Health Care ruling on Thursday

Mandate will be unconstitutional. Most of the rest will stick.

Little impact on election as economy is more important for those that keep up on these things. Those that don't could care less about issues such as this.

My guess is they will strike the entire law on a 5/4 vote.

They should only strike the mandate, but I have little faith of the current Supreme Court, to rule in a non-partisan a-political fashion.

"Forcing people to pay for something they don't want already has precedent.  People must wear helmets on motorcycles, and are required by law to have auto insurance"

Isn't that on a state level?  We have no such helmet laws in the state I live in.  I also believe auto insurance is regulated by state as New Hampshire has no compulsory liability laws.

Exactly!

There is a HUGE difference between what states can constitutionally do, and the fed govt cannot.

It's about time the court got back to the Constitution instead of acting politically, as it did under FDR, which started all this mess of the courts ruling the country by whim and fiat.

Striking down a law is not per se political, nor is it "judicial activism", despite the fatuous whining from the left.  That's what the court is supposed to do!

Judicial activism is when the court dictates social policy and laws, such as ordering taxes, which is clearly NOT the intended purpose of courts.

"Striking down a law is not per se political, nor is it "judicial activism", despite the fatuous whining from the left.  That's what the court is supposed to do!"

Unless of course the law is upheld in tact, at which point we'll hear fatuous whining from the right about "judicial activism".

... fatuous and self righteous whining from the so called Fox "News."

>>There is a HUGE difference between what states can constitutionally do, and the fed govt cannot.

I've never understood this whole argument of "I believe States should have that power, but not the federal government, though I think it is a good idea anyway."

If you ride a motorcycle, you should wear a helmet. If you drive, you should have liability insurance. These are not things that most people argue against, so why shouldn't the federal government enact it as a law?

Should certain states also choose to not allow inter-racial marriages? Should states be allowed to enact slavery?

I think we can at least all agree that which ever way they rule, the 'losing' side is gonna cry "judicial activism".  If it gets struck down, think Biden will say "This is a big F'n deal!"?

>>People must wear helmets on motorcycles, and are required by law to have auto insurance.

Point me to the federal law that requires a helmet or car insurance.

Do you remember the 55 mph the federal government handed down.  It made no sense.  Should Rhode Island and Alaska have the same gun laws?  

"If you ride a motorcycle, you should wear a helmet." I couldn't agree more, but it's not my place to force you to wear one, and that's reflected in the laws of the state I live in.  I watch that show "I shouldn't be alive"  and most of that shit they do on there should be outlawed also.  Jumping out of a plane should be outlawed, bungie jumping......really?  What kind of fool is gonna jump to his death tied to a rubber band?  Isn't it 'their body"?

"Should certain states also choose to not allow inter-racial marriages? Should states be allowed to enact slavery? "
I don't think so, do you think the federal gov't should for all the states?  Not sure what you point to that is?

Whether it's federal or state law is irrelevant.
Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.
A state constitution does not ursurp the national constitution.

....I'm fairly curious what happens to the Massachusetts law if a mandate is ruled unconstitutional.  It stands to reason it could be challenged and overturned on the same reasoning.

>>I'm fairly curious what happens to the Massachusetts law if a mandate is ruled unconstitutional.


Nothing will happen.  MA has every right to create stupid laws, as long as it doesn't go against their state constitution.  It's just the FEDERAL government that can't do it.

See 10th amendment to US Constitution.

Incorrect..., Eric.

If something is ruled unconstitutional on the federal level, a state cannot insitute the same.

Slavery, descrimination, and segregation are unconstitutional....so you think a state can create their own laws to uphold these things? ....No, they can't.

There is a mountain of examples I can give you, that settle the "state's rights" arguement definitively.

Pass me the doob so I can get a puff of what you're smoking.

I'm really posting the same argument in two questions here so pasting again to make sure I get everyone's opinion who might not be involved in the other question.
-------------------------------
>>Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

Yea I get that. Lets practice a little bit of thinking for ourselves. Just because someone (the Founders of this country) tell you to do something sometime, does not make it right, or right indefinitely as situations change.

Are you against helmet law? Do you think it's OK if someone has an accident and the other person doesn't have insurance so then too bad?

If you agree these are good laws for states to make, why not have them as federal laws? I know "because the Constitution says so" is your go-to answer, but why is it a problem?

Why is it alright for the Constitution to give the Federal government the right to restrict states from banning guns, but not helmet laws?

I'm against helmet laws as I am seatbelt laws.  I also think people have the right to jump out of an airplane, go repelling or bungie jump.  Just as I think they have the right to eat at McDonalds and drink as much Mountain Dew as they can.  To me, IMHO, its personal rights, but with personal rights come personal responsibility.  You can eat whatever crap you want, and can load up on all the suger soda you can handle, but don't come whining to me when you get type 2.  You can drink are smoke as much pot as you want, but don't expect me to pay for your new liver or O2.  It seems in our country today, people want to take away all personal responsibility.  Make all the bad choices you want, it's not your fault, lets just hope there are enough responsible people to take up the slack.

Why are state laws good?  Speed limits are the clearest example I can think of.  Do any of you remember the 'I can't drive 55' time?  Anthony, should the Feds control the speed limit like they did then?  Why are why not?

xuser,
If it's ruled against, it will be because the congress isn't granted the power to do it, but the states are granted the power.  At least that's the way I understand the argument.  If I walk the US like Cain in Kung Fu, looking to get in adventure, what does the federal gov't force me to buy?  Can I live my whole life in the US and never pay the Federal Gov't a dime legally?  Yes I can.  Does this law change that?  Yes.  That's the part that gets struck down.  This law states that just as a matter of being born, I have to buy insurance.  Why not a care made in America, lets say every 3 years.  Can you imagine, that would be great for everyone.  Jobs would soar.  Why not?  Everyone would benefit.

>>Anthony, should the Feds control the speed limit like they did then?  Why are why not?

No they shouldn't. I believe the speed limits need to be controlled by the state because there is a huge difference in roads, terrain, and traffic in Utah than in New Jersey.

Does this mean the Feds shouldn't control anything? No it doesn't. That is part of why I am Independent. I weigh each issue individually and think for myself what is the best solution based on all the information. To think The Feds should control most everything (liberal) or barely anything (conservative) is wrong to me. Every situation is different and neither side is always correct.

Again... a state constitution doesn't ursurp the federal one.

This is a fact.

The states have no rights that the federal government does not, when it comes to instituting laws that are unconstitutional.

The things you guys are arguing about, ...helmets on motorcycles, car insurance.....have never been challenged in federal Supreme Court.  Now if the Supreme Court did hear a case on helmets, and they ruled helmet laws unconstitutional...that would effectively invalidate every state law requiring you to wear a helmet.

See Brown vs. Board of education
See Roe vs. Wade
See Citizen's United vs. FEC  (and also reference the law that was just struck down in Montanna trying to overturn it at the state level)

...they call it the "SUPREME" Court for a reason.

"but the states are granted the power" - please substantiate that argument with actual facts...and precedent.   There is nothing to support that argument.

Anthony, I agree with you.  I think you would make a great neighbor.  The only problem is I think you are in the minority and not the majority (as far as making intelligent choices).  Now if I were a 'the glass is half full' kind of guy, I would be all over the Federal gov't running every thing.  I just don't have that much faith in my fellow man.

I am with you bergertime as far as most people not taking issues into account or caring enough. Jersey Shore is on so they don't have time to learn about political stuff.  :)

>> I've never understood this whole argument of "I believe States should have that power, but not the federal government, though I think it is a good idea anyway." <<

Yeah, that's that pesky little thing we Americans have called "The U.S. Constitution"; 9th and 10th Amendments, in this case.


>> Do you remember the 55 mph the federal government handed down. <<
>> Anthony, should the Feds control the speed limit like they did then? <<

The Feds NEVER officially forced a set state speed limit -- they simply don't have that authority.

Instead, they blackmailed the states into doing it themselves by threatening to withhold money unless the states themselves changed their speed limits.

And I believe it only applied to four-land roads.

xuser.....did I miss something?  Helmet laws......does the federal gov't have the right to pass helmet laws?  Gonna put it under the commerce clause?  They can't.  Just like they couldn't pass a speed limit law, they had to force states to do it by withholding funding.  So a state can pass a speed limit, but the federal gov't can't.  Sure sounds like precedent to me.  So just because the feds can't pass a national highway speed limit (what would they put it under the commerce clause), but the states can.  Does that mean you could take it to the Supreme court and get out of your ticket?

>>Yeah, that's that pesky little thing we Americans have called "The U.S. Constitution"; 9th and 10th Amendments, in this case.

OK, lets try that again. We are working on thinking for ourselves here. not regurgitating what we were told to think, do, or say.

Why is what's in the Constitution the best way? Back then there were horses and dirt roads and you didn't need helmets. Today there are faster motorcycles and pavement. Helmets should be required, as most states agree to this. Why is it wrong to make this a federal law?

What do you, ScottPletcher, think? Not the guys from 200 years ago.

>>And I believe it only applied to four-land roads.

It was much more widespread than that.

National Maximum Speed Law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

>> If something is ruled unconstitutional on the federal level, a state cannot insitute the same. <<

Of course that's true -- a state constitution nor law can violate the U.S. Constitution.

However, state laws CAN give individuals MORE rights than they have under the U.S. Constitutition, and thus restrict law enforcement more in some states than others.

For example, the supreme court's Kelo decision caused many states to strengthen property owners' rights against the govt stealing -- or, as the govt calls it, "eminent domain" seizure -- of private property not for public *USE*.

THAT Constutional "rewrite" shows an example of true "judicial activism".  

