Read it a weep Dims

[EriktheRed]

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40GdyUuuL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

A "sense of the Senate" resolution....

Well, gee, that settles it, I guess.

NOT!

 

[NYcarbineer]

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40GdyUuuL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

"The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways."

At that point how is it possible you didn't see that your attempted point was DOA?

 

[imawhosure]

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

11 months vs 9 months? Who's splitting hairs here?

Because the opening was much sooner, READ HISTORY! The 1st 2 nominees were rejected. The 1st nominee was put up in JUly of 87, fully 15 or 16 months before the end of the term. Geeze!

There are different circumstances though. Kennedy wasn't replacing a dead justice. Bush got Roberts installed in less than a month after Rehnquist died. Didn't see Dems blocking and filibustering that, did you?

So now, an open justice seat is not an open justice seat, is an open justice seat, only by the definition put forth by Democrats.

And, you can only fillibuster a nominee if the Justice is dead? Show me those rules, I have to study them.

As far as John Roberts..........that was 2005, loooooooong before the end of GWs term. The least you could attempt to do is keep apple to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Spin it like a Beanie and Cecil hat all you want, the precedent is there to stop the nomination until the next President is sworn in. I do not neither agree, nor disagree with the process of doing it. As far as I am concerned, this whole exercise is for political purposes. Neither side has firm ground on this one. It will be a battle of political will and talking points. BOTH entities better know what the hell they are doing though, before they engage in the debate!

Oh please... If a justice wants to retire, they can hold office for a short while until their successor is appointed. If a justice dies, that obviously creates a vacancy that needs to be filled ASAP.

Here, teach yourself something. 7 Things To Know About Presidential Appointments To The Supreme Court

Nothing is set in stone, and no side has a clear path. Far more intelligent people than you or I have tried to get their way, some succeeded, some not.

You have no CASE; neither do I. It is going to be who can use talking points to get their way, and personally, what that should tell us both is........a deal will be cut, one way or the other.

Know what that means? Neither of us wins, lol. So you go ahead and carry on. Politics in Washington are out of our control, and if either of us believe we have any influence other than a phone call, then we are only fooling ourselves.

 

[boilermaker55]

But they nominated someone so your party should let it happen and learn to shut up then.
The party that screams about the strictness of the constitution but then they use it like a chinese menu. I only want one from column A then fucking forget the other ones.

So the people that vote a president can expect him to be the President for only 3 yrs, is that your contention. And these are the strict Constitutionalist.
The credibility of the teabaggers shows it self once again.

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

That what the Democrats came up with in 2007 when Bush had 17 months left. Maybe your party should live by their own policies and shut up.

 

[jillian]

Read it and weep, Democrats. The shoe is on the other foot. David Bernstein at the Washington Post’s Volokh Conspiracy blog:

Thanks to a VC commenter, I discovered that in August 1960, the Democrat-controlled Senate passed a resolution, S.RES. 334, “Expressing the sense of the Senate that the president should not make recess appointments to the Supreme Court, except to prevent or end a breakdown in the administration of the Court’s business.” Each of President Eisenhower’s SCOTUS appointments had initially been a recess appointment who was later confirmed by the Senate, and the Democrats were apparently concerned that Ike would try to fill any last-minute vacancy that might arise with a recess appointment.

The GOP opposed this, of course. Hypocrisy goes two ways. But the majority won.

As it should this time.



Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/02/dems_in_senate_passed_a_resolution_in1960_against_election_year_supreme_court_appointments.html#ixzz40GdyUuuL
Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

the "sense of the senate"? why do we care?

 

[jknowgood]

But they nominated someone so your party should let it happen and learn to shut up then.
The party that screams about the strictness of the constitution but then they use it like a chinese menu. I only want one from column A then fucking forget the other ones.

So the people that vote a president can expect him to be the President for only 3 yrs, is that your contention. And these are the strict Constitutionalist.
The credibility of the teabaggers shows it self once again.

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

That what the Democrats came up with in 2007 when Bush had 17 months left. Maybe your party should live by their own policies and shut up.

I'm fine on them voting on it, as long as it's a no. Because Obama hates this country, and he wouldn't nominate some that loves this country.

