It's About Liberty: A Conservative Forum
Topics => Judiciary, Crime, & Courts => Topic started by: Libertas on September 27, 2011, 07:31:10 AM
-
OK, if The Regime wants this, does this signal a fix is in?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html)
They got compromising picks of Kennedy or what?!
On a related note, maybe the defections from and dissatisfaction of doctors in the AMA and with ObamaCare can be spun as a positive...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/)
-
This does need to go to the Supreme Court, but I am extremely uneasy about it.
-
I hear ya.
Relying on them as a first resort never sits well with me.
This kind of crap needed to be slapped down when it was being hatched, not after its been unleashed upon humanity...
If it isn't killed we could be royally effed. If not struck down and not repealed, we will be effed for sure!
-
Personally, I'm stoked. Let's git it on!
The sooner this is adjudicated the sooner I can make permanent plans. At stake is my future status as an American citizen. Should SCOTUS deem it constitutional to force individuals to comport ourselves to this extortion I will (here, let me insert some emphasis)
renounce my citizenship.
I grow weary of the asinine gamesmanship that our current 'leaders' play - with us as unwitting or unwilling hostages. I'm tired of being a pawn in the left's socialist schemes. And I'm done with the proposition of abiding by the rules and being fvcked while watching my illegal neighbors with new cars in the driveway (more like parked on the lawn) and big-screen TV's blaring out anti-white hate speech for all the neighborhood to see.
"Go Galt"? pffft, I'm gonna make Galt look like Øbozo.
::gaah::
(poor little gaah guy - I'm apt to wear him right out!)
-
I hear ya 'Soup, there is a measure of liberation in a clear cut answer, and patience is my least favorable vice.
It just blows the big one how we got here.
It should not have had to come to this.
And when time came for the opposition to step up and impeach this POS despite the odds, they punked out again.
I'm tired of candy-asses punking out and here we are waiting for SCOTUS to inform us if we are in a functioning Republic anymore or a turd world socialist oligarchy waiting to become a dictatorship...
Pisses the hell out of me!
Makes me want to throttle gutless wonders on sight!
-
Nice of the NFIB to be on the ball and stop the slow walking of this by The Regime!
http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/28/obamacare-has-arrived-in-the-supreme-court/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2011/09/28/obamacare-has-arrived-in-the-supreme-court/)
::thumbsup::
-
A certain Libertarian PhD, by the name of Michael Munger, who does a segment with our local AM talk radio guy, believes we're cooked and the Supremes are going to let Obamacare stand, not because it's Constitutional, but because of stare decisis and precedent.
Admin lawyers are running the same bait and switch play as FDR's did with Social Security, which is/was sold to the people as a "program" and then defended in the courts as a tax. Munger is of the opinion that as the Supremes have already blessed Congress' ability to tax, and under the commerce clause no less, they're going to stick it to us on these grounds.
-
Let's just say that the future of American liberty in the hands of Anthony Kennedy gives me no cause for optimism.
-
Let's just say that the future of American liberty in the hands of Anthony Kennedy gives me no cause for optimism.
Dr. Munger did not mention Kennedy; what he did say is that Alito and Roberts have been complicit in shredding the 10th Amendment, which will assist Obamacare in prevailing.
-
If that is what lights the fuse then so be it. May patience is running damn thin!
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-would-liberalism-be-better-without-obamacare_598279.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/morning-jay-would-liberalism-be-better-without-obamacare_598279.html)
...consulting firm McKinsey has surveyed businesses and found that 30 percent of employers plan to “definitely or probably” stop offering employer-sponsored insurance, and that among employers with “a high awareness of reform,” that number jumps to nearly 60 percent. If these estimates are anywhere near correct, tens of millions of people will lose their current insurance – contrary to the promises of President Obama – and worse, federal spending on health care will spiral out of control, as millions of people will be eligible for federal subsidies.
If any of this comes to pass, liberalism will suffer a terrible blow. Let’s remember that the Democratic party, in particular its liberal wing, is entirely responsible for Obamacare. It is that side of the political divide that promised it could do a better job of managing health care than what we have with the status quo. And if the rest of Obamacare fails as miserably as the CLASS Act has, the left will shoulder all of the blame, and it could be decades before the country ever trusts liberal Democrats again.