The Constitution clearly states that private land can be taken for "public USE".  The supreme court arbritrarily REWROTE ("reinterpreted") it to be "public purpose".  They have ZERO legal authority to alter the text of the Constitution to suit themselves.  If the govt wants to take land for any old public "purpose", they should ACTUALLY CHANGE the Constitution, not have some fascistic judge, paid for by the govt itself, rewrite it to suit what they want to do.  That's Stalinist-style govt, not American.

Scott, I understand, which is why I said it....
But the discussion is about the constitutionality of a MANDATE....which, if ruled unconstitutional by the FEDERAL SUPREME COURT, that overrides ALL State statues/rulings/laws/ordinances on the same issue.

The Massachusett's law is exactly the same thing....
Therefore the state would be violating the US Constitution if it is ruled that people cannot be "forced" to buy insurance.

The comparison's to auto insurance and helmets aren't exactly apples to apples...since you can choose not to drive.

Not necessarily.  In fact, I don't think it will affect Massachussett's mandate at all.  MA's mandate should still be in place, at the STATE level.

Some things that are not allowed at the fed level are allowed at the state level.

It depends on the specific provision of the Constitution being considered.

In this case, the "Commerce Clause", which RESTRICTS FEDERAL GOVT actions, NOTHING ELSE.

Otoh, were a law to violate something in, for example, the Bill of Rights, it would be invalid at all levels, because those are core rights that apply to ALL levels of govt.

>>that overrides ALL State statues/rulings/laws/ordinances on the same issue.

I don't know where you get this nonsense.   Did you get this from the notes from when B Hussien Obama taught law for liberals 101?  He too (as you) either (1) doesn't understand the Constitution or (2) doesn't give a shit about it.  My guess is it's a combo.

Ok, how about Compulsory education.  Is there a federal law that requires kids to attend school.  I think it's controlled by the states.  Is that more apples to apples?  How would the fed pass this law?  Under the commerce clause?

The Supremecy Clause is well established Eric... it's not nonsense.

You've offered nothing to the discussion so far except smart a.. remarks.
Pretending to know what you're talking about, and derriding others... is not a good substitute for actual arguments.  You've made no arguments or provided any facts so far, to back up your assertions.

If you really believe that the State has rights that the Federal Government does not, ...and can override the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions..... please repeat that in a room full of people the next chance you get.

>>If you really believe that the State has rights that the Federal Government does not,

My word.  It's not hard.  Look up the 10th amendment, educate yourself.

>>If you agree these are good laws for states to make, why not have them as federal laws?

Outside of the fact we have laws, rules, and a Constitution to which we must adhere (well, all of us except Obama) - this gives the federal government too much power.  

I don't want what Nancy Pelosi decides is right in her mind is right for the rest of the country.

I presume that's how they passed the "No Child Left Behind" law.

All fed interference in education is actually unconstitutional.  We should get rid of the Dept of Ed (which was created only as Carter's payoff to the teachers' unions).

>>We should get rid of the Dept of Ed

I second that.

There is no federal law that requires kids to attend school, though every state has adopted compulsory education laws.  I believe Mass. was the first.

And no, it's not apples to apples because compulsory education is not being challenged, nor ruled unconstitutional.  If the Supreme Court says it's unconstitutional, then all state compulsory education laws would be invalidated.  Of course, the chances of that happening are about as close to zero as it gets...but in theory it "could" happen.  Congress relinquished it's power over education early on..to the states...but again, we're talking about the constitutionality of something.

A better comparison is desegregation.  While states control the adminstration of education, they have no authority to descriminate or segregate their schools....on the basis that it is unconstitutional.

Eric, why don't you cite the clause in the 10th that supports your claims instead of directing me to read it, WHICH I HAVE.

>> If you really believe that the State has rights that the Federal Government does not, <<

Of course they do, and have had for over 200 years.


>> ...and can override the U.S. Constitution and Supreme Court decisions..... <<

Depends.  You can't seem to grasp that certain things in the U.S. Constitution cover all levels of govt, but some things in it cover ONLY the fed govt.


C'mon, it's really not that hard.  States, counties and cities also have a federalist system, where each has specific powers not shared by the others, but certain higher-level rules flow down and can't be violated at lower levels.

There is nothing in the 10th amendment that says state laws override federal laws.
There is nothing that says the state can ignore a Supreme Court ruling.
There is nothing that says a state constitution overrides the US Constitution.

The 10th specifies that "powers", not specified as federal or state, belong to the states and the people.  That has nothing to do with instituting laws that are later ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court.

...go back to school.

A better comparison is desegregation....If you believe that, then I'm not sure we understand each other.  Requiring everyone to buy insurance that's in a certain age range and requiring everyone to attend school that's in a certain range is nothing like descrimination based on skin color.  You really can't see a difference in these?

>>Eric, why don't you cite the clause in the 10th that supports your claims instead of directing me to read it, WHICH I HAVE.

Then why do you make ridiculous comments like this?

The states have no rights that the federal government does not

The ENTIRE reason we have a 10th amendment was to limit the power of the federal government and give the power back to the people.  The founders feared a powerful central government.  

I'm done with this discussion with you.  Your comments on this topic are silly.

...so you're admitting intellectual defeat...since you can't cite the clause you claim supports your assertions.

Thanks....

A better comparison IS desegregation...because AGAIN...we're talking about the constitutionality of something...a specific act of legislation......not the "power to regulate/control" something on the state vs federal level.

...simply put...if requireing people to have health insurance is ruled unconstitutional FEDERALLY...then states have no authority to override the Supreme Court decision....they can however, challenge it.

>>so you're admitting intellectual defeat..

Possibly.  This quote comes to mind:

“If you can't explain it to a six year old, you don't understand it yourself.”

¿ Albert Einstein

Under the Tenth Amendment, all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states or the people. Historically, the tasks of public safety (in the sense of controlling crime), public education, public health, transportation, and infrastructure have generally been considered primarily state responsibilities

Here is the link.  Let me say this again.  all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states or the people  The mandate is not a power delegated by the state, nor is it prohibited by the state, so therefore it must still lie with the state.

This is from that crazy right wing nut job website called Wikipedia.

>>This is from that crazy right wing nut job website called Wikipedia.

To liberals, the US Constitution is a right-wing craziness.

....I understand the 10th berger....you guys are intentionally ignoring the point.

It's not about the states "powers".
It's about a mandate either being ruled constitutional or unconstitutional.

If its unconstitutional....that is the US Constitution... a State Constitution does not override it.
Again, back to the segregation comparison..
We agree that the states control their own public education....RIGHT?.... but only where they are acting within the confines of the US Constitution ..(whereas segregation is not constitutional)  If the states control aspects of "public health", they must do so within the confines of the US Constitution and Supreme Court decisions.

Understand that all powers, federal or state... have LIMITS.   Just like all rights you and I have... have limits.

>> simply put...if requireing people to have health insurance is ruled unconstitutional FEDERALLY...then states have no authority to override the Supreme Court decision <<

C'mon, get a clue.

Why can't you grasp the simple concept, as I've stated before, that:
"
certain things in the U.S. Constitution cover all levels of govt, but some things in it cover ONLY the fed govt.
"

Really, it's NOT that hard.  Kids in 7th grade civics learn this stuff every day (or at least they used to, before teachers were only concerned with their own retirement payments and promoting "self esteem").

>> simply put...if requireing people to have health insurance is ruled unconstitutional FEDERALLY...then states have no authority to override the Supreme Court decision <<


I GUARANTEE you MA's mandate will NOT go away even when the supreme court strikes down O's federal power grab, aka the *FEDERAL* mandate to purchase insurance.

What will you say then??

Will you being to understand then the concept of federalism??

I thought we settled this "states' rights" argument in the civil rights era...
Apparently some of you fell asleep in history class too often.

simply put...if requireing people to have health insurance is ruled unconstitutional FEDERALLY...then states have no authority to override the Supreme Court decision....they can however, challenge it.

if requireing people to have health insurance is ruled unconstitutional is not what is happening, they are not saying the mandate is unconstitutional, like discrimination is, what they are saying is congress doesn't have the power to pass this law, but states retain the power.  Discrimination is against federal law, the mandate is not.

I never said it will "automatically"....
I'm saying it 'could be' challenged on the same basis, using the Supreme Court ruling as precedent..

Of course... it has to be challenged...whether it's constitutional or not.
If nobody was challenging the Health Care law, we wouldn't be having the discussion...it would just go into affect without judicial review.

I understand the 10th berger...then why did you keep asking us to post it.  :)

"Discrimination is against federal law, the mandate is not. "

....you mean ...not "YET".
Because they haven't ruled on it yet.

The case isn't about the Federal Government "authority" on health care.
It is specifically about the mandate provision, "forcing people to buy insurance", which they can use to strike down the law in it's entirety if they want to.  It's about YOUR right as an individual to not be forced to buy something.  Whether the state is forcing you or the Fed is forcing you ..is irrelevant.

Can the state of Arizona force people to buy a toothbrush once every 3 years?
....probably not, ...though if you've ever been there, you might agree they probably should.

>>.then why did you keep asking us to post it.  :)

Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.


Let him figure it out for himself.  Friday he'll find out.

xuser...that was funny. :)  It still won't be against federal law.  It will simply mean that the Feds don't have the power to mandate we buy something.  And as I showed above all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states, and since this is a power NOT delegated to the feds, and it's not a power PROHIBITED by the state, there is no problem.  

You seem to think that if the mandate is struck down there automagically becomes a law prohibiting it, that is incorrect.  There is a federal law against discrimination, there is no federal law against the mandate, the only thing that happens if the mandate gets struck down is set a precendent for the future.

You guys are excellent obfuscators.

Read my comments berger... I never said it will "automatically"....
I said it could be challenged on the same basis.


...let me ask you this.
If the state has the power to mandate you buy something, but the Fed doesn't...with regard to matters of public health..... can they for example... require every man to get a colonoscopy at age 45?  I think not.

"is set a precendent for the future. " - that's what I said...but in different words.

