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

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

I completely disagree with you but you post is intelligent and well reasoned - unusual qualities here. (hence the thanks)

I think ObamaCare IS UnConstitutional and also very crappy.
But I'm not a USSC judge so darn.
I don't see ObamaCare causing the ruination of the economy, the country, puppies and so on. I just see it as not solving any of the problems HCR was supposed to address i.e. affordibility, coverage and unethical practices by insurance companies.
Premiums have gone and and will continue to do so. Coverages have gone down. Insurance companies are still in control of the whole system. Nothing solved.

nothing was supposed to be solved. It's a change from the old. An attempt to mange the system that was and is falling apart.

Not having the ACA in practice, it is silly and pretentious to say you know HOW it will all work out.

but then again, you're a much overrated independent thinker.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Wrong.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Commerce Clause.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I don't even care if it is a tax, they were absolutely wrong to re-write the "law" to re-label what Congress itself studiously refused to do. THOSE jackoffs called it a penalty, and the activist CJ has no business "interpreting" their clear words when there never was any ambiguity in what they meant.

PLUS if it is a tax then it should be a tax for ALL purposes, not just for some. And if a tax for ALL purposes, then it is a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law which would mean that the case is not even yet justiciable.

AND if it's a tax, then it's a tax that requires apportionment. It has no apportionment and thus violates the Constitution. It should have been voided on that basis, too.

The Justices didn't just misinterpret the Constitution, they pretended that anything required interpretation in order to justify a fucked up decision to keep that stupid law alive.

A very bad ruling. Completely indefensible. Shameful in fact.

Hmmm...you are a lawyer, I am not. Therefor I will put great weight on what you say. Let's see if someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued next on behalf of the federal government – and that’s when the fireworks began.* Verrilli began laying out the government’s legalistic position that the ACA penalty is a “tax” for purposes of Congressional power, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, when Justice Alito cut him off.* “General Verrilli,” he said, “today you’re arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you’re going to be back and you’ll be arguing that the penalty is a tax.”* Amid laughter in the courtroom, Alito asked:* “Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”* Verrilli said no.
Day One: Has All This Fuss Been For Nothing? « AHA Supreme Court Update

and the Chief Justice responded:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

gawd, you people are stuck on stupid.

 

[PredFan]

Wrong.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Commerce Clause.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I don't even care if it is a tax, they were absolutely wrong to re-write the "law" to re-label what Congress itself studiously refused to do. THOSE jackoffs called it a penalty, and the activist CJ has no business "interpreting" their clear words when there never was any ambiguity in what they meant.

PLUS if it is a tax then it should be a tax for ALL purposes, not just for some. And if a tax for ALL purposes, then it is a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law which would mean that the case is not even yet justiciable.

AND if it's a tax, then it's a tax that requires apportionment. It has no apportionment and thus violates the Constitution. It should have been voided on that basis, too.

The Justices didn't just misinterpret the Constitution, they pretended that anything required interpretation in order to justify a fucked up decision to keep that stupid law alive.

A very bad ruling. Completely indefensible. Shameful in fact.

No one rewrote the law.


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama Admin argued mandate must be viewed as a tax...

"we know the administration thinks the mandate is justifiable as a tax, because that's exactly what they argued to the Supreme Court, as well as all the lower courts that heard the case. "

Obama Administration Argues to Supreme Court that ObamaCare's Mandate Is a Tax, Tells Reporters That It's Not a Tax - Hit & Run : Reason.com

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf


poor liabilty, throwing around talking points and spin in place of factually based arguments

Dainty, you derp, you should consider giving honesty a chance someday. I guess today is still not the day for you.

I don't give a flying fuck that the Administration made ONE of it's contradictory arguments on the ground that it is a tax and thus a valid Congressional Act under the taxing authority. The Administration has no right to re-write what Congress itself wrote any more than the dishonest SCOTUS majority had that "right."

CONGRESS, not the Court and not the Executive Branch, writes the laws. And CONGRESS made a VERY studious decision to call it a PENALTY. A prior version HAD called it a tax, but they retracted that shit to get the bogus bill through the Congress. The ADMINISTRATION certainly insisted that it was not a tax at that point, too.

