Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally are

[mac]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

what EXACTLY are you suggesting will happen?

Obama will be replaced.

what EXACTLY are you suggesting SHOULD happen?

Obamacare will be replaced.

 

[Thunder]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Obama will be replaced.

Obamacare will be replaced.

Obama may be replaced.

But Obamacare will not be replaced anytime soon.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

We on the right now call the Obamacare decision as Roberts v. America. The decision validated fraud in the inducement. The fraud delegitimizes Obamacare in the eyes of tens of millions of conservatives. This bodes ill for social peace in America. Fraud can never be accepted.

Neither can treason, and calling a decsion by the SC "fraudulent" is getting too close to that for comfort. You WILL abide by the laws of this land until/unless they are changed. This friendly reminder will come in handy for November too.

 

[notquiteright]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

the importance on what to call penalty provisions of the Affordable Care Act seems to rest in a few angry 'conservatives'. I don't see the balance of for or against changing a whit over that whining point. BushII called many things Constitutional, in his Executive Powers reach, and went after American Citizens accused of terrorism, and other folks with no direct history of fighting/killing Americans as if they had survived driving the planes into the Twin Towers. Once the Supreme Court ruled against him on a number of key issues, BushII simply shrugged and said that is how the process works.

Fellas this is how the process works... :2wave:

Now I can't think of many SANE folks doing much more than they already are, pitching a fit and attempting to create elaborate lecture/beer hall models of betrayal. Conservatives have already pledged to fight President Obama tooth and nail from day one of his presidency. Mitch said so early and often.

A few online hotheads may hint of more violent measures, may claim to be the angry white dude spokeperson, will try to say the rest of America is now fully in Romney's court....

To quote the old bard, an old white dude with a gift for turning a phrase, when looking at the 'conservatives' lined up to whine, rant, fret and froth-

"it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

rant on McDuff... it does the body good to let it all go, bottling it up is so old school WASP...

 

[Pirvaya]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Obama may be replaced.

Trust me. Obama will be replaced.

In 2016.

But Obamacare will not be replaced anytime soon.

That is far from clear. I suspect that Single Payer--not Obamacare but actual Single Payer--will be the pivotal issue in 2014. With more than 2/3rds of Americans in favor of it...

***

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I could not care less if Roberts wants to call it a tax or a burrito.

Not surprised, it demonstrates your contempt for the Constitution.

 

[lpast]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

President Obama said the Mandate wasn't a tax, and then he sent his lawyers to court where they argued the Mandate was a legitimate exercise of the power of taxation. This is fraud.

Evidently now albert the supreme court of the land says it was ok...

 

[Thunder]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Not surprised, it demonstrates your contempt for the Constitution.

John Roberts, isn't the Constitution of the USA.

 

[American]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

John Roberts, isn't the Constitution of the USA.

Is haymarket a boy, that you need to speak for him? Roberts is only the Chief Justice. If he calls it a tax, that's exactly what it is. There is nothing YOU can do about it. This law is officially now a tax. End of story.

 

[Thunder]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Is haymarket a boy, that you need to speak for him? Roberts is only the Chief Justice. If he calls it a tax, that's exactly what it is. There is nothing YOU can do about it. This law is officially now a tax. End of story.

I've never heard of such a tax before. This is new to me.

 

[randy.purdy]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

My biggest issue is that if it is truly a tax than the ruling is illegitimate according to the Anti-Injunction act and should never have occurred. If it is truly a penalty and not a tax then it violates the commerce clause.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Obama may be replaced.

But Obamacare will not be replaced anytime soon.

I think you're right. But Obamacare can be sabotaged so it becomes harmful to the economy. I know this is bad for the country, but that's what the American political culture dictates. I didn't make the rules. Problems and bottlenecks will develop with Obamacare as it does with any major piece of legislation. Some of those problems won't be amenable to resolution by executive order. It will be necessary to turn to Congress for some of these fixes.