>> require every man to get a colonoscopy at age 45?  I think not.

Why can't they?

xuser.  I agree with you on that.  It can be challenged on the same basis, but I don't think it will be.  Yes I think the state can mandate every man get one at 45.  I don't think it would pass, but they could.  Why do you think they couldn't?  I even have a precedent.  Kids have to be schooled between 6-16 years of age.  Now please explain why you think a state could not, of course it would have to pass first.

...because at age 45, you're an adult.
They can require children get a physical to attend public school, but then...children to not have to attend public school, they can be homeschooled.

They can require things when you are getting something in return...
Example...
Require insurance in order to drive a car.
Require drug test in order to get a job
Require ID in order to vote
Require a physical to become a teacher
Require you to purchase a license in order to fish
Require homeowners insurance to own a home

...get it?

That's a far cry from saying.... everyone must buy sugar-free lollipops on the first tuesday of every year..  ..because we have "state's rights" and there's nothing in the constitution about lollipops...therefore the state controls it.

It's wildly absurd.

I'm sure there is some group in Mass. that would love to challenge their mandate law, if the the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional.

Either way it's going to be interesting to see what happens.

>>because at age 45, you're an adult.

>>They can require things when you are getting something in return...


For my entertainment, amusement, and desire to laugh, prove it further.   Cite some legal rulings, point me to where state Constitutions say this, etc...

You're making a legal ruling based on "absurdness."  I don't believe the system works that way.

Eric, you seem really immature.

The point is about being "forced" to buy something.... the things I mentioned are not "forced" since you can choose not to do any of those things...and they are not "rights" they are privilages.

..for example....Driving is not a right, it's a privilage ....
I'm making a "legal ruling"??.... ok buddy...  I'm not a judge...I'm not making a "ruling", I'm making an observation based on reality, which you apparently do not reside in.

Name one thing you're forced to buy, whether it's the state or fed requiring it.

xuser, I'm not arguing it's right or it smart or anything else.  I'm just saying that's the way it was written.  I have a feeling there are lots of absurd laws.

But, kids have to be schooled one way or another, and this is controlled by the state not fed level.

At least you understand the car and insurance connection.  I get so tired of that one.  Even waterstreet used it.  They can make me buy car insurance.  :(

"they are privilages"....with the exception of voting btw, but then if you don't have ID then it's hard to prove you actually do have the "right".  That's another issue though...

Name one thing you're forced to buy, whether it's the state or fed requiring it.

Obamacare :)

>>The point is about being "forced" to buy something.

Again, prove it.  Where do you get that states can't force you to buy something, should they choose to?

I don't want your opinion.  I want you to prove it.

"But, kids have to be schooled one way or another, and this is controlled by the state not fed level." - exactly... they "control" it, ... but they cannot go against the US Constitution or a Supreme Court ruling in asserting their control.  That's where I mentioned the "limits" on state's powers/rights.

"Obamacare :)"

....isn't that the point of the discussion?
It's not yet required, because it has been challenged, it's hasn't reached it's "effective" date, and the Supreme Court hasnt' ruled yet.

..."Where do you get that states can't force you to buy something, should they choose to?"

Because I'm protected by the US Constitution from illegal seizure of my property.  $

xuser.  name something the feds require me to do just because I exist?  Nothing that I know of.  Name something that the states CAN force me to do based just existing?  Go to school!

The feds can force me to do nothing, the states can force me to go to school.

Again, the ruling in obamacare isn't on the mandate, it's whether congress has the power to make that law.  Which it appears it does not.

If dems had their thinking caps on, what they would do is pass a law requiring all kids to attend school, thus setting a precedent and increasing the chances of a mandate sticking.  Only problem with that is where would they stick it, I'm not sure you could get it passed under the commerce clause.

....you are not required to go to be educated when reach the age of 18.
You get certain "rights" when you reach adulthood...that you do not have as a child.
They can't require you to go to college, nor attend a private school that you would have to pay for.

So that's not a good comparison.

What in the commerce clause would allow the State's to do the same?

Realize that I'm not arguing FOR the mandate.  I think it's unconstitutional on every level, including the state level.

They may, however, require parents to have health insurance for their children!...  highly debatable still.

...seems a couple of you are just shilling for Romney's contradictory stance on Health Care, by parroting the "state's issue" rehtoric, and not really taking a stance one way or the other.

If the mandate is unconstitutional on the federal level, (not covered under interstate commerce clause), then that creates the precedent to challenge it on the state level as well under the same exact pretense.(intrastate commerce regulation powers held by the state insufficient)

>>If the mandate is unconstitutional on the federal level, (not covered under interstate commerce clause), then that creates the precedent to challenge it on the state level as well

Who is going to challenge it?

>> If the mandate is unconstitutional on the federal level, (not covered under interstate commerce clause), then that creates the precedent to challenge it on the state level as well under the same exact pretense. intrastate commerce regulation powers held by the state insufficient) <<

What??  That's nonsensical.  First, the challenge was not a pretense -- unlike, say, the false pretenses O, Pelosi and Reid used to pass it in the first place.

Furthermore, no one sane denies that has a state has certain rights regarding *intra*state commerce.

And, for the billionth time, the Commerce Clause RESTRICTS ONLY THE FED GOVT, it does not apply to the states, because the states cannot regulate *inter*state commerce anyway.


>> seems a couple of you are just shilling for Romney's contradictory stance on Health Care, by parroting the "state's issue" rehtoric, and not really taking a stance one way or the other. <<

No, I'm shilling for FREEDOM.  The state has the RIGHT to enact its own laws on this.  It's only unconstitutional, and thus illegal, for the feds to intervene in it.


>> Require insurance in order to drive a car. <<
They require LIABILTY to protect the health/property of OTHER PEOPLE.  That's it; nothing else is legally mandated.


>> equire drug test in order to get a job <<
Private companies can.  Whether govts can has not been fully reviewed under the law.


>> Require ID in order to vote <<
Yes, states 100% have the right to do that.  Obama is just willfully ignorant of the Constitution or wants to pretend otherwise.


>> Require a physical to become a teacher <<
?? Not sure what this is relevant to here, but I guess it could be true. ??


>> Require you to purchase a license in order to fish <<
Yes; again, that is a right individual STATES have.


>> Require homeowners insurance to own a home <<
NO, they don't, at least not in many states.  Your LENDER forces you to have insurance.  I've had houses paid off and have not had insurance on them at different times when the rates went just too high.

>> Require ID in order to vote <<

In fact, even in states where the fed govt has successfully, for now, blocked the states from enforcing that right, that applies ONLY to FED elections.  Those same states CAN still require a state-issued (picture) ID to vote in all state and sub-state elections, and the feds can't change that one way or the other.

"I'm shilling for FREEDOM" - ...unless it's on the state level?

...ok.

The state has the right to ....not obey the constitution, but the Fed doesnt'.

Yea that makes soooo much sense.

You have to just be trolling, so I give up.  I hope not even an Obama supporter can truly be this ignorant of the concept of federalism.

Federalism is irrelevant, in this context.  Unconstututional is unconstitutional.....state or federal law doesn't matter when it's against the US Constitution.  They aren't arguing federalism in today's arguments, they are speaking about the mandate's constitutionality specifically.

Justice Antonin Scalia jumped in, asking Verrilli: "Why do you define the (health care) market that broadly?"
 
"It may well be that everybody needs health care sooner or later, but not everybody needs a heart transplant, not everybody needs a liver transplant," Scalia continued. "Could you define the market so that everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli?"

Trolling: In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory,[2] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[3] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.


....so how do my comments fit that definition?
..., you don't agree with me = I must be a troll.
That explains the loose reasoning on everything else you said.

Unconstututional is unconstitutional, agree, but in this context what is unconstututional is congress passing a law requiring people in a certain age bracket to do something (buy health care), your argument about Mass. is different, it's not congress passing the law, and as the 10th admendment stats....yet again......all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states, thus it is not congress but the state passing the mandate.  Is it legal?  Who knows, it has never been challenged, but there is a precedent, school.  The states are able to require people of a certain age to do something, i.e. school.  Is this legal, again who knows, it's never been challenged.

You keep seeming to make the argument that if the mandate is struck down, then somehow a federal law is made that states the mandate is illegal.  That is not the case.  The ruling (again this is all just IMO, as the ruling hasn't been made), is that it's not the mandate that's against the rules, but the fact that congress simply doens't have the power to make that law.

Can the federal gov't make a spped limit law?  No, I believe it would get struck down.  Can the states?  Yes, and they do.  It's the same thing.  If the federal speed limit were struck down would it make the state limits illegal?  Of course not, it's not that speed limits would be found unconstututional, but that congress is over reaching it's power.

Is everything I wrote absolute?  Of course not, I'm not a Constututional lawyer.  Thank God Obama is.  So I would think there is no way the mandate can fail right.  I mean really, I'm a slow minded simplton and I think it will get struck down.  And yet Obama made this his signature AND he is a Constututional lawyer and he thinks it will stick.

>> Unconstututional is unconstitutional <<

No, it's not that simple.  There are both U.S. Constitutions and state constitutions, and each apply differently at times.


>> They aren't arguing federalism in today's arguments <<

Of course not, because the supreme court is dealing ONLY at the FED level in this case.  

Btw, the argument you quoted was not from today, but months ago, of course.


>> Federalism is irrelevant, in this context. <<

Of course not, which is why the supreme court's ruling will have NO AFFECT WHATSOEVER on MA's *state* mandate, even if they strike down the FEDERAL statute.

Read bergertime's last post for another example of federalism, and how that principle WILL apply to their ruling here.

>> Unconstututional is unconstitutional <<

It is that simply.  It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law to mandate we buy something, it is not unconstitutional for states to do it. Per this....again.....all powers not delegated to the federal government nor prohibited to the states are retained by the states.

