Romney: I’d No Longer Nominate Judges Like John Roberts

[Stephanie]

More: Romney: No Judges Who Disagree With Me (VIDEO) | TPM2012

You are the most dishonest poster on this board with your idiot websites

Duh, there's a video for the mentally challenged...

I wouldn't touch your websites you link up to with a ten foot computer..
and the dishonest titles that come with them..You can't just post a video of what of he said, you have to scrape the bowels of the Internet to come up with shit..you only post for shit stirring and trolling

 

[Inthemiddle]

Oh, and get ready to lose your "private" health care insurance... because this law makes it impossible for "private" health care insurance to stay vialble.
It may take a few years, but get ready to lose it.

I disagree. This bill makes health insurance one of the most secure industries in the countries. Now that you're forced to have it, they're golden. Any issues with the requirements that they'll be required to provide for customers will be offset with the new price increases and decreased services they'll be able to gouge you with. We all are now at the ruthless mercy of the insurance companies. The health care law was crafted working hand in hand with the insurance company. It's an absolute travesty that the most significant "health care" reform our country has seen in more than two generations was supported by the insurance lobby, and opposed by the health care industry.

Health insurance isn't the solution to our problems, health insurance IS the problem.

 

[Dr Grump]

Another falsified headline.

Why are you not banned?

If that were a bannable offence, you would have left here long ago - involuteerily...

 

[Lakhota]

You are the most dishonest poster on this board with your idiot websites

Duh, there's a video for the mentally challenged...

I wouldn't touch your websites you link up to with a ten foot computer..
and the dishonest titles that come with them..You can't just post a video of what of he said, you have to scrape the bowels of the Internet to come up with shit..you only post for shit stirring and trolling

That's hilarious coming from a wingnut...

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“Well, I certainly wouldn’t nominate someone who I knew was gonna come out with a decision I violently disagreed with — or vehemently, rather, disagreed with,” Romney said. “And he reached a conclusion I think that was not accurate and not an appropriate conclusion. But that being said, he’s a very bright person and I’d look for individuals that have intelligence and believe in following the Constitution.”

What an idiotic statement. Romney clearly has no idea what he’s talking about.

And that he’d appoint justices to the High Court predicated on partisan politics is further evidence Romney has no business being president.

 

[Si modo]

More: Romney: No Judges Who Disagree With Me (VIDEO) | TPM2012

You are the most dishonest poster on this board with your idiot websites

Duh, there's a video for the mentally challenged...

No, once again it is clear that YOU did not listen to the video and just read a title from your idiotic site.

Your site is wrong and so are you. He did not say that.

But, then again, you are a moron, a liar, a racist, an anti-semite, and a bigot.

 

[Stephanie]

Duh, there's a video for the mentally challenged...

I wouldn't touch your websites you link up to with a ten foot computer..
and the dishonest titles that come with them..You can't just post a video of what of he said, you have to scrape the bowels of the Internet to come up with shit..you only post for shit stirring and trolling

That's hilarious coming from a wingnut...

what's hilarious is you think people care about your schizophrenic postings

 

[jillian]

By Sahil Kapur

Mitt Romney suggested in a Wednesday interview he would no longer nominate a judge like John Roberts, now that the U.S. chief justice has cast the deciding vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

On his campaign website, Romney states that as president he “will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” But apparently Roberts no longer makes the cut.

CBS reporter Jan Crawford asked the Republican nominee if he’d still nominate a justice like the Bush-appointed Roberts, knowing what he knows now.

“Well, I certainly wouldn’t nominate someone who I knew was gonna come out with a decision I violently disagreed with — or vehemently, rather, disagreed with,” Romney said. “And he reached a conclusion I think that was not accurate and not an appropriate conclusion. But that being said, he’s a very bright person and I’d look for individuals that have intelligence and believe in following the Constitution.”​

More: Romney: No Judges Who Disagree With Me (VIDEO) | TPM2012

so he would make sure he didn't nominate someone with the integrity to do the right thing even if it goes against his political grain?

exactly why i'd never vote for romney.