If calling it a "tax" NOW wasn't absolutely necessary to keep it alive, the Administration would be feigning OUTWAGE over the temerity of anybody calling it a tax, in fact. Because untrue (as always) to his word, the President just foisted off on America one of the most massive tax increases of all time if this is a tax.

You'd suck Roberts' nads to justify his intellectually and judicially dishonest opinion, Dainty.

You aren't honestly analyzing this. You are just being a liberally partisan hack.

TO address the Constitutionality of the Act, the question is first: what did Congress itself SAY and intend? They SAID it was a penalty -- not a tax -- and they intended that to have meaning to AVOID having it labeled as a tax.

There is not one scrap of the legal analysis by the CJ and the majority in that regard that is not fully disingenuous.

Ok, forgive this layman's ignorance but let me see if I get this straight.

The Congress called it a penalty, and the executive branch had no right to change it to a tax when they brought it up before the court right?

But, since it was brought up before the court as a tax, is it not therefor Constitutional? Is it within the SCOTUS's authority to strike down the law because it was re-written after Congress approved it?

 

[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.

I completely disagree with you but you post is intelligent and well reasoned - unusual qualities here. (hence the thanks)

I think ObamaCare IS UnConstitutional and also very crappy.
But I'm not a USSC judge so darn.
I don't see ObamaCare causing the ruination of the economy, the country, puppies and so on. I just see it as not solving any of the problems HCR was supposed to address i.e. affordibility, coverage and unethical practices by insurance companies.
Premiums have gone and and will continue to do so. Coverages have gone down. Insurance companies are still in control of the whole system. Nothing solved.

nothing was supposed to be solved. It's a change from the old. An attempt to mange the system that was and is falling apart.

Not having the ACA in practice, it is silly and pretentious to say you know HOW it will all work out.

but then again, you're a much overrated independent thinker.

That's quite a typo there!

 

[Liability]

No one rewrote the law.


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama Admin argued mandate must be viewed as a tax...

"we know the administration thinks the mandate is justifiable as a tax, because that's exactly what they argued to the Supreme Court, as well as all the lower courts that heard the case. "

Obama Administration Argues to Supreme Court that ObamaCare's Mandate Is a Tax, Tells Reporters That It's Not a Tax - Hit & Run : Reason.com

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf


poor liabilty, throwing around talking points and spin in place of factually based arguments

Dainty, you derp, you should consider giving honesty a chance someday. I guess today is still not the day for you.

I don't give a flying fuck that the Administration made ONE of it's contradictory arguments on the ground that it is a tax and thus a valid Congressional Act under the taxing authority. The Administration has no right to re-write what Congress itself wrote any more than the dishonest SCOTUS majority had that "right."

CONGRESS, not the Court and not the Executive Branch, writes the laws. And CONGRESS made a VERY studious decision to call it a PENALTY. A prior version HAD called it a tax, but they retracted that shit to get the bogus bill through the Congress. The ADMINISTRATION certainly insisted that it was not a tax at that point, too.

If calling it a "tax" NOW wasn't absolutely necessary to keep it alive, the Administration would be feigning OUTWAGE over the temerity of anybody calling it a tax, in fact. Because untrue (as always) to his word, the President just foisted off on America one of the most massive tax increases of all time if this is a tax.

You'd suck Roberts' nads to justify his intellectually and judicially dishonest opinion, Dainty.

You aren't honestly analyzing this. You are just being a liberally partisan hack.

TO address the Constitutionality o the Act, the question is first: what did Congress itself SAY and intend? They SAID it was a penalty -- not a tax -- and they intended that to have meaning to AVOID having it labeled as a tax.

There is not one scrap of the legal analysis by the CJ and the majority in that regard that is not fully disingenuous.

why do you keep making things up?

I thought Obama wrote the law and Congress passed it? Isn't that why you people labelled it Obamacare, and not Pelosicare?

Witness how fully disingenuous Dainty is.