But I do have to agree with xuser, I think this allows the Mass law to be challenged, but I don't see anyone doing it.  For example, Dems won't do it as it's allows more control, Repub won't do it as it is allowed per the way they view state rights.  I wish it would be challenged as I would like to see the Supreme court ruling on the matter.

>> But I do have to agree with xuser, I think this allows the Mass law to be challenged, <<

I don't see the correlation.

You couldn't realistically challenge having to buy automotive liability insurance at the state level just because such a mandate wouldn't be legal at the fed level.

Leftists have everyone thinking the fed govt should be involved in *everything*.  It's just crazy.  All branches of the fed govt interfere wayyyy too much already in our lives, let's not add more.

"Leftists have everyone thinking the fed govt should be involved in *everything*. " = false ....manufactured narrative for lack of a better argument.

I agree with you Scott, the correlation is that people like xuser see the two mandates as the same, therefore if one fails the other must also.  People who see it like you and I don't see them as the same.  To us, it's who has the right to pass such a law as outlined by the constituition.  I think it's like junk cars.  Can the city I live in pass a law that you can't have a junk car in the front yard?  Sure they do it all the time.  Can Congress pass the same law for all people in the US?  Of course not (at least not yet).  What if congress did?  It would be ruled unconstitutional, would that make the law in every city unconstitutional ?  Of course not, it's not the law, again, it's who has the power to pass it.  I'm hoping xuser is able to at least understand the concept, not saying he has to agree with it.

>> "Leftists have everyone thinking the fed govt should be involved in *everything*. " = false ....manufactured narrative for lack of a better argument. <<

But YOU are PROVING it on every one of your posts, viz:

>> "Unconstitutional is unconstitutional" <<
NO, we have BOTH a FED Constitution and *state* constitutions.  They are NOT the same, and what is unconstitutional at the fed level is NOT necessarily uncon~ at the state level.

>> Federalism is irrelevant <<
Federalism is NEVER irrlevant in the U.S., or the majority of other democracies around the world that have federalist systems.  The only way it could possibly be seen as irrelevant is if you think the fed govt should be involved in EVERYTHING.

Getting back to the original question, I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that no matter what happens, somehow both sides will declare victory!

Leftists have everyone thinking the fed govt should be involved in *everything*. " 

I never make universal statements (well almost never *smile*) but, just to show how a universal statement can be misused (as above), I'll respond with a comparable universal statement about conservatives, which includes their factions of the Reactionary Right, Tea Party-ers, religious fundamentalists, non-critical thinkers, etc.

Here goes:
 Yeah, yeah, yeah.  But Conservatives think the federal government shouldn't be so small that it can't involve itself in who-does-what in the bedroom, in who marries whom, and legislate a woman's body.

>>legislate a woman's body.

It's not the woman's body.  It's the body inside the woman that conservatives are protecting.


On this healthcare ruling - it will be struck down.  What I could see happening is Obama deciding to implement anyway.  He's already shown contempt for the oath of office and could careless about laws anyway.

This is what happens when you put a f*ckin' community organizer in office.

"It's not the woman's body.  It's the body inside the woman that conservatives are protecting."
 
 Oh, I see *tongue in cheek*.

But "protecting" through big government intrusion and regulations is okay.   You are saying big government and their intrusions are okay to conservatives when regulating women and social issues.  I thought conservatives were opposed to big government, and their regulations and intrusions.  I must be thinking of Libertarians.
 
"This is what happens when you put a f*ckin' community organizer in office."  See "A LONG List of President Obama’s Accomplishments! With Citations!"
May 29, 2012  -- http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/29/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/

>>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/29/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/

Waterstreet, I would love (hint, hint) this to be a question.  Take'em one at a time and really see his "accomplishments"



>> You are saying big government and their intrusions and regulations is okay.

Mr. Miyagi [jumps in]: Afraid facts mixed up

beetos, I agree, both side will claim victory.  Who will Obama blame, as the bill passed with ZERO (0) repub support.  It was all dems and his signature bill.

Wow, who would have thought.  :(

>> But "protecting" through big government intrusion and regulations is okay. <<

!! The CORE PURPOSE of govt at ALL levels is supposed to be about protecting its citizens from direct dangers, particularly criminals. !!

Leftists have trouble grasping that because they it's about govt controlling all the money and redistributing it as the left sees fit.

For example, despite what the left thinks, we don't have courts mainly to rule that prisoners are "entitled" to cable tv and playboy subscriptions.  Or to cost the country hundreds of billions of dollars -- and counting -- by making up bs reasons to impede or block the death penalty.

Of course, this has to be done while leaving basic freedoms in place.  Such as, the govt should not attempt to outlaw transfats in food or limit the size of soft drinks!  I mean, really, they want to LEGISLATE THE SIZE OF AN AMERICAN'S SOFT DRINK.  So much for the concept of freedom!!


So, according to leftists, a twenty year old woman should have the right to kill a viable child up to the day before it's born.  But no man or woman should have the right to order a 20-oz Coke in New York City.  That's just so stupid it sounds like it has to be made up -- but it isn't!

But it does beautifully demonstrate federalism again.  NYC has the right to do that.  It should not be ruled unconstitutional -- unlike leftists, I don't declare everything I personally don't like as "unconstitutional".  The fed govt does not have the authority to do that ... well, for now, after four more years of Obama, they'll probably be dictating much more to us.

Supreme Court upholds health care law - This Just In - CNN.com Blogs : http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/06/28/how-will-supreme-court-rule-on-health-care-law/?hpt=hp_t1

Wow. So it is totally upheld. Even the mandate.

>>http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/05/29/a-long-list-of-president-obamas-accomplishments-with-citations/

The problem with that link is that nobody will read it compared to the cool little graphic all over Facebook and stuff listing his accomplishments.

That is a big wall of text, and then have to click through to each link too? Too much work for the average voter.

Wow.  I'm really shocked.  I had no idea the federal gov't could make me buy something that I may never want or need.  

Anyways.....think this helps or hurts Obama come November.  Kinda like he won the battle but lost the war.  Repubs are gonna be fired up over this.  I guess it all comes down to the independents.

Righties heads explode... 3...2....1...

lol....

I personally disagree with the decision, but I'm enjoying the fact that the right-wingers are freaking out...

xuser, enjoy it while you can.  :)  It's been fun debating with you on it. It's just wow, I didn't think the mandate had a chance in hell.  Please give me the rest of the day to morn the passing of individual freedoms, and let me get used to the idea of living in a socilist state.  :(

America -- born 1789, died 2012 -- RIP old friend.

I'm so upset I can't even spell socialist right or should I now say left!?  I'm soooo confused!

>>I had no idea the federal gov't could make me buy something that I may never want or need.  

Apparently it counts as a tax

"[Updated at 10:57 a.m. ET] A key quote here in the decision:

"The Federal Government does not have the power to order people to buy health insurance. Section 5000A would therefore be unconstitutional if read as a command. The Federal Government does have the power to impose a tax on those without health insurance. Section 5000A is therefore constitutional, because it can reasonably be read as a tax," Roberts said in his opinion"

You guys are being dramatic.... relax.  We're not a socialist country, the government doesn't control the means of production.

I didnt' think the mandate had a chance in hell either.... but it is what it is.
I kinda hoped the mandate would be struck down, which could have forced them to revisit it and go back to it being a tax incentive or single payer or universal type system ....something along those lines.

I'm very surprised it was upheld in it's entirety.
If anything it's fascism, not socialism.... because all the regulations in the law that are designed to keep cost in check and quality standard, will likely erode over time...as a "gift" to Corporate donors of our beloved politicians..

Please give me the rest of the day to morn the passing of individual freedoms, and let me get used to the idea of living in a socilist state.  :(

America -- born 1789, died 2012 -- RIP old friend.

egads!  Health insurance available to everyone??  The horror!

I don't think I am being dramatic.......This ruling means that the gov't can force me to do anything it wants, or levy a tax against me, which if I don't pay, they can jail me for.. I can go to prison if I don't buy health insurance.  Again, it's not the informed voters I'm worried about, it's the numb skulls.  THE US GOVERNMENT CAN TAX AND IMPRISON ME IF IT DOES NOT APPROVE OF MY BEHAVIOR.  This doesn't scare the ever loving shit out of you guys?

>> which could have forced them to revisit it and go back to it being a tax incentive or single payer or universal type system <<

Truly naive.  This IS a single-payer mandate.  It's over for private health insurance in the U.S..  And America as a notion is over as well.  The feds can do ANYTHING, just like in the Soviet Union.

beetos, dems keep saying "Health insurance available to everyone??  The horror! ".  How is that so?  This does not make insurance available to everyone, it means if you don't buy it you will be forced to pay a tax, which if you don't pay, you go to jail.  How does this help the landscaper at the place I work, she can't afford it?

...As if we needed another reminder as to why we hate liberalism.

Sad say.

Welcome to Greece!

Chief Justice Roberts (the fifth vote) was a Republican appointee under George W. Bush!

"you go to jail"  = false

You'll just end up paying a penalty when you file your taxes, which reduces your refund.

"How does this help the landscaper at the place I work, she can't afford it? " - ...depending on the income level of said landscaper, the law is applied respectively.

Does that mean you're a Bush fan now?

What happens when that landscaper  at work gets her hand or foot cut off by a mowing machine?  She has no health insurance, so she goes to the emergency room, and since she can't afford insurance I'm guessing she can't afford the hospital bills either.     So who pays those bills?   You and I do.

With millions more healthy customers,  insurance bills should go down for everyone.   Also, if she truly can't afford it, there are subsidies that will help her be able to do so.  

Now, not only would she be covered under the first scenario, she can also get free preventive care which should save both her and us money in the long run.

Scott -  if you make money and don't pay taxes, can't the gov't already fine you and put you in jail?  What's changed?

>>So who pays those bills?   You and I do.