 

[Big Fitz]

One of the funniest things about wingnuts is that rulings are not Constitutional - when they disagree with them.

<cough> Citizens United</cough>

 

[Si modo]

By Sahil Kapur

Mitt Romney suggested in a Wednesday interview he would no longer nominate a judge like John Roberts, now that the U.S. chief justice has cast the deciding vote to uphold the Affordable Care Act.

On his campaign website, Romney states that as president he “will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.” But apparently Roberts no longer makes the cut.

CBS reporter Jan Crawford asked the Republican nominee if he’d still nominate a justice like the Bush-appointed Roberts, knowing what he knows now.

“Well, I certainly wouldn’t nominate someone who I knew was gonna come out with a decision I violently disagreed with — or vehemently, rather, disagreed with,” Romney said. “And he reached a conclusion I think that was not accurate and not an appropriate conclusion. But that being said, he’s a very bright person and I’d look for individuals that have intelligence and believe in following the Constitution.”​

More: Romney: No Judges Who Disagree With Me (VIDEO) | TPM2012

so he would make sure he didn't nominate someone with the integrity to do the right thing even if it goes against his political grain?

exactly why i'd never vote for romney.

Ummm, Jillian? Romney didn't say what the OP says he said.

 

[Oddball]

Ummm, Jillian? Romney didn't say what the OP says he said.

The hell you say?

Chief Kooky Horse started a thread on a disingenuous pretext?!?!?!?

Well, if that don't bet all!

 

[Si modo]

Ummm, Jillian? Romney didn't say what the OP says he said.

The hell you say?

Chief Kooky Horse started a thread on a disingenuous pretext?!?!?!?

Well, if that don't bet all!

A shocker, I tell ya.

 

[Stephanie]

Ummm, Jillian? Romney didn't say what the OP says he said.

The hell you say?

Chief Kooky Horse started a thread on a disingenuous pretext?!?!?!?

Well, if that don't bet all!

Chief Kooky horse...

 

[tererun]

Get a clue dip-shit (Black_Label...Lakota)

Roberts had to change the law to make it constitutional.

Yet you wanna argue it's original wording.


But this is what happens when we pick judges and not liberal activists. Sometimes we lose.

So you are claiming that the court changed the law? That would be incorrect. The court did not change any of the law, and it is still written as it was passed. try again junior.

 

[Contumacious]

One of the funniest things about wingnuts is that rulings are not Constitutional - when they disagree with them.

One of the funniest things about fascists is that rulings are Constitutional - when they conform to the Communist Manifesto.

.

 

[Contumacious]

I don't know how President bush could have appointed someone more right wing leaning that Roberts?

The problem is that the conservative - liberal dichotomy is false.

The fact that a conservative can switch on command means that "conservatism" is an unprincipled dogma.

Conservatism does not mean that they will support the Constitution, which is substantially a Libertarian document.

Furthermore, unprincipled individuals are influenced by the media, expediency....ad nauseam

The Constitution and individual liberty are typically irrelevant .

.

 

[Zoom-boing]

The penalty-tax would not be paid by everyone, but only by those who refuse to buy insurance - approximately 2 percent of all people.

Romney’s Big Tax Bluff: Why It Will Haunt Him

The penalty tax won't be enforced. Other than keeping whatever 'penalty' you may owe from any tax refund you may get, they can't do squat. No jail, no seizing of property, no knockin' on your door. So the estimated $54B over 8 years (according to the the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation Obamacare: Tax Or Penalty? Call It What You Want, But IRS Won't Be Able To Collect It - Forbes) they counted on collecting that would go towards costs reduction? Ain't never gonna happen. Ooops. Since they can't enforce the tax healthy people who choose not to get insurance will just wait until they need it to buy it. What's that? ... they need those healthy people's money to pay for those high risk, pre-existing condition folks? No worries, they'll just skyrocket everyone else's premiums.

