Sorry my fellow conservatives, I side with the SCOTUS' decision.

[Seawytch]

Shocking that only the SCOTUS can go up against those that took the Norquist "no tax" pledge.

 

[Contumacious]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional..

Conservatives are as state supremacists as the liberals. NOTHING PREVENTED SCUMBAG ROBERTS from adopting previous supreme court precedent:

. A tax, in the general understanding of the term, and as used in the Constitution, signifies an exaction for the support of the government. The word has never been thought to connote the expropriation of money from one group for the benefit of another."


U.S. Supreme Court

U.S. v. BUTLER, 297 U.S. 1 (1936)

.

 

[WillowTree]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

No WE fuckikng didn't elect obama, you may have but WE didn't.

We the people of the United States of America

elected Barack Hussein Obama II

to the office of the Presidency of the United States of America


I personally did not vote for him, but I will this time around.

ewe aren't people ewe are asswipes.

 

[PredFan]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

well, I guess if you agree with judges re writing legislation to fit their ruling we'll go with that. shades of Kagen.

Are you saying that the judges re-wrote the bill? Can you show me proof of that?

 

[Katzndogz]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

That's pretty much what Roberts said. If you want to change the bill, elect a new president, congress and senate.

The most troubling thing about this ruling is the precendent it sets with an unlimited ability to force anyone into making purchases that they do not want to make. Using this case, there is simply nothing that the government cannot do. Americans are now basically slaves to the government. In exchange, just like slaves, our care has been entrusted to the masters.

 

[WillowTree]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

No WE fuckikng didn't elect obama, you may have but WE didn't.

WE as a country did. I think you know that.

(I voted for McCain)

NO! You as half a country did. the rest of us DID NOT

 

[PredFan]

NO! That's not correct.

Roberts had to rewrite the statute to call it a tax before allowing it.

He agreed with the oral arguments of the DOJ who, being very concerned that the Commerce Clause argument would be declared unconstitutional, emphatically stated to the court that the "mandate penalty" was a tax and therefore constitutional.

Nowhere in the bill itself was this mandate called anything but a penalty. The DOJ defined it as a tax.

Proof that he rewrote the bill?

 

[WillowTree]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

That's pretty much what Roberts said. If you want to change the bill, elect a new president, congress and senate.

The most troubling thing about this ruling is the precendent it sets with an unlimited ability to force anyone into making purchases that they do not want to make. Using this case, there is simply nothing that the government cannot do. Americans are now basically slaves to the government. In exchange, just like slaves, our care has been entrusted to the masters.

Half of us are slaves. We have to work for the 50% of the NON Paying leeches.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Would you have rathered that the SC allowed it under the commerce clause so the big O or Romney could next tell us to eat our veggies or some such?

Frankly, I think Roberts made the wise move. Because he set precedent that congress does not have the authority to apply mandates through inaction of commerce. true conservatives should settle for the tax because the law of the land is now that these fucking parasitic statists can not force us to participate in sectors of the economy. They have to sell their shitty little pet project as what it really is, a tax.

 

[PredFan]

The administration and the democrats denied it was a tax. They denied it vehemently. They said in no uncertain terms it was not a tax. The statute does not call it a tax.
Roberts had to rewrite the statute to call it a tax before allowing it.
That is no way to run a court.

It doesn't matter what those idiots call it. The question for the SCOTUS is only wether it's constitutional or not.

No, it matters a lot. If it's a tax then Congress maybe has that power. But the case could not have been brought.
If it's not a tax, then they have no power to implement such a thing.
The Dems swore it was not a tax. The legislation does not call it a tax. How can Roberts invent things in a bill and then pass judgment on it?

If it's a tax then it's a tax. It doesn't matter what the Dems called it. It doesn't matter what lies obama told about it, it is what it is.

If you don't buy health insurance, the government taxes (penalizes) you. They don't come to your house with guns and force you ro buy it. Therefor, it's a tax.

 

[WillowTree]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

well, I guess if you agree with judges re writing legislation to fit their ruling we'll go with that. shades of Kagen.

Are you saying that the judges re-wrote the bill? Can you show me proof of that?