Defines Obamacare.

...it's a single payer mandate to private industry.(more related to fascism than socialism in my opinion)

I meant single payer to government controlled health care..."universal" style.
I would prefer to cut out the middleman (Private insurance) altogether.

Unlike most dems, I don't get a refund.   So you're saying the fine is only if I want to pay it?  Say I owe 12 grand in taxes at the end of the year, and son't have insurance, so I get fined 4 grand......if I pay my taxes of 12 but not the 4, then I'm square with the feds?  Their not gonna come try get the 4?

>>What happens when that landscaper  at work gets her hand or foot cut off by a mowing

What happens when your grandma needs a surgery but the government says she's too old and they can't justify the cost?

Eric, you dont' want to pay your own insurance bills?

We (the insured), already pay for the uninsured.

"What happens when that landscaper  at work gets her hand or foot cut off by a mowing machine? "   ...that lanscaper would be covered under workman's compensation insurance, which employers are required to have..

beetos.....on your story.  Ok, she still doesn't buy insurance even though your mandate is there.  She cuts off her foot?  What happens?  The exact same thing that happens now?  So that has not changed.  With millons more health customer?  beetos I like you, I really do, but that's dumb.  50 millon people don't buy insurance because they are straping young lads in the best shape of their life......most don't because A, they can't afford it or B, they are sick and cant get it.  So trying to sell me on the fact mine will go down is a crock.  It'll go up.

free preventive care, I know lets pay it with that obama cash......nothings free.

The question now is "what can't the government do to you?"

If they can force me to buy insurance, where does it stop?

More proof that the f*ckin' community organizer and all Democrats need kicked out of office.  One more term with ACORN policies and we're greece within years.

What happens when your grandma needs a surgery but the government says she's too old and they can't justify the cost?

There are so many problems with health insurance and paying for care, so many denied benefits, so many who get dropped or denied coverage  BEFORE the health care law, yet instead of seeing this as a solution to those problems, you focus on a nightmare hypothetical that DOESN'T exist.    

Seriously - conservatives or "rightists" should be thrilled about getting healthcare, as the law being upheld is causing them to get their panties so bunched up they're going to have to have them surgically removed!

Lot's of hypotheticals about problems and taxes.    We all pay taxes now, and we're not socialists/marxists/kenyans so stop with the drama.

We know there are real world problems with our health care system - lots of those problems are addressed by the law but you guys totally disregard that.

Is it perfect?  Probably not, but it can be modified and improved IF politicians could put aside this "whatever the other side does or wants is automatically wrong" BS and actually works on something for the betterment of the country.

beetos....you are right, I don't think my panties have been so bunched up since Obama went to all 57 states.  Get benefits to those denied, great, but trying to tell me it'll bring cost down is crazy.

My mom was going to watch my 1 year old daughter a couple of years ago, but she had to get the whooping cough vaccine, guess what, you had to be 64 or under to get it.  She was not "allowed" to get it.  She was too old.  They have changed the law now and she did get it.  But not in 2010.  I understand it had to do with the license, but it shows the elderly being denied healthcare based on age is not hypothetical.

Why wouldn't it bring costs down?
You'll have millions more people paying into the system.  Some of the same people who otherwise use the ER room for all their health care needs, and stiff the hospital for the bill, (which get's passed on to everyone else already)

Here's where the comparison to car insurance actually makes sense to me...

There was a time when car insurance wasn't required in most states.
...which resulted in very few people being insured.  Car insurance was something only wealthy people would buy to cover their more expensive vehicles.  Accident claims were settled in the courts, and if the guy who hit you is broke...well... you were screwed.

Only when auto insurance started to become a requirement to drive in all 50 states, did it become more affordable....and those laws came with other laws instituting regulations on the industry, though they still vary state by state.

>> With millions more healthy customers,  insurance bills should go down for everyone. <<

They're already SKYROCKETING, and the thing's barely in effect yet.  The official SHORT-TEM cost of Ocare has already doubled from $1 TRILLION to $2 TRILLION -- and that's still a gross underestimate.


>> I meant single payer to government controlled health care..."universal" style. <<

That's what I meant.  Private health insurance is over now.  That was the whole point of the mandate as written.  It will take a decade or so, but marxists, like islamists, are patient.

>> Get benefits to those denied, great <<

Who was denied?

Health insurance is AVAILABLE to everyone now.

Many don't want to pay the cost, some can't.

This monster destruction of freedom mandate wasn't needed just to take of the truly needy FIFTEEN million (the real figure, after careful analysis) -- out of the 311M+ Americans -- who were w/o health insurance.

That's really not what this is about.

It's about putting the fed govt in ABSOLUTE charge.

>> Some of the same people who otherwise use the ER room for all their health care needs <<

As MA has proven, the mandate INCREASES ER room use.

You combine increased numbers AND the fact that it's free to most people receiving the care, demand goes up.  Primary care doctors are somewhat overwhelmed.  So ER use goes UP somewhat, because people don't want to wait.

>> but it shows the elderly being denied healthcare based on age is not hypothetical. <<

Not at all.

Britain does this all the time now, as do other socialized medicine places.

It WILL happen here, too.  There is simply not enough money to pay for ALL the care that EVERYONE wants.

>>You combine increased numbers AND the fact that it's free to most people receiving the care, demand goes up.  

That's basic economic law.  A topic liberals can't grasp.

-Scott
"costs are already rising"

The mandate is doesn't go into affect until 2014... costs were already rising befor the health care law.

"As MA has proven, the mandate INCREASES ER room use."

....proven?
Cite your source please.

Obama's Doctor:

The doctor fears that if the health care plan is “the failure” he believes it will be, because of runaway costs and other problems, then any health reform will be set back for years to come.

Washinton Post: Health-care law will add $340 billion to deficit, new study finds

President Obama’s landmark health-care initiative, long touted as a means to control costs, will actually add more than $340 billion to the nation’s budget woes over the next decade

IRS seeks 4,000 agents, $303 million for Obamacare


CBO: Obamacare to cost $1.76 trillion over 10 yrs


OBAMACARE TAX: Medical Device Maker to Eliminate 1,200 jobs... Hiring in China.

Those are opinions Eric...not exactly "proof".  You said MA proved it increases ER visits...and your post didn't cover your assertion.

While "Obamacare" is projected to cost 1.76 Trillion over 10 years....to cover "everyone"...
America already spends 2.1 Trillion (7,146 per capita) , and everyone is not covered....

That's what I meant.  Private health insurance is over now.  That was the whole point of the mandate as written.  It will take a decade or so, but marxists, like islamists, are patient.

The individual mandate was a conservative idea, so are conservatives marxists, socialists, or islamists?

Conservatives are fascists, .... I thought everyone knew that Beetos.

Did liberals like the mandate when it was a conservative idea?

>>"As MA has proven, the mandate INCREASES ER room use."
....proven?
Cite your source please. <<


It was widely reported on at the time.  Hmm, but probably not in the marxist press, so here ya go:

http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2011/10/report-finds-looming-financial-woes-from-ma-health-reform
"
"

Reuters and other leftist press outlets also reported it.

Now they're trying to claim that ER visits are down slightly, but since the MA mandate started in 2006, it's hard to credit it with an alleged small reduction in ER room visits -- if that's even true -- SIX years later.


Btw, interesting to note in passing, that Romney's mandate had a religious exemption component.

>> Conservatives are fascists <<

No, they're freedomists, just not as much as libertarians, such as myself.

Fascism is forcing other people to do things they don't want to do with no real justification --

GOVT mandates are fascistic.

From "Fascism" under wikipedia:
"
Fascism promotes the use and primacy of regulated private enterprise and private property contingent upon service to the nation, but where private enterprise and private property are failing, inefficient, or unable to fulfill fascist goals, it supports the use of state enterprise and state property in those circumstances.
"
[Such as insurance mandates when private insurance doesn't match fascist/leftist goals.]
"
At the same time, fascists are hostile to financial capital, plutocracy, and "the power of money".
"
That IS Obama!  Community-organizer-in-chief.

>>That IS Obama!  Community-organizer-in-chief.

Instead of embracing what they are, liberals know there's a negative connotation associated with the term "facism" and therefore don't want to be associated with it.

Liberals, stand up and be proud of your anti-American views.

>>"As MA has proven, the mandate INCREASES ER room use."
....proven?
Cite your source please. <<

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2010/07/04/emergency_room_visits_grow_in_mass/
"
But, according to a report from the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy, expanded coverage may have contributed to the rise in emergency room visits, as newly insured residents entered the health care system and could not find a primary care doctor or get a last-minute appointment with their physician.
"

>> Liberals, stand up and be proud of your anti-American views. <<

Good point.

Why do leftists hide their real beliefs so much.

Just come on out and say you're a marxist and proud of it.

Ooh, right, can't get elected w/o LYING LIKE HELL.

Then maybe it's time to WAKE UP and see the truth!

Scott and Eric,

It may come as a surprise but your opinion of "liberals and leftists" is just that, an opinion and does not actually conform with reality as it is understood on this planet.

"Did liberals like the mandate when it was a conservative idea? "

I don't think most people "like" the mandate...per se.

I don't "like" paying taxes either, but...I like having police, roads, public services, modern society.

>>Ooh, right, can't get elected w/o LYING LIKE HELL.

Yeah, probably hard for dictator B Hussien to stand up in the debates and tell the American people he's going to...

1.  Raise the deficit $6 trillion
2.  Obey ONLY the laws he agrees with
3.  Add 21 new taxes and call it "affordable care act"
4.  Take states to court that attempt to protect our borders
5.  Pay off unions
6.  Waste millions in bankrupt "green energy"  companies

There's different forms of fascism, Scott... so naturally you pick the one that best supports your argument.