I don't give a fuck who authored that monstrosity. We KNOW that the President had a hand in it and was the champion of it.

But despite the latest Dainty dishonest quibble (the poor pussy cannot man up long enough to just talk straight): it is still a fact that CONGRESS writes the laws. In the House and in the Senate, the President of the United States does not have a vote.

Congress labored over it. A PRIOR version DID call the penalty a tax. They CHANGED that for a reason. So when they MADE THE DECISION to call it a penalty, that wasn't some confusion or inattention to detail. It was the product of the Legislative choice.

So WHO THE FUCK gives the CJ and the majority of the SCOTUS in the JUDICIAL Branch the right to REDRAFT a law already passed by Congress and signed by the President?

The correct answer is NOBODY AND NO THING. But CJ Roberts and the liberal Justices did it anyway. Fuck their oaths. Just words. Just words.

They have no more honesty than Dainty.

 

[R.D.]

Hmmm...you are a lawyer, I am not. Therefor I will put great weight on what you say. Let's see if someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint.

U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli argued next on behalf of the federal government – and that’s when the fireworks began.* Verrilli began laying out the government’s legalistic position that the ACA penalty is a “tax” for purposes of Congressional power, but not for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, when Justice Alito cut him off.* “General Verrilli,” he said, “today you’re arguing that the penalty is not a tax. Tomorrow you’re going to be back and you’ll be arguing that the penalty is a tax.”* Amid laughter in the courtroom, Alito asked:* “Has the Court ever held that something that is a tax for purposes of the taxing power under the Constitution is not a tax under the Anti-Injunction Act?”* Verrilli said no.
Day One: Has All This Fuss Been For Nothing? « AHA Supreme Court Update

and the Chief Justice responded:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf

gawd, you people are stuck on stupid.

egit

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

No one rewrote the law.


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama Admin argued mandate must be viewed as a tax...

"we know the administration thinks the mandate is justifiable as a tax, because that's exactly what they argued to the Supreme Court, as well as all the lower courts that heard the case. "

Obama Administration Argues to Supreme Court that ObamaCare's Mandate Is a Tax, Tells Reporters That It's Not a Tax - Hit & Run : Reason.com

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf


poor liabilty, throwing around talking points and spin in place of factually based arguments

Dainty, you derp, you should consider giving honesty a chance someday. I guess today is still not the day for you.

I don't give a flying fuck that the Administration made ONE of it's contradictory arguments on the ground that it is a tax and thus a valid Congressional Act under the taxing authority. The Administration has no right to re-write what Congress itself wrote any more than the dishonest SCOTUS majority had that "right."

CONGRESS, not the Court and not the Executive Branch, writes the laws. And CONGRESS made a VERY studious decision to call it a PENALTY. A prior version HAD called it a tax, but they retracted that shit to get the bogus bill through the Congress. The ADMINISTRATION certainly insisted that it was not a tax at that point, too.

If calling it a "tax" NOW wasn't absolutely necessary to keep it alive, the Administration would be feigning OUTWAGE over the temerity of anybody calling it a tax, in fact. Because untrue (as always) to his word, the President just foisted off on America one of the most massive tax increases of all time if this is a tax.

You'd suck Roberts' nads to justify his intellectually and judicially dishonest opinion, Dainty.

You aren't honestly analyzing this. You are just being a liberally partisan hack.

TO address the Constitutionality of the Act, the question is first: what did Congress itself SAY and intend? They SAID it was a penalty -- not a tax -- and they intended that to have meaning to AVOID having it labeled as a tax.

There is not one scrap of the legal analysis by the CJ and the majority in that regard that is not fully disingenuous.

Ok, forgive this layman's ignorance but let me see if I get this straight.

The Congress called it a penalty, and the executive branch had no right to change it to a tax when they brought it up before the court right?

But, since it was brought up before the court as a tax, is it not therefor Constitutional? Is it within the SCOTUS's authority to strike down the law because it was re-written after Congress approved it?

The law was NOT rewritten. Proof? Look at the law. Nothing has changed. Not one word, one sentence, one paragraph.

