Senate GOP Will Use Reconciliation to Repeal Obamacare

[Listening]

wasn't that your first thread of the day - "Unconstitutional!"

well it turns out it isn't over afterall ...

Actually, they said it was on the grounds on which it was passed.

Roberts essentially rewrote the bill to allow it to pass.

The bill hasn't been changed at all.

And the sun rises in the west.

 

[GuyPinestra]

wasn't that your first thread of the day - "Unconstitutional!"

well it turns out it isn't over afterall ...

Actually, they said it was on the grounds on which it was passed.

Roberts essentially rewrote the bill to allow it to pass.

it was SniperFire that posted it was "Unconstitutional" to start a thread this morning ...

I don't think I read the thread, but it turns out Sniperfire was right. It helps when you actually read the decision. It seems that mandate, if enforced through the Commerce Clause, the way it was argued and passed, would be unconstitutional.

Roberts actually went 'out of his way', so to speak, to find it Constitutional as a tax. I believe he put the issue right where it needs to be, in a NEW Congress.

 

[swizzlee]

Bwah-hah-hah-hah-hah-hah!

ThinkProgress must be wildly desperate to come up with such a non-sensical article like that.

And you sucked it right up like a good little lemming

:-D

 

[francoHFW]

Proves to me that Pubs are against any reform, their cronies are making so much money. Same with immigration. They just stall and distract the dupes/haters/morons...Worst party and voters in the modern world. Easily.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Actually, they said it was on the grounds on which it was passed.

Roberts essentially rewrote the bill to allow it to pass.

The bill hasn't been changed at all.

And the sun rises in the west.

No matter how many times you repeat it, the wording of the bill has not changed.

The arguments the administration made for why the bill was constitutional were deemed incorrect, but it was found constitutional based on taxation. But nothing about the law itself has changed.

 

[Lakhota]

Wingnuts make their own rules. Laws are for the little people.

 

[Listening]

Proves to me that Pubs are against any reform, their cronies are making so much money. Same with immigration. They just stall and distract the dupes/haters/morons...Worst party and voters in the modern world. Easily.

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

 

[Listening]

Actually, they said it was on the grounds on which it was passed.

Roberts essentially rewrote the bill to allow it to pass.

it was SniperFire that posted it was "Unconstitutional" to start a thread this morning ...

I don't think I read the thread, but it turns out Sniperfire was right. It helps when you actually read the decision. It seems that mandate, if enforced through the Commerce Clause, the way it was argued and passed, would be unconstitutional.

Roberts actually went 'out of his way', so to speak, to find it Constitutional as a tax. I believe he put the issue right where it needs to be, in a NEW Congress.

Yes, the bill has changed...and the way to kill it has become apparent.

Now, we just need 51 senators who will actually vote to do it.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

it was SniperFire that posted it was "Unconstitutional" to start a thread this morning ...

I don't think I read the thread, but it turns out Sniperfire was right. It helps when you actually read the decision. It seems that mandate, if enforced through the Commerce Clause, the way it was argued and passed, would be unconstitutional.

Roberts actually went 'out of his way', so to speak, to find it Constitutional as a tax. I believe he put the issue right where it needs to be, in a NEW Congress.

Yes, the bill has changed...and the way to kill it has become apparent.

Now, we just need 51 senators who will actually vote to do it.

What do you think has changed about the law?

 

[BreezeWood]

Actually, they said it was on the grounds on which it was passed.

Roberts essentially rewrote the bill to allow it to pass.

it was SniperFire that posted it was "Unconstitutional" to start a thread this morning ...

I don't think I read the thread, but it turns out Sniperfire was right. It helps when you actually read the decision. It seems that mandate, if enforced through the Commerce Clause, the way it was argued and passed, would be unconstitutional.

Roberts actually went 'out of his way', so to speak, to find it Constitutional as a tax. I believe he put the issue right where it needs to be, in a NEW Congress.

it was the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli who argued the mandate could also be considered a tax during the oral arguments last March - and was congratulated by Obama today.

 

[Listening]

it was SniperFire that posted it was "Unconstitutional" to start a thread this morning ...

I don't think I read the thread, but it turns out Sniperfire was right. It helps when you actually read the decision. It seems that mandate, if enforced through the Commerce Clause, the way it was argued and passed, would be unconstitutional.

Roberts actually went 'out of his way', so to speak, to find it Constitutional as a tax. I believe he put the issue right where it needs to be, in a NEW Congress.

it was the Solicitor General Donald Verrilli who argued the mandate could also be considered a tax during the oral arguments last March - and was congratulated by Obama today.