 

[Rustic]

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

There is no hurry, who gives a shit if the court seat sits vacant for a bit??
There is nothing pressing

 

[amrchaos]

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

Better check your math there, dude. There are 11 months left to Obama's term, not 8.

However long you want to make Obama President, then you have to add that to Reagan also.

You too are using semantics, but if you think it carries weight, by all means, go ahead-)

Add like 3 months--not much difference.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

11 months vs 9 months? Who's splitting hairs here?

Because the opening was much sooner, READ HISTORY! The 1st 2 nominees were rejected. The 1st nominee was put up in JUly of 87, fully 15 or 16 months before the end of the term. Geeze!

There are different circumstances though. Kennedy wasn't replacing a dead justice. Bush got Roberts installed in less than a month after Rehnquist died. Didn't see Dems blocking and filibustering that, did you?

So now, an open justice seat is not an open justice seat, is an open justice seat, only by the definition put forth by Democrats.

And, you can only fillibuster a nominee if the Justice is dead? Show me those rules, I have to study them.

As far as John Roberts..........that was 2005, loooooooong before the end of GWs term. The least you could attempt to do is keep apple to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Spin it like a Beanie and Cecil hat all you want, the precedent is there to stop the nomination until the next President is sworn in. I do not neither agree, nor disagree with the process of doing it. As far as I am concerned, this whole exercise is for political purposes. Neither side has firm ground on this one. It will be a battle of political will and talking points. BOTH entities better know what the hell they are doing though, before they engage in the debate!

Oh please... If a justice wants to retire, they can hold office for a short while until their successor is appointed. If a justice dies, that obviously creates a vacancy that needs to be filled ASAP.

Why is that? They can't make do with the justices they have?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

Better check your math there, dude. There are 11 months left to Obama's term, not 8.

However long you want to make Obama President, then you have to add that to Reagan also.

You too are using semantics, but if you think it carries weight, by all means, go ahead-)

And if the Supreme Court is once again needed to settle the issue of who is to be our next President...what then?

The Supreme Court never made such a decision before.

 

[Borillar]

11 months vs 9 months? Who's splitting hairs here?

Because the opening was much sooner, READ HISTORY! The 1st 2 nominees were rejected. The 1st nominee was put up in JUly of 87, fully 15 or 16 months before the end of the term. Geeze!

There are different circumstances though. Kennedy wasn't replacing a dead justice. Bush got Roberts installed in less than a month after Rehnquist died. Didn't see Dems blocking and filibustering that, did you?

So now, an open justice seat is not an open justice seat, is an open justice seat, only by the definition put forth by Democrats.

And, you can only fillibuster a nominee if the Justice is dead? Show me those rules, I have to study them.

As far as John Roberts..........that was 2005, loooooooong before the end of GWs term. The least you could attempt to do is keep apple to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Spin it like a Beanie and Cecil hat all you want, the precedent is there to stop the nomination until the next President is sworn in. I do not neither agree, nor disagree with the process of doing it. As far as I am concerned, this whole exercise is for political purposes. Neither side has firm ground on this one. It will be a battle of political will and talking points. BOTH entities better know what the hell they are doing though, before they engage in the debate!

Oh please... If a justice wants to retire, they can hold office for a short while until their successor is appointed. If a justice dies, that obviously creates a vacancy that needs to be filled ASAP.

Why is that? They can't make do with the justices they have?

Well, I suppose they can. They won't have a RW majority anymore to push through crap decisions or overturn lower court rulings. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing afterall.

 

[candycorn]

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

Better check your math there, dude. There are 11 months left to Obama's term, not 8.

However long you want to make Obama President, then you have to add that to Reagan also.

You too are using semantics, but if you think it carries weight, by all means, go ahead-)

And if the Supreme Court is once again needed to settle the issue of who is to be our next President...what then?

The Supreme Court never made such a decision before.

Sure they did in 2000. Of course you'll argue differently which is why you're recognized as the idiot you are.

However you characterize that decision loser, the decision was handed down. What if they need to do that again?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

Better check your math there, dude. There are 11 months left to Obama's term, not 8.

However long you want to make Obama President, then you have to add that to Reagan also.

You too are using semantics, but if you think it carries weight, by all means, go ahead-)

And if the Supreme Court is once again needed to settle the issue of who is to be our next President...what then?

The Supreme Court never made such a decision before.