If the Democrats don't have total control of the House, Senate and Presidency there will be no legislative fixes. The American left and right both play this game. It keeps the country paralyzed politically.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Evidently now albert the supreme court of the land says it was ok...

What restraints are there on the federal govt. under its power of taxation? The decision in Roberts v. America basically holds that if the federal govt. says something is a tax, or even if it doesn't, there is no limit on federal authority.

What impact do you think this will have on conservative opinion? I think the right is being swept by despair. That's a very bad thing for this country because it promotes radicalization. History tells us never to radicalize one's domestic opponents for they ultimately turn into internal enemies. If that happens the liberal victory yesterday will become pyhrric.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Is haymarket a boy, that you need to speak for him? Roberts is only the Chief Justice. If he calls it a tax, that's exactly what it is. There is nothing YOU can do about it. This law is officially now a tax. End of story.

You mean the penalty for not buying insurance is officially a tax. Nothng was said about the rest of the bill being a tax. How many voters are worried about paying that tax? 10%? I bet even less.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

John Roberts, isn't the Constitution of the USA.

Some conservative members of legal academia are now telling their colleagues that John Roberts' epilepsy medication has caused cognitive decline. It doesn't matter if that is true. This will harden conservative opinion that the decision in Roberts v. America was wrongly decided.

 

[iguanaman]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

What restraints are there on the federal govt. under its power of taxation? The decision in Roberts v. America basically holds that if the federal govt. says something is a tax, or even if it doesn't, there is no limit on federal authority.

What impact do you think this will have on conservative opinion? I think the right is being swept by despair. That's a very bad thing for this country because it promotes radicalization. History tells us never to radicalize one's domestic opponents for they ultimately turn into internal enemies. If that happens the liberal victory yesterday will become pyhrric.

What does history say about threats? The court decided not to legislate from the bench. Wasn't that the complaint from your side?
Right now I'm more worried that it's you that will go up in flames. Calm down...take a pill.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

When I voluntarily help my neighbor in need that is charity, when you, through gov't force, demand that I help your neighbor in need that is tyranny. ObamaCare crosses that line, from gov't demanding that only EMERGENCY, life saving care, be given to ALL (and thus its costs shared by all), to now saying that ANY CARE DESEIRED is now a "right" of those that can not (or will not) pay. This is income redistribution in its purist form, hijacking the "private" medical care insurance industry, by the gov't, and redefining "risk" based premuims as "fairness" based premiums (based on your abililty to pay, not on your actuarial risk), mandating what must be/may not be included in ALL "private" medical care insurance and limitting anyone's ability to refuse to play along by imposing tax penalties for simply choosing to pay cash for their own medical care.

And that is a reason to destroy the USA and become a cheerleader for separatism and dissolution as pushed by some here?

 

[washunut]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I've never heard of such a tax before. This is new to me.

I think therein lies the problem. A key foundation to the stability in this nation has been the premise that we are a nation of laws not men. This was somewhat shaken in the Gore decision, where myself and many others felt like (and still do) that the election was stolen by a few people in robes. Other nations would have held violent riots with such a decision.

When the people (left and right) begin to feel that the government no longer works for them but for the priviledged few I am not sure that this stability can hold.

 

[haymarket]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I think therein lies the problem. A key foundation to the stability in this nation has been the premise that we are a nation of laws not men. This was somewhat shaken in the Gore decision, where myself and many others felt like (and still do) that the election was stolen by a few people in robes. Other nations would have held violent riots with such a decision.

When the people (left and right) begin to feel that the government no longer works for them but for the priviledged few I am not sure that this stability can hold.

When I taught Government and US History for three decades, I always covered the Electoral College in depth and the instances in history where the EC overrode the popular vote choice. Kids wanted to know why we did not change such a system. I would explain since it had not happened in the last hundred years, there was no big push to do much about it. And then I would say if it did happen in our lifetime, the people would want it changed.

Boy was I wrong.