Arguments were made. Arguments were made under what powers the Executive could enforce the law.

RICO laws are used in ways they were never intended to. need we go down this specious and silly road?

liability is not as smart as he is self-confessed-smart

 

[PredFan]

Dainty, you derp, you should consider giving honesty a chance someday. I guess today is still not the day for you.

I don't give a flying fuck that the Administration made ONE of it's contradictory arguments on the ground that it is a tax and thus a valid Congressional Act under the taxing authority. The Administration has no right to re-write what Congress itself wrote any more than the dishonest SCOTUS majority had that "right."

CONGRESS, not the Court and not the Executive Branch, writes the laws. And CONGRESS made a VERY studious decision to call it a PENALTY. A prior version HAD called it a tax, but they retracted that shit to get the bogus bill through the Congress. The ADMINISTRATION certainly insisted that it was not a tax at that point, too.

If calling it a "tax" NOW wasn't absolutely necessary to keep it alive, the Administration would be feigning OUTWAGE over the temerity of anybody calling it a tax, in fact. Because untrue (as always) to his word, the President just foisted off on America one of the most massive tax increases of all time if this is a tax.

You'd suck Roberts' nads to justify his intellectually and judicially dishonest opinion, Dainty.

You aren't honestly analyzing this. You are just being a liberally partisan hack.

TO address the Constitutionality of the Act, the question is first: what did Congress itself SAY and intend? They SAID it was a penalty -- not a tax -- and they intended that to have meaning to AVOID having it labeled as a tax.

There is not one scrap of the legal analysis by the CJ and the majority in that regard that is not fully disingenuous.

Ok, forgive this layman's ignorance but let me see if I get this straight.

The Congress called it a penalty, and the executive branch had no right to change it to a tax when they brought it up before the court right?

But, since it was brought up before the court as a tax, is it not therefor Constitutional? Is it within the SCOTUS's authority to strike down the law because it was re-written after Congress approved it?

The law was NOT rewritten. Proof? Look at the law. Nothing has changed. Not one word, one sentence, one paragraph.

Arguments were made. Arguments were made under what powers the Executive could enforce the law.

RICO laws are used in ways they were never intended to. need we go down this specious and silly road?

liability is not as smart as he is self-confessed-smart

I don't have proof that it was re-written, I'm not claiming it was. I'm asking for clarification from Liability who said it was.

 

[Dr.Drock]

ok then, sit on the couch , eat chitlins, smoke, get sick. We'll take care of the bill.

.

I'd give Dante a break, he's obviously paid to promote anything and everything Obama.

There's no way he's this this much of a parrot without getting something for it.

unlike you, some of us admit we have no lives.




you take yourself waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously.

Oh noooooooo I got negged by Dante!!!

Son I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt for being a drone who never has an original thought or an opinion of his own. If i got paid enough I'd get on here and act like a hyperpartisan idiot myself.

But if you truly get on here for hours a day and basically give us a summary of why you can't wait for the day that you and Obama get to perform your rendition of 2 girls and a cup without getting paid, then by all means my pity is extended to you.

 

[theunbubba]

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.

I concur:
Chief Justice Roberts in Liliput.

I was stunned by the Supreme court ruling like everybody else.
But then I read it.

Chief Justice John Roberts is no less a genius than the founders in his ruling and opinion.

First he made plain the restrictions on the commerce clause.
Then he made plain the limits of the Necessary and proper clause.
He did this with the mindful intent of creating stare decisis in this case and referring to previous case law.
And he used the liberal members of the court to do it, tying their hands in future cases, as surely as if he'd become a hypnotist.

Chief Justice Roberts has also made it plain, that a new case may be brought in the future, when the tax takes effect. This is the open door he left himself to return to the law, should congress fail to act.

Chief Justice Roberts has also taken a slap at President Obama saying that, in the Opinion of the Court, the law is deeply flawed. Now you have to run on it.
I and he remember the slap Obama took at the Court in the State of the Union Adress. This is his redress of that greivance.

