Michele Bachmann, still full o'shit

[BDBoop]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

 

[Katzndogz]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

Of course! If the Supreme Court upholds obamacare, it will be have to eliminated legislatively. It's never been any kind of secret. I expect that republicans would find a way or make a way to get rid of it.

 

[BDBoop]

On what basis?

 

[Si modo]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

I'm wondering when the SCOTUS ever said repealing a law. whether it is or isn't constitutional, was unconstitutional.

 

[eflatminor]

...the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

What, all of a sudden democracy is NOT your friend? The Dems did everything they could to pass this shitpile of a law without a single R vote. How can you bitch about the Rs doing the exact same thing to undo the law? If the votes are there, the votes are there. And guess what? The votes are there.

Smells like hypocrisy.

 

[BDBoop]

The votes aren't there, or she wouldn't be talking about waiting until after November.

 

[Si modo]

The votes aren't there, or she wouldn't be talking about waiting until after November.

If a repeal passed, do you honestly believe that Obama would not veto it?

 

[BDBoop]

I hadn't thought that far ahead. I'm very anxious at the moment.

Live Video - C-SPAN3 | C-SPAN

 

[theHawk]

On what basis?

On the basis that it was passed before anyone even knew what was in it.
On the basis that its going to cost twice as much as advertised.
On the basis it will bankrupt our country and ruin the economy.
On the basis its unconstitutional as a mandate.
On the basis its the greatest tax increase in history.



Not that you really care about any of that stuff. You got your way and thats all you care about, the rest of America be damned.

 

[midcan5]

Boy, the wingnuts must all be in a real dither. I would not have guessed Roberts would have used Congress's ability to tax as a basis for his position. Bravo. America has moved a bit forward once more.

 

[Papageorgio]

If Supreme Court doesn't strike down 'ObamaCare,' it's repeal or bust for GOP - Interviews - On the Record - Fox News

BACHMANN: What I would be saying to you tomorrow night is this. That's why elections matter and that's why all of our chips are on November and why we have to replace the president, the Senate, and make sure that we have a House that will fully repeal "ObamaCare." That hasn't changed for us. We are fully committed to the repeal of "ObamaCare."
VAN SUSTEREN: Is there any chance in your mind that the Supreme Court would simply declare the mandate unconstitutional and leave the rest of the law standing? Because frankly, I don't know how they do that in the absence of what's called a severability clause in the statute, which is not there.
BACHMANN: Well, and the thing is, the severability clause was in the original "ObamaCare" legislation. That was removed. That's a clear indication of legislative intent, that Congress, this body, decided that if one part of the bill was declared unconstitutional, the individual mandate, the whole bill would fall.
And so it's pretty clear. It's pretty black and white. If the Supreme Court finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional, then no part of the bill should survive.

So, there ya have it. Regardless of the opinion of the SCOTUS, if they let any part stand, the GOP will do everything they can to take it all away.

Why even have a SCOTUS, really?

Repealing a tax doesn't involve the opinion of SCOTUS, so I am lost on what you believe. It looks like the SCOTUS is giving Congress an option on a law that only 30% of the people like and 70% think it is wrong, changing it into a tax will make it more vague and more unpopular. It might be best to repeal it and start over.

 

[Papageorgio]

The votes aren't there, or she wouldn't be talking about waiting until after November.

If a repeal passed, do you honestly believe that Obama would not veto it?

They can repeal it next year when Obama's gone and Dems have lost more seats.

 

[GHook93]

On what basis?

That they don't like it! Legislation when enacted is not law of the land if a later legislation is passed repealing and/or replacing it!

 

[Papageorgio]

On what basis?

That they don't like it! Legislation when enacted is not law of the land if a later legislation is passed repealing and/or replacing it!

Yep, it has been done time and time again in our history, not a big deal

 

[SeaChange]

Repealing a tax doesn't involve the opinion of SCOTUS, so I am lost on what you believe. It looks like the SCOTUS is giving Congress an option on a law that only 30% of the people like and 70% think it is wrong, changing it into a tax will make it more vague and more unpopular. It might be best to repeal it and start over.

And start over with what?

With all the babbling and clamoring the Republicans have done, I have not seen a better option.

And I don't even like "Obamacare" but until the Republicans can find a better option that is plausible, realistic with a guaranteed way to fund it, I'm all for "Obamacare" aka the best we can get.

 

[Oddball]

On what basis?

On the basis that they're the congress and can repeal any law that the damned well want to.

 

[BDBoop]

So they don't need a basis. Well, I guess that's wonderful for a bunch of knee-jerk reactionaries, but there should probably be a basis for said repeal unless they want to known as the 112th Herp-a-Derp Congress.

 

[Katzndogz]

On what basis?

It is a bad law that is opposed by the people.

 

[BDBoop]

On what basis?

It is a bad law that is opposed by the people.

Oh, that's a keeper. I'd make it my sig if I was into free publicity.

Norly. On what basis.

 

[Katzndogz]

On what basis?

It is a bad law that is opposed by the people.

Oh, that's a keeper. I'd make it my sig if I was into free publicity.

Norly. On what basis.

There doesn't need to be another basis! Was prohibition once the law? Was it repealed? On what basis? It was a bad law.

Just because laws are passed doesn't mean they are good laws, or that they even make sense. When Justice Roberts made his ruling he said that it meant that the law was Constitutional as a tax, but not that it was a good law. He said specifically that the purpose of the Court was not to protect the public from their political decisions. If they don't like the law, elect different people. Laws are passed and repealed all the time.

No one could say that the health care bill was seriously read and considered because no one ever read it. The people who wrote it never read it. They only knew the portion that they wrote. Nancy Pelosi said it woudn't be available to read until after it was passed.