election of '08 WAS a mistake, but not one that can be corrected until Election Day. That fact doesn't alter what the job of SCOTUS was -- and how badly they fucked it up today.
They directly related their language to the Constitution to ignore what the Constitution clearly commands.
Shame on the CJ.
In March, the NYTimes wrote:
"In defending the law, the Justice Department has taken a legal position that the health care act constitutes a tax that contradicts the political stance taken by President Obama. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/h...h-mandate-is-not-a-tax-except-when-it-is.html
The basis of the mandate is that it's a tax which the Congress can levy. Obama can deny it all he wants to, or call it something else, but it's a tax. I don't think they should be able to tax EVERYTHING, but maybe it's up to us to make sure that doesn't happen. I'm not thrilled with the ACA, but this action does put this issue front and center. Which is a good thing IMHO, it should be up tot he voters to decide this thing.
In March, the NYTimes wrote:
"In defending the law, the Justice Department has taken a legal position that the health care act constitutes a tax that contradicts the political stance taken by President Obama. "
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/h...h-mandate-is-not-a-tax-except-when-it-is.html