He has also taken a swing at all of the people who have decried an activist court. Saying that he finds the law constitutional mindful of the intent of congress' majority in passing the law.
This reminds me of all of the outcry after the Kelo decision, the use of the Court in the campaign finance Law by Republicans and Democrats to passs an unconstitutional law that the court was INTENDED to knock down so the congress and President Bush could hide behind the Court for political expedience.
It reminds me of the outcry after this most recent decision over the Arizona immigration law.

First you want the court to refrain and then you want the court to intervene and you then use them for political expedience.

Chief Justice Roberts has slapped you in the face for this and made the liberals and conservatives on the court look like a bunch of Liliputians.
Especially the liberals. He got you to sign this opinion.

I'm sure he's somewhere having a good laugh at the pundits expense.

I know I am........

Speak truth to liberals: Chief Justice Roberts in Liliput.

 

[Liability]

No one rewrote the law.


"In pressing it's taxing power argument..." for the clueless... the Chief Justice is using one of the government's arguments before the Court.

Obama Admin argued mandate must be viewed as a tax...

"we know the administration thinks the mandate is justifiable as a tax, because that's exactly what they argued to the Supreme Court, as well as all the lower courts that heard the case. "

Obama Administration Argues to Supreme Court that ObamaCare's Mandate Is a Tax, Tells Reporters That It's Not a Tax - Hit & Run : Reason.com

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-393c3a2.pdf


poor liabilty, throwing around talking points and spin in place of factually based arguments

Dainty, you derp, you should consider giving honesty a chance someday. I guess today is still not the day for you.

I don't give a flying fuck that the Administration made ONE of it's contradictory arguments on the ground that it is a tax and thus a valid Congressional Act under the taxing authority. The Administration has no right to re-write what Congress itself wrote any more than the dishonest SCOTUS majority had that "right."

CONGRESS, not the Court and not the Executive Branch, writes the laws. And CONGRESS made a VERY studious decision to call it a PENALTY. A prior version HAD called it a tax, but they retracted that shit to get the bogus bill through the Congress. The ADMINISTRATION certainly insisted that it was not a tax at that point, too.

If calling it a "tax" NOW wasn't absolutely necessary to keep it alive, the Administration would be feigning OUTWAGE over the temerity of anybody calling it a tax, in fact. Because untrue (as always) to his word, the President just foisted off on America one of the most massive tax increases of all time if this is a tax.

You'd suck Roberts' nads to justify his intellectually and judicially dishonest opinion, Dainty.

You aren't honestly analyzing this. You are just being a liberally partisan hack.

TO address the Constitutionality of the Act, the question is first: what did Congress itself SAY and intend? They SAID it was a penalty -- not a tax -- and they intended that to have meaning to AVOID having it labeled as a tax.

There is not one scrap of the legal analysis by the CJ and the majority in that regard that is not fully disingenuous.

Ok, forgive this layman's ignorance but let me see if I get this straight.

The Congress called it a penalty, and the executive branch had no right to change it to a tax when they brought it up before the court right?

But, since it was brought up before the court as a tax, is it not therefor Constitutional? Is it within the SCOTUS's authority to strike down the law because it was re-written after Congress approved it?

The intent of congress -- not to mention their plain and unambiguous choice of words -- tells the tale. Not the spin the President puts on it in a legal brief. And not the wishful thinking of the Judicial branch.

It was NOT brought up before SCOTUS as a tax. IN FACT, every time the Solicitor General tried to make that argument at oral arguments, certain "Justices" kept "correcting" him and publicly chastising him. It was a real hoot at the time. But, you do have a bit of a point. The Solicitor general may have been more on the mark than people perceived at the time. The PROBLEM is: who gives the Executive Branch the authority to re-label what Congress wrote? I didn't vote for the Solicitor General to be a Congressman or Senator. In fact, nobody did. He's NOT a legislator, and neither is his boss, the President of the United States.

The LAW was never re-written after it finally passed. AS written -- not by mistake, but by deliberative CHOICE -- the mandate was a PENALTY, not a "tax."

