Progressive whining about Obamacare victory

[J.E.D]

no altering quotes. ~elvis.

 

[Trajan]

You have to read all of the opinions, from an amateurs perspective ( like mine), it appears, appears being the operative word here, that there was a strong (7-2) opinion that the commerce clause could not be stretched for this, there fore they reframed it as it should have been packaged ( you can argue that its not their job to 're-package' but that’s a moot point now), in that as a tax it is well within the congresses preview to create such. And, I agree.

Ginsberg apparently authored an opinion of dissent in that she was against the 7-2 cloakroom decision that this could not survive as a commerce clause argument, there fore the re-framing is what she disagree with and would have been happier having it affirmed as written and a re-work of the commerce clause……..


anyone see that differently, I am by no means an expert...

 

[Borillar]

The whine you hear is coming from the Republican spin machine now with full afterburners.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Conservative whining about Obamacare victory

Fixed it for ya.

Reported for misrepresenting my quote.

 

[J.E.D]

Conservative whining about Obamacare victory

Fixed it for ya.

Reported for misrepresenting my quote.

Wow, you are a serious pussy. Sorry about those panties up your ass. I hope tomorrow goes better for you.

 

[hortysir]

All ya needed to do was remove the link-back, douche

 

[J.E.D]

"Reported for misrepresenting my quote"

 

[J.E.D]

All ya needed to do was remove the link-back, douche

Shut up, dumb ass, nobody's talking to you. Go cry some more over today's SCOTUS decision.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can you spin a woman into thinking you dont look disgusting in the shower?

Zoom-boing just negged me saying you look great in the shower. Sorry

 

[Zxereus]

LOL here comes the right wing excuses.

The GOP got their asses handed to them today, deal with it.

Underline the word "today".
You might be looking back on this day and wishing for a different outcome.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I really shouldn't say this, but I am going to enjoy this post.

A lot.

It seems that the Left is convinced that Roberts upheld Obamacare by stomping on their dreams of an all powerful government.

Two fears have hovered over American liberals since the legal case against the Affordable Care Act began wending its way through the legal system. The first was a fear that conservatives would succeed in revising what Jeffrey Rosen called (in a prescient and classic 2005 New York Times Magazine story) "The Constitution In Exile" — that it would interpret the Constitution to require right-wing economic policy. A second, and darker, fear was that five Republican-appointed justices would concoct a jury-rigged ruling in order to win a huge battle that its party had lost in Congress — that wildly partisan Bush v. Gore–style rulings would now become regular features of the political scene.
The two fears were, of course, deeply intertwined. What happened, and what nobody expected, was that they diverged. The second fear was decisively refuted. The first is very much alive.

The fearful part is that five justices ruled that the Affordable Care Act cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause. This is a bizarre and implausibly narrow reading — if Congress cannot regulate the health-care market, then it cannot really regulate interstate commerce. By endorsing this precedent, Roberts opens the door for future courts to revive the Constitution in Exile.

John Roberts Saves Us All -- Daily Intel

There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.


Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court's liberal wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans are crying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.


But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.
...
Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):

Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare. - Slate Magazine

We now have a new type of bad sportsmanship, whining about winning.

Roberts did not uphold the individual mandate. He struck it down as unconstitutional.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You should pull your head out. it's a tax, thats not a win for Obama. He's going to have to explain this new tax to his constituents and independents. that task will not be easy because he swore it would not be a tax. Thats problematic for the O.

Not with this crowd. He could sell them the underwear they are already wearing and get an extra fee for installation.

It is also easier to repeal in the Senate now since tax laws are not subject to filibuster.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Fixed it for ya.

Reported for misrepresenting my quote.

Wow, you are a serious pussy. Sorry about those panties up your ass. I hope tomorrow goes better for you.

Don't violate the fucking rules and you won't get reported, dipshit!

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Fixed it for ya.

Reported for misrepresenting my quote.

Wow, you are a serious pussy. Sorry about those panties up your ass. I hope tomorrow goes better for you.

My days always go well.

You should learn the rules before you break them, it is what intelligent people do. The simple thing was just to wrap quote tags around it, instead you went to the trouble of deliberately sticking it in one of my quotes.

 

[Foxfyre]

I really shouldn't say this, but I am going to enjoy this post.

A lot.

It seems that the Left is convinced that Roberts upheld Obamacare by stomping on their dreams of an all powerful government.