Sure they did in 2000. Of course you'll argue differently which is why you're recognized as the idiot you are.

However you characterize that decision loser, the decision was handed down. What if they need to do that again?

The decision was to take it back to the Florida courts to explain to the Supreme Court their judicial legislation.

The Florida law was to have all ballots certified in five days. No if's ands or buts. If a recount is ordered, then fine, recount and have the ballots certified in five days.

Gore's buddies on the Florida courts decided they didn't like that law........ at least not for Al Gore. So they extended the amount of time to accommodate Gore's quest to find those ballots.

The job of a judge is to determine if law was followed, not rewrite the law as he or she sees fit. That's why the Supreme Court ruled the way they did.......idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Because the opening was much sooner, READ HISTORY! The 1st 2 nominees were rejected. The 1st nominee was put up in JUly of 87, fully 15 or 16 months before the end of the term. Geeze!

There are different circumstances though. Kennedy wasn't replacing a dead justice. Bush got Roberts installed in less than a month after Rehnquist died. Didn't see Dems blocking and filibustering that, did you?

So now, an open justice seat is not an open justice seat, is an open justice seat, only by the definition put forth by Democrats.

And, you can only fillibuster a nominee if the Justice is dead? Show me those rules, I have to study them.

As far as John Roberts..........that was 2005, loooooooong before the end of GWs term. The least you could attempt to do is keep apple to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Spin it like a Beanie and Cecil hat all you want, the precedent is there to stop the nomination until the next President is sworn in. I do not neither agree, nor disagree with the process of doing it. As far as I am concerned, this whole exercise is for political purposes. Neither side has firm ground on this one. It will be a battle of political will and talking points. BOTH entities better know what the hell they are doing though, before they engage in the debate!

Oh please... If a justice wants to retire, they can hold office for a short while until their successor is appointed. If a justice dies, that obviously creates a vacancy that needs to be filled ASAP.

Why is that? They can't make do with the justices they have?

Well, I suppose they can. They won't have a RW majority anymore to push through crap decisions or overturn lower court rulings. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing afterall.

You mean the same RW majority that permitted Obamunism?

 

[boilermaker55]

No, President Obama doesn't hate this country. It is people like you that hate him and him being the President of the United States. What you despise is that you and your children and grandchildren, because you are a bigot, will see the Presidents all listed and it will bother you till the day you die that a black man was President.
That is the trouble.
Be honest with yourself and stop trying to lie and hide the fact.
Bigots are easy to spot.

But they nominated someone so your party should let it happen and learn to shut up then.
The party that screams about the strictness of the constitution but then they use it like a chinese menu. I only want one from column A then fucking forget the other ones.

So the people that vote a president can expect him to be the President for only 3 yrs, is that your contention. And these are the strict Constitutionalist.
The credibility of the teabaggers shows it self once again.

"On Feb. 3, 1988, McConnell and literally every other GOP senator voted to confirm Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. This was during President Ronald Reagan's last year in the White House, and at a time when Democrats controlled the Senate. Kennedy was confirmed 97-0, with three Democrats -- Joe Biden, Al Gore and Paul Simon -- not voting at all because, presumably, they were busy running for president that year."
Mitch McConnell Voted To Confirm A Supreme Court Justice In Reagan's Final Year

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

That what the Democrats came up with in 2007 when Bush had 17 months left. Maybe your party should live by their own policies and shut up.

I'm fine on them voting on it, as long as it's a no. Because Obama hates this country, and he wouldn't nominate some that loves this country.

 

[Borillar]

There are different circumstances though. Kennedy wasn't replacing a dead justice. Bush got Roberts installed in less than a month after Rehnquist died. Didn't see Dems blocking and filibustering that, did you?

So now, an open justice seat is not an open justice seat, is an open justice seat, only by the definition put forth by Democrats.

And, you can only fillibuster a nominee if the Justice is dead? Show me those rules, I have to study them.

As far as John Roberts..........that was 2005, loooooooong before the end of GWs term. The least you could attempt to do is keep apple to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Spin it like a Beanie and Cecil hat all you want, the precedent is there to stop the nomination until the next President is sworn in. I do not neither agree, nor disagree with the process of doing it. As far as I am concerned, this whole exercise is for political purposes. Neither side has firm ground on this one. It will be a battle of political will and talking points. BOTH entities better know what the hell they are doing though, before they engage in the debate!