NOW we get to CJ Roberts. HE saw through that. (And I don't deny that he saw through it fairly well. THEY called it a "penalty" but maybe it really and in all honesty IS a "tax.")

So, ok. He calls the penalty a "tax" for purposes of justifying the existence of the law. I don't see how the Judicial Branch has the Constitutional right to DO that, but let's pretend. Anyway, he did it. Now what?

It's a tax for purposes of making it Constitutional under the taxing authority granted under the Constitution. BUT, it's NOT a tax for purposes of apportionment? Come again? I say WHAT?

AND it's not a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law that would have prohibited any court from adjudicating the case UNTIL someone had actually BEEN taxed (paid the tax) under the law -- which has not happened yet and could not have happened yet.

What is this? Judicial analysis based on Through the Looking Glass? Fisrt, go down the Rabbit Hole, Make a left at reality. Call a penalty a tax even though the ones who had the authority (the actual authority) to make such a determination chose not to. Then say a tax is a tax for this purpose but a tax is not a tax for other purposes even if THE tax is the SAME tax in the SAME Law.

This decision is bogus and dishonest. And we have not yet begun to grasp the damage this will do in the future.

All talking point bullshit to the side, if Congress may impose this kind of otherwise prohibited obligation on the People based on the authority to impose taxes, then what is it they are not permitted to do in the name of their taxing authority? What is left of enumerated powers? What "limits" on the scope of Federal authority now actually can be said to exist under the Constitution?

This side of Dred Scott, this has to be one of the most monumentally horrendous decisions ever rendered by the SCOTUS. And to my horror, it was authored by an alleged "conservative." But, sad to say, in reality, he was flying a false flag. He is a disgrace.

 

[IndependntLogic]

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.

I completely disagree with you but you post is intelligent and well reasoned - unusual qualities here. (hence the thanks)

I think ObamaCare IS UnConstitutional and also very crappy.
But I'm not a USSC judge so darn.
I don't see ObamaCare causing the ruination of the economy, the country, puppies and so on. I just see it as not solving any of the problems HCR was supposed to address i.e. affordibility, coverage and unethical practices by insurance companies.
Premiums have gone and and will continue to do so. Coverages have gone down. Insurance companies are still in control of the whole system. Nothing solved.

nothing was supposed to be solved. It's a change from the old. An attempt to mange the system that was and is falling apart.

Not having the ACA in practice, it is silly and pretentious to say you know HOW it will all work out.

but then again, you're a much overrated independent thinker.

So you're saying that Obama and the Dems, spent the first 9 months of their admin, during a severe financial crisis, to come up with something that wasn't supposed to solve any of the problems in our health care system?!?!?
Well then according to you, the FACT is they wasted their time to accomplish nothing!

I'm not saying I know "how it will all work out", I'm simply stating facts.
Fact: Premiums have gone up.
Fact: Deductibles have risen from an average of $2500 annually to over $7000 annually. Concurrently, co-pays have increased and the percentage of services covered has on average, decreased.
Fact: Insurance companies remain the primary cource for access to health care.

Which of the above facts would you dispute?

So while you may consider me over-rated (didn't even know I HAD a rating!) as an independent thinker, at least I am thinking.
You on the other hand, have offered nothing in the way of counter beyond a childish rant that equates to "Gee I don't like what you wrote!"

Care to address the Facts? Or is that something you don't do?

 

[Liability]

Wrong.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Commerce Clause.

They were RIGHT to say it isn't valid predicated on the Necessary and Proper Clause.

I don't even care if it is a tax, they were absolutely wrong to re-write the "law" to re-label what Congress itself studiously refused to do. THOSE jackoffs called it a penalty, and the activist CJ has no business "interpreting" their clear words when there never was any ambiguity in what they meant.

PLUS if it is a tax then it should be a tax for ALL purposes, not just for some. And if a tax for ALL purposes, then it is a tax for purposes of the anti-injunction law which would mean that the case is not even yet justiciable.

AND if it's a tax, then it's a tax that requires apportionment. It has no apportionment and thus violates the Constitution. It should have been voided on that basis, too.