Dictionary.com

1. Any ideology or movement inspired by Italian Fascism, such as German National Socialism; any right-wing nationalist ideology or movement with an authoritarian and hierarchical structure that is fundamentally opposed to democracy and liberalism.

...also from your wikipedia page.
1.Right Wing: Fascists are fervently against: Marxism, Socialism, Anarchism, Communism, Environmentalism; etc – in essence, they are against the progressive left in total, including moderate lefts (social democrats, etc). Fascism is an extreme right wing ideology, though it can be opportunistic.

1.  Raise the deficit $6 trillion  -  (I think you mean DEBT)
....false,  the president doesn't control spending, ...congress writes the check, he signs it or veto's it.   Also, budgets operate a full year behind, so in essence you're taking the last Bush budget and putting it in Obama's lap by calculating from the date that he took office.  Obama's first budget, was for the year 2010.  You're also putting all the cost of the continued wars, he didn't start, on him too.

2.  Obey ONLY the laws he agrees with
...such as?

3.  Add 21 new taxes and call it "affordable care act"
Name them...

4.  Take states to court that attempt to protect our borders
I thought you were just arguing about state's rights vs fed rights?
I suppose your logic is morphable depending on your personal opinion.

5.  Pay off unions
...wha?  Which unions?  GM?

6.  Waste millions in bankrupt "green energy"  companies
Solyndra went under because the US was unwilling to match the amount of industry subsidies that China put forth.  Actually China took an intentional loss just to out-do us...and flooded the market with cheap solar panels so US Companies wouldn't be able to compete.

>>(I think you mean DEBT)

correct


>>you're taking the last Bush budget and

Nope.  Obama took Bush's budget and immediately added to it.  President has a lot of influence.  Not to mention - democrats controlled the house and senate for 2 years.


>>...such as?

Tell me you're not seriously asking this question?  Search immigration/obama, then look for defense of marriage act and obama.


>>Name them...

Click the link

"Nope.  Obama took Bush's budget and immediately added to it.  President has a lot of influence.  Not to mention - democrats controlled the house and senate for 2 years."

Sure - there couldn't possibly be anything in Bush's budget that would have increased the debt.  No TARP or anything like that....   And that 2 year thing is BS - Republicans filibustered everything, meaning even with their 59 votes ( clearly a majority ) nothing could get passed.  So stop that BS line, please.

>>Solyndra

3 companies:

1.  Solyndra - $530 million
2.  Abound Solar Inc. - $400 million
3.  Solar Trust for America - $2.1 billion



>> Republicans filibustered everything

How did Health care bill get passed?

>> Obey ONLY the laws he agrees with <<
>> Republicans filibustered everything <<

Budget resolution CAN'T be filibustered; it's against senate rules.  Yet the senate still hasn't passed a budget for OVER 3 YEARS, even though a budget is LEGALLY REQUIRED EVERY YEAR.  So ignoring laws applies to Reid and other senate Dems as well as Obama.

Dems had 60 votes from July 7 to Aug 26, 2009 and from Sep 24, 2009 to Feb 4, 2010.  NO filibuster possible.  Yet, the Dems still never passed the LEGALLY REQUIRED BUDGET.


America is dead.  Laws mean nothing to Dems.  They are complete statists and fascists.

Sorry you feel that way.  Feel free to leave.

I didn't promise to leave, unlike all the leftists who promised to leave if Bush won ... then stayed anyway.


The ONLY good thing about this is it might prevent Obama from getting re-elected.  Dems have no one to blame, no rock to hide under now.  

DEMS passed this mess, DEMS own this mess.

Of course O himself will still blame Repubs, kiosks, tsunamis, etc., as he has in the past, and old media will parrot him as always.

But that's so empty this time only the true Dem sycophants -- as demonstrated above -- will buy that bs

DEMS wanted this plan, DEMS designed this plan, DEMS passed this plan.

They hid as many of the supporting taxes as they could, but once they start hitting, it will be hard to keep hidden from newer media like Fox.  NBC will still mindlessly parrot every idiotic thing O says about this, but some people will report the truth.

So, on a ligher note.  As it stands now, in 2014, if I drop my insurance and have to pay the mandate of $285/yr which is far cheaper than what I pay now.  Does that 285 pay for my insurance for the year?

In effect, yes it does.

"Insurance" is now a misnomer, since pre-existing conditions no longer matter.

So pay the tiny fine, if you get cancer or some other costly disease, then you can get actual health insurance, and they can't charge you more just based on your condition!

Gee, ya think this new system might have some inherent flaws!!

Somalia would be perfect for today's Republicans.
No socialism, no taxes, no regulations, no "government" health care ....very small government.
.... right-winger utoptia.

Rate should SKYROCKET fairly soon, as the very sick take advantage of these provisions, and the young ignore insurance as they always do, and pay a small fine (or dodge it).

Will be interesting to see if the press prints any sob stories about how the Obama fines hurt single people -- paying that $285, or whatever, fine, now I can't pay my rent.  Not likely, although you'd see a MILLION of those stories if it were a Repub fine.

Health Care passed because Joe Lieberman was the 60th vote in the Senate, ...who under the direction of his conservative handlers, insisted on the mandate.

Scott... continually calling it a "fine" doesn't make it so.
It's part of filing your taxes.
No income = no taxes to file = no tax penalty ...

I don't even support the mandate, but at least I know what is being implemented.

>> Health Care passed because Joe Lieberman was the 60th vote in the Senate <<

No, it passed because of Harry Reid's illegal, but NEVER prosecuted, payoffs to "wavering" Dem senators, like Landrieu and Ben Nelson, to name just two:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30815.html

So answer this, I don't get insurance, I pay my $285, do I get dropped in an insurance bucket.  i.e. does that 250 buy me a policy on the exchange?  Cause for my family, it would be a no brainer......drop our insurance, use free clinics and walk in clinics and if we got really sick, buy a policy.  Am I understanding this right.  What does the 250 pay, if anything?

Supreme Court rules to uphold Obamacare, the right goes completely freaking nuts : http://sweetvociferation.blogspot.com/2012/06/supreme-court-rules-to-uphold-obamacare.html

>> Scott... continually calling it a "fine" doesn't make it so. <<

OBAMA AND HIS LAWYERS CALLED IT A "fine".

I don't believe for one second it's a fine.

To be "fair", O calls it whatever he thinks will work best for that day.  If it helps him with a particular issue, he insists it's "100% a fine, NOT a tax".  If it helps him another day, he says "it's 100% a tax, NOT a fine".

As with Clinton, and with Goebbels, the lies are endless and interchangeable and meaningless.  The only thing thing that matters to them is to create the propoganda effect they want for that moment.

>>To be "fair", O calls it whatever he thinks will work best for that day.  If it helps him with a particular issue, he insists it's "100% a fine, NOT a tax".  If it helps him another day, he say
"it's 100% a tax, NOT a fine".

Sounds like he's a politician. What about this surprises you? They all do this.

"As with Clinton, and with Goebbels, the lies are endless and interchangeable and meaningless.  The only thing thing that matters to them is to create the propoganda effect they want for that moment. "

Says the guy who continually shouts "SOCIALISM!!!"

>> does that 250 buy me a policy on the exchange? <<

Officially, I don't think so.  I think it's like a fine.  For example, you're supposed to have car insurance and don't, they fine you, but that doesn't provide you car insurance.

However, de facto, I'm not so sure.  They can't really turn you down for treatment, because "you've paid your fine".


Either way, don't get too carried away.  The initial fines are just another HUGE lie.  They were deliberately made so small to get it passed.  In no time, Dems will have the fines SKYROCKETING as well, GUARANTEED.

The mandate itself is a payoff to the insurance industry...

You think legislative "favors" are unique to the health care legislation only?  Democrats only?
C'mon, you can't be that naive.  That's Washington,...not saying I like it but that's what it is.

Maybe you should stand out there with the OWS protesters next time they rally against shady campaign contributions and corporate influence on congress.  Unless you're only against payoffs to Democrats that is...

>> Says the guy who continually shouts "SOCIALISM!!!" <<

That's 100% NOT a lie.

It IS socialism.  It happens to be socialism YOU personally like, but that's doesn't make any less socialistic.

>> The mandate itself is a payoff to the insurance industry...
...C'mon, you can't be that naive. <<

LOL.  You're 100% naive if you think the mandate is some type of "payoff" to the insurance industry.  

The mandate is what the DEMS have wanted for decades to take over the system, since they've realized they can't go straight to a 100% govt-run and govt-controlled system, which is their ultimate goal.  The mandate is a necessary step, like socialism on the road to communism.

Socialistic and socialism are two entirely different things, and you either don't understand the difference or just want to promote your lies and propaganda.

No, you just don't understand that socialism can be democratic socialism as opposed to marxist socialism.  Well, at least initially, although eventually all socialism will inevitably go futher toward more control of all aspects of life by the state.

...Conservatives have a hard time with understanding the difference between a Social program, and literally controlling the means of production.... as in "socialism", the economic term.

What's worse is many of them like to conflate it with Communism.

America is a Capitalist country, ....where taxes support Social programs.

Conservatives are pessemistic and paranoid drama queens.

"oblama gonna take muh guns!!!"... heard that a million times in 2008... yet all my rifles still sitting in my closet in 2012.

Leftists like to hide behind the most extreme and radical definition of socialism to pretend they're not socialists.  Only the truly naive fall for it, i.e., newscasters on old media, self-deluded marxists, etc..

One can support socialism w/o being a hardcode marxist socialist.  However, as I noted above, eventually democratic socialism will morph further and further into hardcode socialism, as once the state can grab ever-more power, it will never stop.


>> Socialistic and socialism are two entirely different things <<

LOL, you CAN'T be serious.

The VERY DEFINITION of socialistic is:
"
Of, advocating, or tending toward socialism
"

>> What's worse is many of them like to conflate it with Communism. <<

In traditional marxism, socialism is just an interim step toward communism, so no need to conflate, socialism is *intended* to lead to communism.