If, on the other hand, the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare next year, the public won’t experience any of these negative effects, and liberals would have a fantastic rallying cry for their dispirited base heading into the 2012 election. Just as the judgment against the NIRA gave Roosevelt and the liberals the jolt they needed for the “Second New Deal,” a Court ruling against Obamacare would transform that terrible, unworkable law into a kind of “bloody shirt,” an enduring totem of slain liberal nobility that could inspire the left for decades to come. More importantly, it would give the Democrats an opportunity to try again and do better next time. We might then call it the greatest mulligan in the last 75 years of American politics.
Though I understand this school of thought (and it makes a lot of sense to me), *IF* the Supreme Court does not strike Obamacare care down as unconstitutional it will be the end of the country as we all know it. I agree that this school of thought could be behind Obama's sudden desire to speed up the process after having spent so much effort and resources trying to slow it up - hoping that Obamacare doesn't get struck down but also, seeing it as a great opportunity if it is struck down; essentially a win-win for the progressives. But in reality, none of that matters to the country - because if the Supreme Court doesn't follow the Constitution on this then there basically is no Constitution left to follow.
-
And then we'll be a sh*thole like Greece , only a whole lot bigger . The OWS crowd bear a "striking" resemblance to the rioting Greeks .
-
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/SCOTUS2011.jpg)
If Mr. Questionmark screws this up, he'll be the first idiot the angry mob goes after!
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/Pillory.jpg)
It'll all just roll on from there...
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/Donkey20Kong.jpg)
;)
-
Am I off my rocker to be concerned about the safety of some of teh SCOTUS?
-
Am I off my rocker to be concerned about the safety of some of teh SCOTUS?
I'd say not. Horrible-r things have happened.
-
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/doj_refuses_to_release_kagan_obamacare_documents.html (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/11/doj_refuses_to_release_kagan_obamacare_documents.html)
There are plenty of Republican congressmen and senators who believe that associate justice Elena Kagan should recuse herself from the upcoming Supreme Court case involving the constitutionality of Obamacare because of her service as Solicitor General.
Emails released last summer clearly showed that Kagan's interest in Obamacare exceeded the threshold by which judges should voluntarily recuse themselves.
-
That proglodyte doesn't have the decency to recuse herself, you watch!
-
I'd be willing to bet a digital scoobie snack that you're correct Libertas!
-
Not the way I'd like to earn a scoobie snack...but, that's life!
-
Another depressing development...
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-08-11-18-46 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-11-08-11-18-46)
"Congress did not overstep its authority" ?!?!?!
::facepalm::
-
A conservative-leaning appeals court panel on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care law ...
"Conservative-leaning" according to whom? The AP?
-
Insult; and SCOTUS will deliver the injury.
They are racking up a lot of wins. They are on
cruise control toward a complete transformative
event. Peace be upon them.
-
Mid 2012: SCOTUS rules ObamaCare constitutional => Tea Party citizens take to the streets => "Occupiers" meet them for the purpose of violent conflict => Government puts the hammer down => Game over.
Just something that popped into my mind, not a prediction. But if one would have asked me 3 years ago if such a thing were possible, I would've said they were wearing a tin-foil hat. Now it seems completely within the realm of possibility, with variations on the theme expanding the likelihood even further.
-
Sigh. (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/08/brutal-d-c-circuit-upholds-obamacare-mandate-in-opinion-authored-by-reagan-appointee/)
The day Obamacare is upheld by the Supreme Court is the day I declare full out, no holds barred war on the Federal Government and every damn liberal in this country.
I really hope I am not alone in that assessment, and that on that day millions of violent insurgents are created.
From the comments:
To a certain point, it almost doesn’t even matter to me anymore if the mandate is upheld. I mean, on it’s face, that’s a blatantly untrue statement. But what I mean is, I don’t need the Supreme Court, or any lower court, to tell me the mandate is unconstitutional. It obviously is. I have no intention of ever complying with the mandate, nor do I consider myself to have any moral duty to do so.
I obey laws, I pay my taxes, even when I think they are stupid. Other laws, such as state requirements to purchase auto insurance, are bad law–but constitutional, and I obey those laws. This law, with this mandate, however? Different story. My conscience is clear on this. I’ll never comply. This strikes at the core of what it is to be American, and if in fact this law is constitutional, then we have irretrievably lost what it means to be American.
-
Merging with previous thread.
-
Merging with previous thread.
Thanks Pan. I missed it.