That is so typical Obama.....he sold the thing as NOT being a tax. Then he sends forth his minion to do a 180 on his lies.

I hope Romney shoves this up Axelrods fat ass.

 

[Avatar4321]

Actually, they said it was on the grounds on which it was passed.

Roberts essentially rewrote the bill to allow it to pass.

it was SniperFire that posted it was "Unconstitutional" to start a thread this morning ...

I don't think I read the thread, but it turns out Sniperfire was right. It helps when you actually read the decision. It seems that mandate, if enforced through the Commerce Clause, the way it was argued and passed, would be unconstitutional.

Roberts actually went 'out of his way', so to speak, to find it Constitutional as a tax. I believe he put the issue right where it needs to be, in a NEW Congress.

While I don't disagree that this should be repealed by Congress. The decision was horrible. He did go out of his way to find it Constitutional as a tax. It completely contradicted his justification for why the anti-injunction act didn't apply.

Where does it end? What real limits does Congress have if all they can tax us for not doing things?

 

[Avatar4321]

I don't think I read the thread, but it turns out Sniperfire was right. It helps when you actually read the decision. It seems that mandate, if enforced through the Commerce Clause, the way it was argued and passed, would be unconstitutional.

Roberts actually went 'out of his way', so to speak, to find it Constitutional as a tax. I believe he put the issue right where it needs to be, in a NEW Congress.

Yes, the bill has changed...and the way to kill it has become apparent.

Now, we just need 51 senators who will actually vote to do it.

What do you think has changed about the law?

1) The Unconstitutional elements were eliminated from the bill
2) The mandate remains only because it is a tax.

While I disagree with Roberts in his determination that it's a tax, the rest of the opinion was absolutely brilliant in limiting the powers of the Federal government.

 

[Care4all]

nothing in the bill changed, Roberts did NOT rewrite the bill, period. He ruled on constitutionality of the bill's measures.

 

[Ragnar]

Yes, the bill has changed...and the way to kill it has become apparent.

Now, we just need 51 senators who will actually vote to do it.

What do you think has changed about the law?

1) The Unconstitutional elements were eliminated from the bill
2) The mandate remains only because it is a tax.

While I disagree with Roberts in his determination that it's a tax, the rest of the opinion was absolutely brilliant in limiting the powers of the Federal government.

Also of note:

Reading over the Roberts opinion, the opinion strikes me as quite conservative. The opinion starts from the premise that the federal government is a government of limited powers. The opinion goes on to reject the federal government’s power to regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. It then goes on to reject a broad reading of the Necessary and Proper Clause. The opinion also imposes new limits on the federal government’s ability to force the states to adopt federal programs, striking down the condition that Congress can withdraw all medicaid funding if a state refuses to go along with the medicaid expansion.

These sections of the opinion are all about about the need to narrow Congress’s power, and they impose new limits on federal power that have not been seen before. They nicely match what a lot of conservatives have been saying about the Affordable Care Act.

Ideally the whole ACA should have been thrown out. Still, some parts are less bad than others.

Edited to add link
http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/the-conservative-john-roberts/

 

[Lakhota]

Roberts is a genius! A true Conservative hero! Savior of America!

 

[Ragnar]

nothing in the bill changed, Roberts did NOT rewrite the bill, period. He ruled on constitutionality of the bill's measures.

Wrong. It's true the bill did not get a "rewrite" it is not unchanged.

SCOTUS Obamacare Decision: Live updates of the ruling and reaction from Washington.

UPDATE #4 10:16 a.m.: Still plenty of confusion out there, but it's looking increasingly like the ACA will stand. From SCOTUSblog: "The bottom line: the entire ACA is upheld, with the exception that the federal government's power to terminate states' Medicaid funds is narrowly read."

 

[Ragnar]

Same point as above, just from the NYT...

"The decision did significantly restrict one major portion of the law: the expansion of Medicaid, the government health insurance program for low-income and sick people. The ruling give states some flexibility not to expand their Medicaid programs, without paying the same financial penalties that the law called for."

The Electoral Map - Presidential Race Ratings and Swing States - Election 2012 - NYTimes.com

 

[Article 15]

This is funny. The same people who two years ago began shrieking even louder than they already were that ACA was being "shoved down our throats" when the idea that the Dems may pass it via reconciliation are now calling for it to be repealed via reconciliation.

 

[tjvh]

Telling the right’s desire to repeal the ACA, yet mention nothing as to what they’d replace it with.

How about rather than using my money to pay your medical bills, you replace it with yours.