The Justices didn't just misinterpret the Constitution, they pretended that anything required interpretation in order to justify a fucked up decision to keep that stupid law alive.

A very bad ruling. Completely indefensible. Shameful in fact.

Hmmm...you are a lawyer, I am not. Therefor I will put great weight on what you say. Let's see if someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint.

Far smarter and successful lawyers argued ACA/Obamacare was unConstitutional.

So?

They were right.

They just lost based on a bogus determination from a shameful CJ and the typical crew of lawless lib "Justices."

 

[Qball]

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 nice.

The part about Obama being a bad President who doesn't care about the constitution is all well and good, but it's too cute by half.

Nothing about the mandate or the way it was passed or direct statements from Obama himself indicate the mandate was ever intended to be a tax. Even to the extent the government argued that it is basically like a tax, that was more kitchen-sink-throwing logic...seeing if something sticks, and the argument wasn't that it's clearly a tax and thus it is clearly constitutional. It was that, tax or penalty, it doesn't matter. They get to levy it on people for not buying private health insurance.

 

[WillowTree]

I'd give Dante a break, he's obviously paid to promote anything and everything Obama.

There's no way he's this this much of a parrot without getting something for it.

unlike you, some of us admit we have no lives.




you take yourself waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to seriously.

Oh noooooooo I got negged by Dante!!!

Son I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt for being a drone who never has an original thought or an opinion of his own. If i got paid enough I'd get on here and act like a hyperpartisan idiot myself.

But if you truly get on here for hours a day and basically give us a summary of why you can't wait for the day that you and Obama get to perform your rendition of 2 girls and a cup without getting paid, then by all means my pity is extended to you.

his bullshit is equal to neutralize. just pour some ammonia on it.

 

[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 nice.

The part about Obama being a bad President who doesn't care about the constitution is all well and good, but it's too cute by half.

Nothing about the mandate or the way it was passed or direct statements from Obama himself indicate the mandate was ever intended to be a tax. Even to the extent the government argued that it is basically like a tax, that was more kitchen-sink-throwing logic...seeing if something sticks, and the argument wasn't that it's clearly a tax and thus it is clearly constitutional. It was that, tax or penalty, it doesn't matter. They get to levy it on people for not buying private health insurance.

Excuse me! But again that is not the whole story,, there are a total of 21 new taxes embedded within the bill totaling 675 billion dollars. In addition they have robbed Medicare of 500 billion dollars. Hello?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

I concur:
Chief Justice Roberts in Liliput.

I was stunned by the Supreme court ruling like everybody else.
But then I read it.

Chief Justice John Roberts is no less a genius than the founders in his ruling and opinion.

First he made plain the restrictions on the commerce clause.
Then he made plain the limits of the Necessary and proper clause.
He did this with the mindful intent of creating stare decisis in this case and referring to previous case law.
And he used the liberal members of the court to do it, tying their hands in future cases, as surely as if he'd become a hypnotist.

Chief Justice Roberts has also made it plain, that a new case may be brought in the future, when the tax takes effect. This is the open door he left himself to return to the law, should congress fail to act.

Chief Justice Roberts has also taken a slap at President Obama saying that, in the Opinion of the Court, the law is deeply flawed. Now you have to run on it.
I and he remember the slap Obama took at the Court in the State of the Union Adress. This is his redress of that greivance.

He has also taken a swing at all of the people who have decried an activist court. Saying that he finds the law constitutional mindful of the intent of congress' majority in passing the law.
This reminds me of all of the outcry after the Kelo decision, the use of the Court in the campaign finance Law by Republicans and Democrats to passs an unconstitutional law that the court was INTENDED to knock down so the congress and President Bush could hide behind the Court for political expedience.
It reminds me of the outcry after this most recent decision over the Arizona immigration law.

First you want the court to refrain and then you want the court to intervene and you then use them for political expedience.

Chief Justice Roberts has slapped you in the face for this and made the liberals and conservatives on the court look like a bunch of Liliputians.
Especially the liberals. He got you to sign this opinion.