Even "democratic communism" was created, as when the old media members went all gaga over glasnost and Gorbachev.  They hated genuine freedom fighters, like Reagan and Thatcher, but they loved communist murderers and fascists like "gorbie".

China is supposedly doing that now.  I guess "Democratic communism" is possible, as with FDR and Obama, but "democractic communism" is an oxymoron and an idiotic expression.

>> "oblama gonna take muh guns!!!"... <<

Not yet.  He had to give tons of them to drug-running killers first, then cover it up.

>> I don't get insurance, I pay my $285 <<

Where did you get that amount?

From my research, the penalties are based *per person* in the household, capped at a % of income that changes based on time.

"
Penalties
 
Beginning in 2014, the federal government will impose new fines on citizens and legal residents who do not obtain government-approved insurance.  

Those without insurance will pay a tax that is the greater of a flat fee, or a percentage of family income.[emphasis added]

The flat fee will be phased in over several years.  
In 2014, the penalty will be $95 per adult in an uninsured household
In 2015, $325 per adult
In 2016, $695 per adult
after which it will increase annually in line with consumer inflation.  For uninsured children, the fine will be half the amount applied to uninsured adults.  

If greater, households pay 1 percent of their income in 2014, 2 percent in 2015, and 2.5 percent in 2016 and thereafter in lieu of the flat per person fee.[emphasis added]
"

"LOL.  You're 100% naive if you think the mandate is some type of "payoff" to the insurance industry.  

The mandate is what the DEMS have wanted for decades to take over the system, since they've realized they can't go straight to a 100% govt-run and govt-controlled system, which is their ultimate goal.  The mandate is a necessary step, like socialism on the road to communism. "

Very revisionist, as this whole idea came from Republicans, all of whom were for it until Obama added it to the health care bill.

Leftists like to hide behind the most extreme and radical definition of socialism to pretend they're not socialists.  Only the truly naive fall for it, i.e., newscasters on old media,

What's so funny about this is that there was a Fox News producer who started the charge of Socialism against Obama, and even HE didn't think the Fox News Sheeple would buy it!

Very revisionist, as this whole idea came from Republicans, all of whom were for it until Obama added it to the health care bill.

 Not completly true, not all were for it, the reason it died.  But most dems were against it including Obama.....until the great flip-flopper did what he does best......which is....wait for it.......flip-flop.

>> who started the charge of Socialism against Obama

Per Obama's own book, his good friend, Frank Marshall Davis, started the charge.

Here are the penelities.  My questions are, people who are too poor to file a return don't get a penelty, do they get coverage.  For example a 27 year old working at Taco Bell, making 8 grand, how is he covered?  Also, when I pay the $285, do I get coverage or is it a fine.  In the case of a tax, don't I usually get something in return?

Obama took ideas from both sides to create the health care reform act.  He realized the mandate was required.   It was then that ALL Republicans sided against it, in lock step.

Republicans are the flip-floppers.

Now all you conservative rightists get to flip-flop on your indignant outrage:

When your kids turn 19 and still have insurance, thank Obama.

When you go to a doctor for a check-up or other preventive measure and it's free - thank Obama.

When you change jobs and lose your insurance, and don't find a job with insurance within 90 days, and you have a pre-existing condition, and you get a new job and the new insurance company takes you on without issue - thank Obama.


You won't get to thank Republicans for any of it.

>> Also, when I pay the $285 <<

So you make no more than $28,500 a year?  Really??

Nothing personal, but in that case you should get an additional job instead of using time to post here.

>> When you go to a doctor for a check-up or other preventive measure and it's free <<

NOTHING is free.

Why in the world can't leftists understand THE simplest principle in the world?

>>When you go to a doctor for a check-up or other preventive measure and it's free

Perfect liberal example of la la land.  So it's just magically free, huh?  No one has to pay for it?



>>and don't find a job with insurance within 90 days, and you have a pre-existing condition, and you get a new job and the new insurance company takes you on without issue - thank Obama.

You mean when you can't find a job - thank Obama.


Can I thank Obama when we're Greece?

It's covered under your health plan - so it's FREE to you.  


OR - using your logic, when you pay a co-pay to see your doctor, that's socialism.

"Can I thank Obama when we're Greece? "

Why does it have to be Greece?   Why not Canada or Germany?   They have both universal healthcare AND a thriving economy.

>> It's covered under your health plan - so it's FREE to you. <<

STILL??  **THE** simplest principle in the world, and they STILL don't get it.  UNBELIEVABLE -- except that it's from living-in-their-own-fantasy-world leftists.


>> OR - using your logic, when you pay a co-pay to see your doctor, that's socialism. <<

Logic left you behind a long ago, huh?

If I have PRIVATE insurance, it's NOT socialism, whatever part I pay (or not).

Great - now EVERYONE will have private insurance and lo and behold - per Scott - IT'S NOT SOCIALISM!!!!


whew  - that was a close one!

Fine, I pay the fine, regardless of the amount, 285 or 1%, that doesn't matter.  The question is do I have insurance, if not can I still go to the doctor and get service.  Where does my 285 or 1% TAX go?

>> The question is do I have insurance <<

I'll quote my own previous answer on that one:

Officially, I don't think so.  I think it's like a fine.  For example, when you're supposed to have car insurance and don't, they fine you, but that doesn't provide you car insurance.

However, de facto, I'm not so sure.  They can't really turn you down for treatment, because "you've paid your fine".  ?

>> Great - now EVERYONE will have private insurance and lo and behold - per Scott - IT'S NOT SOCIALISM!!!! <<

Unless the private insurance is paid for by GOVT involvement/subsidies.  AND/OR the co-pay is "WAIVED"/covered by GOVT.

>> It's covered under your health plan - so it's FREE to you. <<

beetos:

You STILL don't get why that is a RIDICULOUS statement, do you??

Germany : is not dependent on an individual's health condition, but a percentage (currently 15.5%) of salaried income.

Sounds rocking, just what I want insurance that costs 15.5% of my income, and that's just basic coverage, you still have to pay co-pays.

>> Sounds rocking, just what I want insurance that costs 15.5% of my income <<

We're on our way now.

That IS the intent of Ocare.  The rest is all a facade.

One govt official even stated so openly; you can find the video if you search around.

This is just a back-door way to single payer.

So if I get a fine for no car insurance, it's not really a fine but a tax.  So if I'm 30, this is perfect, pay the fine, whic is 95 bucks or 1% of my yearly income.  If I get really sick, buy insurance, run up a huge tab then drop out.

>> If I get really sick, buy insurance, run up a huge tab then drop out. <<

Once you get well, yes.

Clearly this won't work for long ... AS INTENDED.

Private companies will go out of business and govt will be "forced" to take over.

How Orwellian!  They can deliberately destroy private health coverage and then WHINE about the "poor" fed govt being "forced" to step in and "save" everyone's health care.

You've got it figured out berger, so why are you so upset?

"You STILL don't get why that is a RIDICULOUS statement, do you?? "   I know why it's RIDICULOUS to YOU, but I'm relating my own experience.  This is in effect already.    

Preventive care, like contraception, greatly benefits the insurance companies in the long run.  So while there is all this grumbling and wailing and accusations of nefarious purpose right now, this has the potential to greatly reduce some of the problems with the exploding cost of health care we see today.  

Sadly, no matter how much better things get, there will always be issues with the system ( just like there are with any system ) and even in the absence of the larger problems people like you will still be caterwauling about the "curse of socialized medicine."

"How Orwellian!  They can deliberately destroy private health coverage and then WHINE about the "poor" fed govt being "forced" to step in and "save" everyone's health care. "

Oh you don't like that kind of thing?  Then you must be really upset at the Republicans, especially Boehner who blocked any attempt at immigration reform, and then accused the President about not doing anything on immigration reform!

>> So if I get a fine for no car insurance, it's not really a fine but a tax. <<

You're being too restrictive with words for Obama.

Obama is Big Brother.  Doublethink is his stock-in-trade.  Reality is relative.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.” [1984]

2 + 2 is 5 ... or 3, or 4, or all at once, depending on what is convenient to Obama at that moment.

It's a fine when it suits Him to call it a fine, it's a tax when it suits Him to call it a tax, and it's both at the same when that suits Him.

>> I know why it's RIDICULOUS to YOU <<

Why?  Why do I consider it **NOT** "free to you"?  

Leftists are so blind, and purblind, about basic economics -- sad, but I guess it's a prerequisite, after all.

"DEMS designed this plan"

No. No. No.  Congress followed the Massachusetts lead of the Massachusetts Moderate and flip-flopper, Mitt Romney.

Here's a quote from the Court's decision, regarding the Massachusetts mandate.
Congress followed the Massachusetts lead.  It's now official from the highest court in the land.

So maybe the Dems had an earlier idea, but it was Mitt, using his business expertise, who was the final architect of the successful model, now adapted on the federal scale.

Poor Mitt is boxed-in.  All he can do is flip-flop like a dying fish.  Flip to one side and disaffect the other side of his base; flip to the other side and disaffect the other one.

Fun, fun, fun.

That's NOT "the Court's decision", that's GINSBURG'S decision.

How many Republican votes did the "Republican designed" health care bill garner when deemed passed?

I think it's fair to say the health care law is the result of ideas by both sides, but the individual mandate was dreamed up by a conservative think tank.

Regardless, once Democrats put the law on the floor, the Republicans instantly became diametrically opposed to it.   Thus we have an ongoing battle as opposed to a robust solution.

ABC News' Michael Falcone reports [today]:
*laughing* a "Tax and Spend republican" candidate who likes mandates - flip-flop, flip-flop.

>>Regardless, once Democrats put the law on the floor, the Republicans instantly became diametrically opposed to it.

As are most Americans.  Maybe Obama should have bribed Republicans like he did Democrats.


