Rushcrappe_ "75% want to repeal O-Care- Court should take that into account...Jeebus

[NYcarbineer]

If public opinion is that much against Obamacare, then it shouldn't be any problem for Republicans to elect Romney, win the Senate, and then repeal it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The ones who should have listened to the people were the ones elected to represent them. But, that didn't happen. Actually, those who voted on Obamacare had a duty to read and understand the bill instead of just passing it and waiting to see what was in it later. Now we know, it's a piece of shit.

If congress passed an unconstitutional bill, which is the SC's only concern, then those who voted on it should be asked to resign. Voting blindly is stupid and we can't accept that any longer. We elect people to work hard for us, not phone it in.

If you're going to ask members of Congress to resign because they voted for a bill that was later found unconstitutional,

why wouldn't you ask the members of Congress to resign if they voted against bills that ARE constitutional?

 

[NYcarbineer]

According to Gallup in February, only 47% want it repealed.

That would mean most don't, or don't care.

 

[asaratis]

The ones who should have listened to the people were the ones elected to represent them. But, that didn't happen. Actually, those who voted on Obamacare had a duty to read and understand the bill instead of just passing it and waiting to see what was in it later. Now we know, it's a piece of shit.

If congress passed an unconstitutional bill, which is the SC's only concern, then those who voted on it should be asked to resign. Voting blindly is stupid and we can't accept that any longer. We elect people to work hard for us, not phone it in.

If you're going to ask members of Congress to resign because they voted for a bill that was later found unconstitutional,

why wouldn't you ask the members of Congress to resign if they voted against bills that ARE constitutional?

Both are unworkable. SCOTUS judges are supposed to understand completely what the Constitution says. They are supposed to decide whether a questionably constitutional bill is or isn't so. Congressmen can't be expected to have the equivalent knowledge of the Constitution that the SCOTUS judges have. Nor can they be expected to voluntarily govern their votes by it. I would guess that some have voted for things they know to be unconstitutional in hopes that they squeak by unnoticed. But then, there's that pesky old Supreme Court, the court that will ultimately decide the constitutionality of bills that are CHALLENGED IN COURT AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE TOP.

Thank God for the Supreme Court....and the Constitution.

 

[BlindBoo]

A)not that many..and they just don't approve.
B)30% want single payer...
Strangely, this is supposed to be about constitutionality...JFC! Curiouser and curiouser. Luckily, Kennedy is not a bought off shit like the four worst Supremes ever...

Rush: Pure Pubcrappe as ALWAYS. Pub dupes...

Another Rush follower

Yep

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h59mDlBSt7o]Rush - Working Man - YouTube[/ame]

Hahahaha

 

[kwc57]

The ones who should have listened to the people were the ones elected to represent them. But, that didn't happen. Actually, those who voted on Obamacare had a duty to read and understand the bill instead of just passing it and waiting to see what was in it later. Now we know, it's a piece of shit.

If congress passed an unconstitutional bill, which is the SC's only concern, then those who voted on it should be asked to resign. Voting blindly is stupid and we can't accept that any longer. We elect people to work hard for us, not phone it in.

If you're going to ask members of Congress to resign because they voted for a bill that was later found unconstitutional,

why wouldn't you ask the members of Congress to resign if they voted against bills that ARE constitutional?

Both are unworkable. SCOTUS judges are supposed to understand completely what the Constitution says. They are supposed to decide whether a questionably constitutional bill is or isn't so. Congressmen can't be expected to have the equivalent knowledge of the Constitution that the SCOTUS judges have. Nor can they be expected to voluntarily govern their votes by it. I would guess that some have voted for things they know to be unconstitutional in hopes that they squeak by unnoticed. But then, there's that pesky old Supreme Court, the court that will ultimately decide the constitutionality of bills that are CHALLENGED IN COURT AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE TOP.

Thank God for the Supreme Court....and the Constitution.

But, but, but.......it's a living document and it's meaning changes with time. That or it's just an old piece of paper. I can't remember which.

 

[BlindBoo]

The ones who should have listened to the people were the ones elected to represent them. But, that didn't happen. Actually, those who voted on Obamacare had a duty to read and understand the bill instead of just passing it and waiting to see what was in it later. Now we know, it's a piece of shit.

If congress passed an unconstitutional bill, which is the SC's only concern, then those who voted on it should be asked to resign. Voting blindly is stupid and we can't accept that any longer. We elect people to work hard for us, not phone it in.

If you're going to ask members of Congress to resign because they voted for a bill that was later found unconstitutional,

why wouldn't you ask the members of Congress to resign if they voted against bills that ARE constitutional?

Both are unworkable. SCOTUS judges are supposed to understand completely what the Constitution says. They are supposed to decide whether a questionably constitutional bill is or isn't so. Congressmen can't be expected to have the equivalent knowledge of the Constitution that the SCOTUS judges have. Nor can they be expected to voluntarily govern their votes by it. I would guess that some have voted for things they know to be unconstitutional in hopes that they squeak by unnoticed. But then, there's that pesky old Supreme Court, the court that will ultimately decide the constitutionality of bills that are CHALLENGED IN COURT AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE TOP.

Thank God for the Supreme Court....and the Constitution.

The mandate has been upheld by conservative appeals courts.

 

[whitehall]

A)not that many..and they just don't approve.
B)30% want single payer...
Strangely, this is supposed to be about constitutionality...JFC! Curiouser and curiouser. Luckily, Kennedy is not a bought off shit like the four worst Supremes ever...

Rush: Pure Pubcrappe as ALWAYS. Pub dupes...

What does it take to educate ignorant foreign posters and/or hate filled lefties? Rush doesn't have any power you dumb freakazoids. The president is trying to use the incredible power of his office to intimidate the Supreme Court and you ignorant dummies are worried about a voice on the radio.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The ones who should have listened to the people were the ones elected to represent them. But, that didn't happen. Actually, those who voted on Obamacare had a duty to read and understand the bill instead of just passing it and waiting to see what was in it later. Now we know, it's a piece of shit.

If congress passed an unconstitutional bill, which is the SC's only concern, then those who voted on it should be asked to resign. Voting blindly is stupid and we can't accept that any longer. We elect people to work hard for us, not phone it in.

If you're going to ask members of Congress to resign because they voted for a bill that was later found unconstitutional,

why wouldn't you ask the members of Congress to resign if they voted against bills that ARE constitutional?

Both are unworkable. SCOTUS judges are supposed to understand completely what the Constitution says. They are supposed to decide whether a questionably constitutional bill is or isn't so. Congressmen can't be expected to have the equivalent knowledge of the Constitution that the SCOTUS judges have. Nor can they be expected to voluntarily govern their votes by it. I would guess that some have voted for things they know to be unconstitutional in hopes that they squeak by unnoticed. But then, there's that pesky old Supreme Court, the court that will ultimately decide the constitutionality of bills that are CHALLENGED IN COURT AND MAKE THEIR WAY TO THE TOP.

Thank God for the Supreme Court....and the Constitution.

Then why don't we fire the 4 judges in the minority in a 5 - 4 decision? According to your logic,

they didn't understand what the Constitution said.