-
Mid 2012: SCOTUS rules ObamaCare constitutional => Tea Party citizens take to the streets => "Occupiers" meet them for the purpose of violent conflict => Government puts the hammer down => Game over.
Just something that popped into my mind, not a prediction. But if one would have asked me 3 years ago if such a thing were possible, I would've said they were wearing a tin-foil hat. Now it seems completely within the realm of possibility, with variations on the theme expanding the likelihood even further.
Game Over?
Game On.
Hammer Down?
The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The government is too large and too full of morons to deal with a full on insurrection effectively , especially when half of the military will be deserting to join us, along with the heavy equipment.
The same sentiments were probably voiced about the original colonists chances of fighting against parliament, England and the King. But even if said insurrection were to fail, I would rather die in the effort than survive to see the end. Give Me Liberty or Give me Death, and Death isn't exactly plan A.
-
Merging with previous thread.
Thanks Pan. I missed it.
You're welcome. Not a problem.
-
Mid 2012: SCOTUS rules ObamaCare constitutional => Tea Party citizens take to the streets => "Occupiers" meet them for the purpose of violent conflict => Government puts the hammer down => Game over.
Just something that popped into my mind, not a prediction. But if one would have asked me 3 years ago if such a thing were possible, I would've said they were wearing a tin-foil hat. Now it seems completely within the realm of possibility, with variations on the theme expanding the likelihood even further.
Game Over?
Game On.
Hammer Down?
The more you tighten your grip the more star systems will slip through your fingers.
The government is too large and too full of morons to deal with a full on insurrection effectively , especially when half of the military will be deserting to join us, along with the heavy equipment.
The same sentiments were probably voiced about the original colonists chances of fighting against parliament, England and the King. But even if said insurrection were to fail, I would rather die in the effort than survive to see the end. Give Me Liberty or Give me Death, and Death isn't exactly plan A.
Perhaps I wasn't clear. I meant the game as it exists - hoping for an electoral solution without strife and open conflict. It certainly would be the dawn of something new, but I was speaking of what will be lost. Life as we know it. The American dream, as we have known it. A nation that solves its internal conflicts at the ballot box. That game. Over.
By putting the hammer down, I meant a declaration of martial law, and the federal government openly turning against the citizenry. The effectiveness of any resistance or ineptitude of any government assault on liberty remains to be seen.
-
Want a look at the legal-eagle angels-on-pinheads-dancing to which our "legal system" has devolved? One really needs to read the following to fully grasp the ongoing segue right away from the Constitution:
From Volokh (http://volokh.com/2011/11/09/my-take-on-the-individual-mandate-litigation/) ... via Mike C.
The modern Supreme Court is reluctant to directly overrule precedents, especially well-entrenched precedents, but is not at all reluctant to distinguish precedents, even when the distinctions in question are quite strained. I could present many examples, but just consider, for example, how Boy Scouts of America v. Dole turned out not to be governed by Roberts v. United States Jaycees; the Court distinguished Matthews v. Eldridge from Goldberg v. Kelly; or how the Court has gone back and forth between relying on Mulligan and Quirin in detainee cases without overruling either one of them, or really explaining how they don’t contradict each other.
So now that the opponents of the individual mandate have manged to make arguments that pass the laugh test, the Supreme Court’s ultimate decision will involve such factors as: (1) How popular will the individual mandate, and health care reform more generally, be when the Court takes up the issue?; (2) How popular will President Obama be at that time? (3) The Republicans on the Court will undoubtedly be less likely to support a law passed with only Democratic support; (4) Will Justice Kennedy be more in the mood to be susceptible to the “Greenhouse Effect,” or to cement his conservative credentials, which in part will depend on, “How close to retirement is he?” (5) Does Justice Scalia think that invalidating the individual mandate will somehow hurt the cause of ultimately overruling Roe v. Wade, something that I think is always on Justice Scalia’s mind? (6) Will the Republican House and the expanded Republican minority in the Senate show in any way that they take federalism and limited national government seriously, the way the Contract with America undoubtedly made Lopez more viable, and the Big Government conservatism of the Bush Administration helped lead to Raich? (7) Will the Court have other issues before it on which the conservative Justices would rather spend their political capital? And so on... UPDATE: [8] I left out a crucial factor: If the liberals on the Court, like the dissenters in Lopez, are unable to articular a limiting principle that would prevent their decision from giving the federal government an essentially plenary police power to regulate virtually all human activity and inactivity, the individual mandate is doomed. The conservative majority simply will not accept a doctrine that suggests that federal power is not one of limited and enumerated powers.