Two fears have hovered over American liberals since the legal case against the Affordable Care Act began wending its way through the legal system. The first was a fear that conservatives would succeed in revising what Jeffrey Rosen called (in a prescient and classic 2005 New York Times Magazine story) "The Constitution In Exile" — that it would interpret the Constitution to require right-wing economic policy. A second, and darker, fear was that five Republican-appointed justices would concoct a jury-rigged ruling in order to win a huge battle that its party had lost in Congress — that wildly partisan Bush v. Gore–style rulings would now become regular features of the political scene.
The two fears were, of course, deeply intertwined. What happened, and what nobody expected, was that they diverged. The second fear was decisively refuted. The first is very much alive.

The fearful part is that five justices ruled that the Affordable Care Act cannot be upheld under the Commerce Clause. This is a bizarre and implausibly narrow reading — if Congress cannot regulate the health-care market, then it cannot really regulate interstate commerce. By endorsing this precedent, Roberts opens the door for future courts to revive the Constitution in Exile.

John Roberts Saves Us All -- Daily Intel

There were two battles being fought in the Supreme Court over the Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice John Roberts—and Justice Anthony Kennedy—delivered victory to the right in the one that mattered.


Yes, Roberts voted to uphold the individual mandate, joining the court's liberal wing to give President Obama a 5-4 victory on his signature piece of legislation. Right-wing partisans are crying treason; left-wing partisans saw their predictions of a bitter, party-line defeat undone.


But the health care law was, ultimately, a pretext. This was a test case for the long-standing—but previously fringe—campaign to rewrite Congress' regulatory powers under the Commerce Clause.
...
Roberts was smarter than that. By ruling that the individual mandate was permissible as a tax, he joined the Democratic appointees to uphold the law—while joining the Republican wing to gut the Commerce Clause (and push back against the necessary-and-proper clause as well). Here's the Chief Justice's opinion (italics in original):

Roberts health care opinion, Commerce Clause: The real reason the chief justice upheld Obamacare. - Slate Magazine

We now have a new type of bad sportsmanship, whining about winning.

Roberts did not uphold the individual mandate. He struck it down as unconstitutional.

He struck it down as unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause. He held it up as constitutional as a tax.

 

[J.E.D]

Reported for misrepresenting my quote.

Wow, you are a serious pussy. Sorry about those panties up your ass. I hope tomorrow goes better for you.

Don't violate the fucking rules and you won't get reported, dipshit!

Go eat a dick, cock-breath

 

[GuyPinestra]

Wow, you are a serious pussy. Sorry about those panties up your ass. I hope tomorrow goes better for you.

Don't violate the fucking rules and you won't get reported, dipshit!

Go eat a dick, cock-breath

Oooohhhh, who's panties are up which ass now, smartass??

 

[J.E.D]

Reported for misrepresenting my quote.

Wow, you are a serious pussy. Sorry about those panties up your ass. I hope tomorrow goes better for you.

My days always go well.

You should learn the rules before you break them, it is what intelligent people do. The simple thing was just to wrap quote tags around it, instead you went to the trouble of deliberately sticking it in one of my quotes.

And you being the massive pussy that you are, decided to run and tattle on me. What a fucking pussy

 

[J.E.D]

Don't violate the fucking rules and you won't get reported, dipshit!

Go eat a dick, cock-breath

Oooohhhh, who's panties are up which ass now, smartass??

I have no interest in your cross dressing habits. No matter how many pics you send me, I won't ever be interested. Now get back to sucking that dick, faggot.

 

[daveman]

Will this law have to go back to congress and senate so they can assess a tax before implementation?

Nope, SCOTUS just redefined it as a tax and approved the mandate on that basis. A mega huge enormous stifling smothering tax at that.

If the GOP have the brains that God gave a goose, they will use it to really good advantage every time Obama claims to have lowered taxes on most people now, as, according to SCOTUS, he has imposed a huge tax on everybody who works for a living. So not only can they show that Obama lied big time when he adamently claimed this was not a tax when he sold us this turkey, he also lost his claim to have lowered taxes.

That's the icing on the cake actually. The big prize is in removing Obama's ability to use the Commerce Clause to do end runs around us and the people we elect to represent us.

Mega huge stifling smothering tax? How much is this going to add to your personal tax bill? The answer is zero.

And your proof is...?

NOTE: "Because Obama said so!!" is not proof. Well, it does prove you're an idiot.