There is no ObamaCare. Only ScotusCare

[CMyers]

Any thoughts on this.

 

[dblack]

Nope.

 

[MarathonMike]

Roberts declared the Obamacare MANDATE a tax and thus upheld that part of the law. Even had he stuck with his original thoughts on striking down the mandate, that would not have struck down Obamacare. But it was a dick move.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Any thoughts on this.

Roberts "Care"

 

[CMyers]

A state within a state.

Scalia on Obamacare: 'We Should Start Calling This Law SCOTUScare'

Arizona v. United States--- Scalia's Dissenting Bench Statement

Obama is using the same tactic on immigration. It's almost over.

 

[CMyers]

Roberts declared the Obamacare MANDATE a tax and thus upheld that part of the law. Even had he stuck with his original thoughts on striking down the mandate, that would not have struck down Obamacare. But it was a dick move.

His second move on ObamaCare was the kicker.

Scalia clarified the tactic and the failure to fight it.

“Words no longer have meaning if an Exchange that is not established by a State is ‘established by the State,'” he wrote.

RIP Antonin.

We hardly deserved ye.

 

[Arianrhod]

Any thoughts on this.

That you're another in a spate of n00bs who is grossly misinformed about the PPACA and the legislative process in general?

 

[Sun Devil 92]

Using the word "care" at the end of either is a misnomer.

Obama does not care.

Roberts does not care.

 

[AntonToo]

This thread should be renamed to "Conservatives having trouble coming to terms with reality"

Time to move on.

 

[Arianrhod]

This thread should be renamed to "Conservatives having trouble coming to terms with reality"

Time to move on.

Don't be so impatient. No thread of theirs is complete until they trot out the YouTube clips of the Pelosi soundbite (not surprisingly taken out of context) and the Obama "$2,500" soundbite, ditto.

Wait for it.

 

[Sun Devil 92]

In the end, you've got government care:

Obama or Roberts....it is a system...one that ran it's course (in this case).

Now comes the second and third and fourth round of battles.......

Losers like Boehner call it "established law". Which, of course, it isn't. No law is "established in the sense that it is set in stone.

If you don't think so, look what happened to the eighteenth amendment.....an amendement being about as stone as you can get.

It is interesting to note that Roosevelt actually violated the amendment (and by connection the Constitution) by signing the Cullen-Harrison act.

The left will whine all day about "established law" until it prevents them from getting drunk (and raising their I.Q's about 20 points).

 

[Arianrhod]

It is interesting to note that Roosevelt actually violated the amendment (and by connection the Constitution) by signing the Cullen-Harrison act.

How so?

 

[dblack]

This thread should be renamed to "Conservatives having trouble coming to terms with reality"

Time to move on.

Don't be so impatient. No thread of theirs is complete until they trot out the YouTube clips of the Pelosi soundbite (not surprisingly taken out of context) and the Obama "$2,500" soundbite, ditto.

Wait for it.

My favorite is Obama talking about how stupid an insurance mandate is.

 

[AntonToo]

This thread should be renamed to "Conservatives having trouble coming to terms with reality"

Time to move on.

Don't be so impatient. No thread of theirs is complete until they trot out the YouTube clips of the Pelosi soundbite (not surprisingly taken out of context) and the Obama "$2,500" soundbite, ditto.

Wait for it.

My favorite is Obama talking about how stupid an insurance mandate is.

He did talk about it, he also then had oversee an actual law come together and realized that it was the only way to make the system work, otherwise the people would just wait until they get sick to sign up.

 

[dblack]

This thread should be renamed to "Conservatives having trouble coming to terms with reality"

Time to move on.

Don't be so impatient. No thread of theirs is complete until they trot out the YouTube clips of the Pelosi soundbite (not surprisingly taken out of context) and the Obama "$2,500" soundbite, ditto.

Wait for it.

My favorite is Obama talking about how stupid an insurance mandate is.

He did talk about it, he also then had oversee an actual law come together and realized that it was the only way to make the system work, otherwise the people would just wait until they get sick to sign up.

I don't believe Obama was ignorant on the matter. I think he lied because he knew that the health care reform that Hillary (and her sponsors) were promoting was a corporatist sellout and wouldn't win him votes.

 

[AntonToo]

I don't believe Obama was ignorant on the matter. I think he lied because he knew that the health care reform that Hillary (and her sponsors) were promoting was a corporatist sellout and wouldn't win him votes.

And we are back to thoughtless ASSERT ASSERT ASSERT mode.

Fact is he argued against it before the consideration of actual law and for it during and after. What you say is baseless speculation.

 

[dblack]

I don't believe Obama was ignorant on the matter. I think he lied because he knew that the health care reform that Hillary (and her sponsors) were promoting was a corporatist sellout and wouldn't win him votes.

And we are back to thoughtless ASSERT ASSERT ASSERT mode.

Are we? Care to add some thoughts?

Here are some of mine. Inviting corporations to join forces with government is extremely bad policy. It fuels fascism and subverts democracy. It teaches businesses, and everyone else for that matter, that the key to achieving your goals is using the the power of government to control people. And it will lead to more of the same.

 

[dblack]

I don't believe Obama was ignorant on the matter. I think he lied because he knew that the health care reform that Hillary (and her sponsors) were promoting was a corporatist sellout and wouldn't win him votes.

And we are back to thoughtless ASSERT ASSERT ASSERT mode.

Fact is he argued against it before the consideration of actual law and for it during and after. What you say is baseless speculation.

The fact is, he argued against it before he was elected. He argued for it after.

 

[AntonToo]

The fact is, he argued against it before he was elected. He argued for it after.

Yes, which is entirely consistent with him changing his mind on it. If you have evidence to contrary then present it, otherwise what you say about his motivation is little beyond your own fantasy.

 

[dblack]

The fact is, he argued against it before he was elected. He argued for it after.

Yes, which is entirely consistent with him changing his mind on it. If you ave evidence to contrary then present it, otherwise what you say about his motivation is little beyond your own fantasy.

Heh... sure, man. Politicians never lie to elected. What the hell is wrong with me?