It's. A. Clusterfuck. Of. A. Law.

Oh, and get ready to lose your "private" health care insurance... because this law makes it impossible for "private" health care insurance to stay vialble.
It may take a few years, but get ready to lose it.

I disagree. This bill makes health insurance one of the most secure industries in the countries. Now that you're forced to have it, they're golden. Any issues with the requirements that they'll be required to provide for customers will be offset with the new price increases and decreased services they'll be able to gouge you with. We all are now at the ruthless mercy of the insurance companies. The health care law was crafted working hand in hand with the insurance company. It's an absolute travesty that the most significant "health care" reform our country has seen in more than two generations was supported by the insurance lobby, and opposed by the health care industry.

Health insurance isn't the solution to our problems, health insurance IS the problem.

 

[Contumacious]

The penalty tax won't be enforced. Other than keeping whatever 'penalty' you may owe from any tax refund you may get, they can't do squat. No jail, no seizing of property, no knockin' on your door. So the estimated $54B over 8 years (according to the the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation

You are correct de jure. Incorrect de facto.

I strongly recommend that you read our nations' jurisprudence history.

If a scumbag federal judge decides to re-write the law in 25 or 50 years he will be allowed to do so.

Case in point:

The Harrison Narcotic Act of was enacted in order to tax narcotics. Scumbags federal judges have treated the act as if it was a criminal statute and have included cocaine as if it was a narcotic.

"Those who cannot remember the past are ....

.

 

[JamesMorrison]

I disagree. This bill makes health insurance one of the most secure industries in the countries. Now that you're forced to have it, they're golden. Any issues with the requirements that they'll be required to provide for customers will be offset with the new price increases and decreased services they'll be able to gouge you with. We all are now at the ruthless mercy of the insurance companies. The health care law was crafted working hand in hand with the insurance company. It's an absolute travesty that the most significant "health care" reform our country has seen in more than two generations was supported by the insurance lobby, and opposed by the health care industry.

Actually, this bill was designed to eventually devolve the health care system into a single payer (i.e. National healthcare or socialized medicine). The insurance companies, along with many doctors and the drug companies will be subjected to the same treatment meted out to the Catholic Church after their support of Obamacare and they also will find themselves looking at the un-shiny side of the bus.

From the temporary Sebelius 'waivers' and the known fact that many employers have already stated that they WILL be dropping the private insurance plans presently covering their employees (it’s cheaper to just pay the damn fine/tax) it's clear where this is headed. After all, for those who still purchase health insurance (some will just pay the damn fine/tax ) where will they go for that insurance? It's off to the government insurance exchanges for them, you see. So, they will now go into the government's health care system. Soon, because of decreasing enrollment and after increasing mandated coverage (why not 30 year olds on Mom's plan, or 40 year olds for that matter?) private insurance companies will simply be unprofitable and not offer health insurance at all (the government is already mandating low profit margins, what's to stop them from lowering them further?). The same fate will befall the drug companies and the doctors who will have to be happy with what the government decides to pay. Drug companies will be less profitable and almost certainly less innovative. Doctors (both present and future) will increasingly decide that the U.S.S.R. style pay/system is not worth the trouble (recent poll states 45% of doctors say they plan to retire if Obamacare is implemented 45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul - Investors.com ). Shortages will result which will result in rationing which will result in...and so it will go.

Obamacare is simply another statist/leftist grab for power. What else could be the reason? After all, haven’t we already seen this movie before in the U.S.S.R./Russia, Canada, and the UK?

JM

 

[Sarah G]

Obamacare isn't increasing my taxes. How about yours? Why...?

Because it was designed with parasites like you in mind.

Will Obamacare increase your taxes? If so, why?

Only if he doesn't buy insurance.