Oh please... If a justice wants to retire, they can hold office for a short while until their successor is appointed. If a justice dies, that obviously creates a vacancy that needs to be filled ASAP.

Why is that? They can't make do with the justices they have?

Well, I suppose they can. They won't have a RW majority anymore to push through crap decisions or overturn lower court rulings. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing afterall.

You mean the same RW majority that permitted Obamunism?

Obamunism? WTF is that? Anything you happen to disagree with at the time?

 

[jknowgood]

No, President Obama doesn't hate this country. It is people like you that hate him and him being the President of the United States. What you despise is that you and your children and grandchildren, because you are a bigot, will see the Presidents all listed and it will bother you till the day you die that a black man was President.
That is the trouble.
Be honest with yourself and stop trying to lie and hide the fact.
Bigots are easy to spot.

But they nominated someone so your party should let it happen and learn to shut up then.
The party that screams about the strictness of the constitution but then they use it like a chinese menu. I only want one from column A then fucking forget the other ones.

So the people that vote a president can expect him to be the President for only 3 yrs, is that your contention. And these are the strict Constitutionalist.
The credibility of the teabaggers shows it self once again.

Oh come on! You are using semantics here. When was he nominated? That is the key question!

Here, I went an even got it from the NY Times for you, so that there would be no claim of some RW site giving false information. It was November 12th, 1987! Almost a full year before his term was up. Obama is up in a little over 8 months in case you weren't counting, and to let you know we are, lol.

REAGAN NOMINATES ANTHONY KENNEDY TO SUPREME COURT

That what the Democrats came up with in 2007 when Bush had 17 months left. Maybe your party should live by their own policies and shut up.

I'm fine on them voting on it, as long as it's a no. Because Obama hates this country, and he wouldn't nominate some that loves this country.

You do realize I've dated black women? You're an idiot.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So now, an open justice seat is not an open justice seat, is an open justice seat, only by the definition put forth by Democrats.

And, you can only fillibuster a nominee if the Justice is dead? Show me those rules, I have to study them.

As far as John Roberts..........that was 2005, loooooooong before the end of GWs term. The least you could attempt to do is keep apple to apples, and oranges to oranges.

Spin it like a Beanie and Cecil hat all you want, the precedent is there to stop the nomination until the next President is sworn in. I do not neither agree, nor disagree with the process of doing it. As far as I am concerned, this whole exercise is for political purposes. Neither side has firm ground on this one. It will be a battle of political will and talking points. BOTH entities better know what the hell they are doing though, before they engage in the debate!

Oh please... If a justice wants to retire, they can hold office for a short while until their successor is appointed. If a justice dies, that obviously creates a vacancy that needs to be filled ASAP.

Why is that? They can't make do with the justices they have?

Well, I suppose they can. They won't have a RW majority anymore to push through crap decisions or overturn lower court rulings. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing afterall.

You mean the same RW majority that permitted Obamunism?

Obamunism? WTF is that? Anything you happen to disagree with at the time?

Actually the act of forcing people to be involved with a government mandate.

 

[Borillar]

Oh please... If a justice wants to retire, they can hold office for a short while until their successor is appointed. If a justice dies, that obviously creates a vacancy that needs to be filled ASAP.

Why is that? They can't make do with the justices they have?

Well, I suppose they can. They won't have a RW majority anymore to push through crap decisions or overturn lower court rulings. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing afterall.

You mean the same RW majority that permitted Obamunism?

Obamunism? WTF is that? Anything you happen to disagree with at the time?

Actually the act of forcing people to be involved with a government mandate.

Like obeying laws and paying taxes?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Why is that? They can't make do with the justices they have?

Well, I suppose they can. They won't have a RW majority anymore to push through crap decisions or overturn lower court rulings. Maybe it isn't such a bad thing afterall.

You mean the same RW majority that permitted Obamunism?

Obamunism? WTF is that? Anything you happen to disagree with at the time?

Actually the act of forcing people to be involved with a government mandate.

Like obeying laws and paying taxes?

Obeying laws and paying taxes is part of our Constitution. Forcing people to buy something they may not want, need, or can afford is not.