The proof is in the pudding asswipe. The argument before the court was whether or not the law was constitutional under the commerce clause. He re-defined it as being constitutional under the TAX levying powers of the assine democrat idiots of the congress. so bend over

 

[asaratis]

Roberts is correct about one thing...it is not the SCOTUS responsibility to protect voters from the results of constitutional legislation passed by elected idiots.

We've got idiots in control of the White House and Congress. That is the fault of the voting public.

Things will change in November. We'll have another group of idiots in control.

 

[WillowTree]

Roberts is correct about one thing...it is not the SCOTUS responsibility to protect voters from the results of electing idiots.

We've got idiots in control of the White House and Congress. That is the fault of the voting public.

Things will change in November. We'll have another group of idiots in control.

no he's wrong, he's the result of us electing an idiot.

 

[Rozman]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

Sorry...

I will not understand how it was presented and argued by the administration as one thing.
Then the Supreme Court responds and votes 4 for and 4 against.
Then One Judge says it's unconstitutional as is but I tell you what.

Let me tweak this and do you guys a favor and look at this as a tax which you Obama said it was not....And I Roberts will slide this through for you buddy....

One person took it upon himself to fix this thing so he could get it through....

If you wanted this you didn't give a crap how it was handled in Congress.
If you wanted this you certainly don't give a crap how one person went about getting it done.

But you should be able to use a few brain cells and try to understand why some of us don't
like the way government is run under this administration....

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

It it was a tax, then the court should have rejected the case and said come back when the tax goes into effect, right?

You are both right. I'm on the fence but leaning that the right thing was done. I get the activist argument but I also understand that the lawyers for the feds did argue that it was a tax.

I'm not a lawyer so ultimately I end up confused on the outcome. Since I do not understand the validity of the decision I won't take sides but rather focus on ousting the liberals in DC so this can be repealed.

 

[PredFan]

They were right by saying it isn't Constitutional under the Commerce Clause, and they are right that it is a tax and therefor is constitutional.

Don't get me wrong, Obamacare is a BAD bill and will ruin the economy and healthcare, but the damage was done when we elected obama as POTUS and not when the justices correctly enterpreted the Constitution.

That's pretty much what Roberts said. If you want to change the bill, elect a new president, congress and senate.

The most troubling thing about this ruling is the precendent it sets with an unlimited ability to force anyone into making purchases that they do not want to make. Using this case, there is simply nothing that the government cannot do. Americans are now basically slaves to the government. In exchange, just like slaves, our care has been entrusted to the masters.

There are lots of things troubling about the bill and therefor the ruling. But the point you are making is one that existed long before obamacare. There are several rulings on property rights that fit your analogy as well. We have been potential slaves to the government for several decades now.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The administration and the democrats denied it was a tax. They denied it vehemently. They said in no uncertain terms it was not a tax. The statute does not call it a tax.
Roberts had to rewrite the statute to call it a tax before allowing it.
That is no way to run a court.

Obama's Solicitor General and others insisted they get to argue it as a tax. So bwahahaha!


How they argued it is a matter of legal strategy. No one lied.

So let's get this right, it's argued as a tax the supreme court ruled it was a tax, but it's not a tax? Are you insane,,,, never mine don't answer that You are insane.

 

[PredFan]

No WE fuckikng didn't elect obama, you may have but WE didn't.

WE as a country did. I think you know that.

(I voted for McCain)

NO! You as half a country did. the rest of us DID NOT

I won't argue this idiotic point with you. Have fun with it by yourself.

 

[konradv]

The administration and the democrats denied it was a tax. They denied it vehemently. They said in no uncertain terms it was not a tax. The statute does not call it a tax.
Roberts had to rewrite the statute to call it a tax before allowing it.
That is no way to run a court.

It doesn't matter what those idiots call it. The question for the SCOTUS is only wether it's constitutional or not.

No, it matters a lot. If it's a tax then Congress maybe has that power. But the case could not have been brought.
If it's not a tax, then they have no power to implement such a thing.
The Dems swore it was not a tax. The legislation does not call it a tax. How can Roberts invent things in a bill and then pass judgment on it?

His reasoning is out there. Why pretend you haven't heard? Disagree all you want, but don't pretend a reason wasn't given.

 

[Misty]

This s what happened in simple terms for the very dumb;