The Court decided the election and barely a whimper rose up. No parades of protest. No big demonstrations. No riots. No nuthin. Nobody tried much of anything except wanting to know the results of the NFL game and if their team had made the playoffs or the winner of the latest 'reality TV show'. Sad. Really pathetically sad.

 

[washunut]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

When I taught Government and US History for three decades, I always covered the Electoral College in depth and the instances in history where the EC overrode the popular vote choice. Kids wanted to know why we did not change such a system. I would explain since it had not happened in the last hundred years, there was no big push to do much about it. And then I would say if it did happen in our lifetime, the people would want it changed.

Boy was I wrong.

The Court decided the election and barely a whimper rose up. No parades of protest. No big demonstrations. No riots. No nuthin. Nobody tried much of anything except wanting to know the results of the NFL game and if their team had made the playoffs or the winner of the latest 'reality TV show'. Sad. Really pathetically sad.

It was sad and also a very different environment than the one we had at the end of 2000. Since then we have had the tech and housing bubbles burst, 9/11, two ten year wars, a disfunctional government, millions unemployed for a very lengthy time...

The way our government functions works for less and less of us. I do not know the answer but it does not seem that this system works anymore.

 

[Objective Voice]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

I think some of you really need to read the tax code. There are plenty of tax "penalties" written into it. Should the Supreme Court now rule each of them unconstitutional simply because they are indirect taxes same as a "FEE" or a "FINE"?

Justice Roberts made the right call because we've long had tax penalties codified in tax law. Folk who are upset of his majority opinion simply need to get a clue, recognize that this punitive tax penalty under the individual mandate was jurisdictional in nature, and that Congress had within their power to legislate this measure under their constitutionally enumerated taxing power.

Get over it! Republicans lost on the executive side, on the Congressional side (re: attempts to repeal the law) and now on the judicial side.

 

[ChuckBerry]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

the importance on what to call penalty provisions of the Affordable Care Act seems to rest in a few angry 'conservatives'. I don't see the balance of for or against changing a whit over that whining point. BushII called many things Constitutional, in his Executive Powers reach, and went after American Citizens accused of terrorism, and other folks with no direct history of fighting/killing Americans as if they had survived driving the planes into the Twin Towers. Once the Supreme Court ruled against him on a number of key issues, BushII simply shrugged and said that is how the process works.

Fellas this is how the process works... :2wave:

Now I can't think of many SANE folks doing much more than they already are, pitching a fit and attempting to create elaborate lecture/beer hall models of betrayal. Conservatives have already pledged to fight President Obama tooth and nail from day one of his presidency. Mitch said so early and often.

A few online hotheads may hint of more violent measures, may claim to be the angry white dude spokeperson, will try to say the rest of America is now fully in Romney's court....

To quote the old bard, an old white dude with a gift for turning a phrase, when looking at the 'conservatives' lined up to whine, rant, fret and froth-

"it is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing."

rant on McDuff... it does the body good to let it all go, bottling it up is so old school WASP...

classic...

 

[ChuckBerry]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Some conservative members of legal academia are now telling their colleagues that John Roberts' epilepsy medication has caused cognitive decline. It doesn't matter if that is true. This will harden conservative opinion that the decision in Roberts v. America was wrongly decided.

Character assassination of the lowest form. Anyone who repeats this crap is scum. And internet tough guys are pathetic.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

What does history say about threats? The court decided not to legislate from the bench. Wasn't that the complaint from your side?
Right now I'm more worried that it's you that will go up in flames. Calm down...take a pill.

I think the next step is for states to opt out of the exchange system. That will increase the federal share of the cost of Obamacare. The political culture dictates that move.

 

[Albert Di Salvo]

Re: Justice Roberts calls the provisions of Obamacare for what they Constitutionally

Character assassination of the lowest form. Anyone who repeats this crap is scum. And internet tough guys are pathetic.

Maybe so. But I don't see how that helps Obamacare.