I'm sure he's somewhere having a good laugh at the pundits expense.

I know I am........

Speak truth to liberals: Chief Justice Roberts in Liliput.

Surviving on spin?

 

[Qball]

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 nice.

The part about Obama being a bad President who doesn't care about the constitution is all well and good, but it's too cute by half.

Nothing about the mandate or the way it was passed or direct statements from Obama himself indicate the mandate was ever intended to be a tax. Even to the extent the government argued that it is basically like a tax, that was more kitchen-sink-throwing logic...seeing if something sticks, and the argument wasn't that it's clearly a tax and thus it is clearly constitutional. It was that, tax or penalty, it doesn't matter. They get to levy it on people for not buying private health insurance.

Excuse me! But again that is not the whole story,, there are a total of 21 new taxes embedded within the bill totaling 675 billion dollars. In addition they have robbed Medicare of 500 billion dollars. Hello?

I was talking about the mandate. Any time the government decides to take your money doesn't automatically make it a tax, and robbing Peter (Medicare) to pay Paul (O-Care) was just to help with the scoring of the bill. I mean, people pearl-clutch when Tea Partiers equate taxation to theft, but seriously...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Hmmm...you are a lawyer, I am not. Therefor I will put great weight on what you say. Let's see if someone comes up with an opposing viewpoint.

Far smarter and successful lawyers argued ACA/Obamacare was unConstitutional.

So?

They were right.

They just lost based on a bogus determination from a shameful CJ and the typical crew of lawless lib "Justices."

Your basic premise, the foundation of your argument(s) is that Chief Justice Roberts is a bad boy.

ad hominem attacks form the foundation of all your imbecilic rantings.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I completely disagree with you but you post is intelligent and well reasoned - unusual qualities here. (hence the thanks)

I think ObamaCare IS UnConstitutional and also very crappy.
But I'm not a USSC judge so darn.
I don't see ObamaCare causing the ruination of the economy, the country, puppies and so on. I just see it as not solving any of the problems HCR was supposed to address i.e. affordibility, coverage and unethical practices by insurance companies.
Premiums have gone and and will continue to do so. Coverages have gone down. Insurance companies are still in control of the whole system. Nothing solved.

nothing was supposed to be solved. It's a change from the old. An attempt to mange the system that was and is falling apart.

Not having the ACA in practice, it is silly and pretentious to say you know HOW it will all work out.

but then again, you're a much overrated independent thinker.

1) So you're saying that Obama and the Dems, spent the first 9 months of their admin, during a severe financial crisis, to come up with something that wasn't supposed to solve any of the problems in our health care system?!?!?
Well then according to you, the FACT is they wasted their time to accomplish nothing!

2) I'm not saying I know "how it will all work out", I'm simply stating facts.
Fact: Premiums have gone up.
Fact: Deductibles have risen from an average of $2500 annually to over $7000 annually. Concurrently, co-pays have increased and the percentage of services covered has on average, decreased.
Fact: Insurance companies remain the primary cource for access to health care.

Which of the above facts would you dispute?

3) So while you may consider me over-rated (didn't even know I HAD a rating!) as an independent thinker, at least I am thinking.
You on the other hand, have offered nothing in the way of counter beyond a childish rant that equates to "Gee I don't like what you wrote!"

Care to address the Facts? Or is that something you don't do?

1) Solved as in fixed. No one pretends that any part or the whole of the ACA is intended to solve all the problems in health care. One reason the states get to experiment is we just don't know what is the best way to solve any of it, but we have to try.

Doing nothing may be a conservative value, but it's not an American one.

2) Facts: Premiums go up by how much .. compared to what they do in other Capitalist Democracies?

access to health care can be through non profit health insurance as in Switzerland.

Five Capitalist Democracies & How They Do It | Sick Around The World | FRONTLINE | PBS

3) please, throughout this site I have listed, linked to, written on topic with facts, figures, argument, ideas, but those posts get lost in the idiocies of the masses.

and yes, people like you who play games get rankings. We all do.

substance and context and nuance...it's where I'd rather post, but it is rare here and most everywhere.