Looking at these factors a year later: (1) The mandate is unpopular, and less popular than ever; (2) Ditto for the president; (3) no change; (4) Kennedy seems to have no intention of retiring; (5) there has been a conservative backlash over Scalia’s decidedly non-originalist opinions in Raich and McDonald, which has eroded Scalia’s standing among Federalist types in favor of Thomas as the new standard-bearer. I can’t imagine that Scalia is completely oblivious to this, or to the fact that a vote upholding the mandate will erode his standing further, but the Roe v. Wade question lingers; (6) the Republicans have not shown that they take federalism at all seriously; (7) there are no other issues of similar magnitude before the Court; and (8) this remains to be seen.
Also, consider this line: “Whether or not the best interpretation of those precedents supports the individual mandate or not is almost entirely irrelevant.” A conscientious circuit court judge, particularly one who, like Judge Silberman, has a lot invested in his reputation as an advocate of judicial restraint, could quite plausibly find that the best interpretation of precedent supports the constitutionality of the individual mandate. But when the case gets to the Supremes, the only relevant question is whether prior precedent clearly dictates upholding the mandate. I think the answer to that has been shown to be “no,” given all the opinions going the other way.
In short, I think the factors I enumerate are far more likely to affect the Court’s ultimate decision than whether Judge Sutton or Judge Silberman voted to uphold the mandate. I’m still not terribly optimistic that the mandate will be invalidated, but not because of the lower court opinions.
UPDATE: A clarification: I think likely all the conservative Justices on the Court think that if they were deciding things as an initial matter, without any relevant precedents and no political constraints on the Court, that the mandate would be unconstitutional as beyond Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. The constraints of both politics (in the broad sense of the word, including the Court being wary of preserving its authority and so on) and judicial culture (respect for precedent) are what would prevent the Court from invalidating the mandate. So I’m not arguing that the majority would invalidate the law because it suits them “politically.” I suspect that they all really think the law is unconstitutional but because of precedent and politics they need the right political environment to say so. If, for example, both the law and Obama were polling at 70%+, and the law had been passed with significant Republican support, and some of the leading Republican candidates supported the law, the chances that the Court would invalidate it would be approximately zero, regardless of the Justices’ views of its constitutionality. Maybe Thomas would dissent.
So, let me see now; according to this "reasoning", if both the law and the president were popular and both parties -- particularly the Ruling Class Republicans -- supported it, the Court would give a pass to legislation re-instituting slavery.
-
Another obvious reason why expecting the courts to be the best hope of preserving our liberty is foolish beyond question!
I would like to beat so many court decisions over the bleeping heads of every Repub who decided not to fight to the death the legislative action that gave us ObamaCare! Their utterly gutless choice to give up condemns us to the likelihood we'll have to be stuck with this rotten deal!
I damn them all!
::cussing::
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html)
Can health ruling sink tea party?
This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.
So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.
-
Agreed, the Left is so eager to put them in a grave they can't stand it...this is when we need to pop up and remind them we haven't gone away and will not be intimidated into being silenced, especially by the likes of this ilk!
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html)
Can health ruling sink tea party?
This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.
So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.
Wrong question.
Can health ruling sink a nation?
There, fixed it.
Here's an open prediction for anyone who may be watching. Øbamacare is such a monstrous overreach of federal authority that a SCOTUS upholding of it will spark open rebellion. OWS has been a girl scout outing compared to what you're gonna see. There will be blood in the streets. I won't be leading but I sure as hell will be participating.
So help me God.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a5/Molon_labe.jpg/220px-Molon_labe.jpg)
BITS
-
BITS .........
Rats. I never remember what that stands for ........
-
BITS .........
Rats. I never remember what that stands for ........
Not to chide you or anything but I can't understand why you can't remember. Think once seen/never forgotten. Think visceral. Think...
Blood In The Streets
-
BITS .........
Rats. I never remember what that stands for ........
Not to chide you or anything but I can't understand why you can't remember. Think once seen/never forgotten. Think visceral. Think...
Blood In The Streets
I don't get it either, but hopefully with your helpfully supplied visual, I will in the future. :supercool:
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html)
Can health ruling sink tea party?
This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.
So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.