Congress, while ignoring the failing economy, put a turd together, slapped a poll tested/fancy title on it, and are trying to sell to naive Americans.  But a polished turd can't hide the shit smell inside.

And, from the way it looks, this was originally struck down, but Roberts changed his mind.  He then re-wrote the legislation in an attempt to make it Constitutional as a "tax" - now how many times did the community organizer say this wasn't a tax?

"most Americans" - have been misinformed, by the right....

"most Americans" - have opinions based on their emotional response to misinformation.

"most Americans" - can't name their own representatives in congress.


....what people feel and what is reality isn't always the same thing.
Fact is, "most Americans" have mixed feelings on it, and are not "diametrically" opposed to it, just certain aspects of it that they know about (ie mandate provision).


The constant babble from the right, proclaiming what is and what isn't "American"...and speaking on behalf of "true Americans"......is extremely overplayed and juvenile..

>> "most Americans" - can't name their own representatives in congress. <<

Typical leftist condescension.

Yet NO leftist see why:

>> It's covered under your health plan - so it's FREE to you. <<

is such a RIDICULOUS statement.

Good post by: WaterStreet

Wasn't I arguing with you all, that the Mass. law could be considered relevant to the Supreme Court decision?

I believe I was....  ...yep...I was.

>>"most Americans" - have been misinformed, by the right....

Did the "right" misinform the CBO?




CBO NEARLY DOUBLES OBAMACARE ESTIMATE

President Obama's national health care law will cost $1.76 trillion over a decade, according to a new projection released today by the Congressional Budget Office, rather than the $940 billion forecast when it was signed into law.

CBO Director Says Obamacare Would Reduce Employment by 800,000 Workers

Testifying today before the House Budget Committee, Congressional Budget Office (CBO) Director Doug Elmendorf confirmed that Obamacare is expected to reduce the number of jobs in the labor market by an estimated 800,000

CBO deals new blow to health plan

For the second time this month, congressional budget analysts have dealt a blow to the Democrat's health reform efforts, this time by saying a plan touted by the White House as crucial to paying for the bill would actually save almost no money over 10 years.

It's not condescension Scott... you know what I'm saying.
Just go ask people at random basic civics questions...you get blank stares half the time.

Most people don't care about politics...the only information they have; they receive by the unintentional absorbtion of soundbytes on the radio and news right before they change the channel..

According to Fox News, "most Americans" are middle aged, white, and live in the heartland.


Also, there are those on the left who are opposed to it for radically different reasons than those on the right are opposed to it.   That's what happens when there's a compromise.

>> "most Americans" - can't name their own representatives in congress. <<

Typical leftist condescension.

Yeah, righties never condescend.

Yet NO leftist see why:

>> It's covered under your health plan - so it's FREE to you. <<

Ooops, spoke to soon.

BTW - Ayn Rand herself went on medicare.   Just sayin'

>> But there's another moment from the debate that's getting more traction after yesterday's Supreme Court ruling - on in which Romney says "yes," when asked is the health reform law he ushered in as governor constituted a tax. <<

Yes, Romney TOLD THE TRUTH.

Obama LIED OVER AND OVER AND OVER AND OVER.

Obama LIED by campaigning AGAINST ANY TYPE OF MANDATE, and assailed Hillary for having one in her plan:

"A mandate means that in some fashion, everybody will be forced to buy health insurance."   My plan "emphasizes lowering costs."
 
Obama held that position throughout the campaign. Elect Hillary, he said, and the government will compel you to buy health insurance. Elect me, and I'll give you lower costs and let you keep your freedom.
 
One Obama TV ad drove the point home: "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan? It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't." [Gee, that sounds familiar!!]


Obama LIED over and over about the mandate NOT being a tax, most famously during his interview with Stephanopoulus:

"For us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance, is absolutely not a tax increase."  He repeats the lie often and vociferously.


And still available on the whitehouse's **OWN WEBSITE**:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/Word-from-the-White-House-Common-Ground-on-Health-Insurance-Reform/
"
•What President Obama is proposing is not a tax, but a requirement to comply with the law.
•People are required to obey the speed limit and have to pay a penalty if they get caught speeding? Does anyone consider that a tax?
•People are required to have car insurance and can be fined if they are caught without it. Is that a tax?
•What we’re talking about is a penalty for the few people who will refuse to buy health insurance – even though they can afford it – and who expect the rest of us to pick up the tab for their care.
"

Of course, when he got to the supreme court, he claimed it WAS a tax, to give weak judge(s) who value favorable nyt's coverage more than the Constitution, duty and honor a lie to use to fabricate any supercilious reason to declare it "constitutional".


So MANY LIES.  You gotta have doublethink in triplicate to follow anything Obama says.

>>Obama LIED over and over about the mandate NOT being a tax, most famously during his interview with Stephanopoulus:

I want to see him now defend giving the middle class a huge tax increase.

I'm sure the impartial media will be all over that.

Hey Scott,

If a philosophical argument about what a candidate said on the campaign trail vs what happens once their elected bothers you, you'd better hope Romney doesn't get elected.  You might get a heart attack or a stroke from the amount of times he'll be contradicting things he's saying now, which already contradicts things he said recently, which contradicts things he said in the past....   Luckily though, you'll have healthcare  - thanks to Obama ;-)

Interestingly, you guys always rail about being self sufficient and responsible, and the poor bringing down the system, not to mention the old "half the country doesn't even pay tax".

Now, if you don't have health insurance, and you get sick,  you quickly become a burden to society.    Having health insurance would alleviate that to a degree, so having health insurance makes you self sufficient and responsible.

Now there's a fine you have to pay if you don't have it - or a tax if you prefer.  

A reasonable person would expect that conservatives would rejoice over this.

>. A reasonable person would expect that conservatives would rejoice over this. <<

No, we're more consistent that leftists.  Even if/when we agree with the end result of something, we want it to be attained LAWFULLY AND CONSTITUTIONALLY.

I understand that you, like Obama and Roberts, don't care about that "pesky little Constitution thing", but that actually does matter to some of us.  No, really, we actually do believe in following our own Constitution, as the supreme law of the land.  

Yes, seriously, we REALLY do believe that.  We want to be a nation of LAWS, not of dictatorial whims just because the president really believes he's "doing the right thing".  That roads leads to tyranny: after all, Stalin, Mao and Hitler all really believed they were "doing the right thing"

Ok, so a constitutional scholar, and 5 duly appointed supreme court justices agree that it's constitutional, and you claim to support this nation of LAWS, then by your own decree you MUST support this law!

Really?  Health care == Hitler, Stalin, and Mao???

You owe $.05 for playing the Hitler card in a political discussion.

BTW - if you rightists are so concerned about the Constitution and Nation of Laws and all that, where was the outrage over the gov'ts ability to indefinitely detain citizens without trial?   Or the so called Patriot act?     Citizens United?  To me, these issues seem far more likely to lead to tyranny than requiring citizens to purchase health insurance.

>> so a constitutional scholar <<

??  You mean Obama ??  There's NO evidence to back that up!!

The five justices unconstitutionally re-wrote the law, which explicitly stated "penalty" multiple times, to "tax".  THEN claimed it was "constitutional" because of the power to tax.  

But congress explicitly tried to pass a "tax" and failed.  And as the sane justices in their dissent noted, the court had NEVER rewritten a statute like that just to make something up to declare it valid.

Much worse, and even more astoundingly, the same judges that said it was "constitutional" because it was "tax" ... said it was NOT a tax.  See, previous supreme court rulings clearly state that a "tax" can NEVER be challenged in court until it's actually been PAID, and no one has yet paid Obama's tax here.  So IF it is a "tax", the court should have thrown the case out, as no one has standing to bring the case.

Instead, they said since the bill said it was a "penalty", not a "tax", standing was there.

To summarize:
1) The court says a "penalty", as it is described in the bill, would indeed be unconstitutional, but since it's really a "tax", we'll pretend we're the congress and rewrite the legislation [NOT constitutional for them to do, of course] -- to say "tax" in place of penalty
2) But, since if it's a "tax" that would prevent us from ruling on it, our rewrite -- the ONLY thing that allegedly makes it "constitutional" -- won't count as far as standing goes!!

PURE DOUBLETHINK!  It's either a tax or a penalty or neither or both ALL AT THE SAME TIME!  Goebbels himself would be proud of that propaganda and lies!

>>Ok, so a constitutional scholar, and 5 duly appointed supreme court justices

Uh...yeah...if you say so.  4 crazy liberal justices, who could care less about the Constitution and another that's off his medications.

This is why it's important to get the most unqualified, worst president in US history out of office.  He picks justices who adhere to his community organizing/ACORN/Rev Wright policies.

So you're saying they actually rewrote the legislation?

I don't believe that, and the only evidence I've seen of it is from the propaganda pundits at Fox News.

Please cite concrete evidence that this did in fact happen, and is not just tome talking head's interpretation of the judges opinions.

>> I don't believe that, and the only evidence I've seen of it is <<

Read the dissenting opinion -- shared by all dissenters, rather unusual.

OR

Just look up the text of the bill and search for "penalty" and "tax" -- you'll find the former but not the latter.

OR

Roberts' majority opinion (~193 pages).  He basically talks about his rewrite there.

>>Please cite concrete evidence that this did in fact happen, and is not just tome talking head's interpretation of the judges opinions.

Royal softball pitch!

Tell me you're not that much out of the know

Kind of the typcial response I'd expected - whenever conservatives don't get their way in court, it's judicial activism or overreach.  

It's a good thing we know the names of the judges, or you guys would be screaming about voter fraud!

>> It's a good thing we know the names of the judges, or you guys would be screaming about voter fraud! <<

Just because it's been used so many times, from JFK to Al Franken.  Al Gore tried to steal the election and get selected instead, but, too bad for him, a court actually enforced the law as written for once!