I saw that and thought the same thing. Even if it doesn't lead to wide scale open rebellion ( though I for one will not comply) it would make the Tea Party work even harder to take over the government and get it repealed. Though personally, I don't think there are many left with the patience for that. Its far more likely that you will see states leave the union, and/or pass non-compliance bills. Got to love how the article says the Tea Party supports the "failed articles of confederation" vs the constitution. Yeah, because for a liberals and their absolutes - either its no central control or all central control . The Constitution was never about creating a limited government whose MAIN PURPOSE was to protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens. No. It was about creating a government that would have absolute control of the minutia of everyone's lives. Obviously.
-
@Weisshaupt:
I agree with your assessment.
-
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68086.html)
Can health ruling sink tea party?
This story just seems like another way for the media to disparage the Tea Party. The premiss is simply preposterous to me. If anything, if the Supreme Court were to declare Obamacare constitutionally sound, it would supercharge the Tea Party like almost nothing else could.
So yeah, to me this story is nothing more than a continuation of the marginalization of the Tea Party by the media.
I saw that and thought the same thing. Even if it doesn't lead to wide scale open rebellion ( though I for one will not comply) it would make the Tea Party work even harder to take over the government and get it repealed. Though personally, I don't think there are many left with the patience for that. Its far more likely that you will see states leave the union, and/or pass non-compliance bills. Got to love how the article says the Tea Party supports the "failed articles of confederation" vs the constitution. Yeah, because for a liberals and their absolutes - either its no central control or all central control . The Constitution was never about creating a limited government whose MAIN PURPOSE was to protect the inalienable rights and freedoms of citizens. No. It was about creating a government that would have absolute control of the minutia of everyone's lives. Obviously.
This ....
There is a distinct possibility that the high court could uphold the health care law’s constitutionality, not just with a 5-4 ruling — in which swing-vote Justice Anthony Kennedy sides with the court’s more liberal members — but with the support of conservative heroes, like Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts.
After all, Scalia concurred in the 2005 decision, Gonzales v. Raich, in which the court upheld a federal ban on possession of marijuana grown in accordance with local law for personal, medicinal use — because the ban was part of a broader regulation of interstate commerce.
Supporters of health care reform, relying on Raich as well as other legal precedents, have argued that the law is authorized by the Commerce Clause. As U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit Judge Jeffrey S. Sutton—a conservative superstar in his own right—wrote when he upheld the constitutionality of the health care mandate, “if Congress could regulate Angel Raich when she grew marijuana on her property for self-consumption, indeed for self-medication, and if it could do so even when California law prohibited that marijuana from entering any state or national markets, it is difficult to see why Congress may not regulate the 50 million Americans who self-finance their medical care.”
.... will further affirm the signal being sent that the Supreme Court is no more willing to stand for Constitutionalism than the Oppressives, that what matters most of all is upholding precedent. THIS IS HOW WE GOT HERE! By Court after Court torturing the Commerce Clause -- CLAUSE -- into meaning anything Congress wants it to mean; by way of isolating a CLAUSE from the rest of the Constitution.
Politico believes this kind of betrayal will take the wind out of the sails of normal people? Boy, do they have another think coming.
I didn't read the rest of the piece -- disgust! -- so, did the author mention Ohio's vote against Obamacare? I wager not, because they were part of the cheering section prophesying a vote "for" would signify a death-knell for future and continued resistance.
-
I didn't read the rest of the piece -- disgust! -- so, did the author mention Ohio's vote against Obamacare? I wager not, because they were part of the cheering section prophesying a vote "for" would signify a death-knell for future and continued resistance.
Nope. Ohio wasn't mentioned by the 'author' of this 'piece (of crap)'. The 'author' was leaning heavily upon the judgment of judge Laurence Silberman in DC. Here's is this 'authors' money quote:
Nonetheless, a rejection of the tea party’s basic constitutional vision by the Supreme Court—especially if a ruling upholding the mandate were joined by conservatives like Scalia and Roberts—would strike a major blow to tea partiers’ ability to have their constitutional theories taken seriously by the American public.
So, it could be the tea partiers’ favorite justices who finally tell them the party’s over.
By that you can tell that this 'author' has an axe to grind against the Tea Party and imo, this 'authors' article here is designed as nothing more than a hit piece intended to use the recent DC decision to demoralize the Tea Party. Frankly I think it's going to have the opposite effect and this 'authors' article is nothing more than their wishful thinking.
-
Constitutional "theories", is it? No "theory" required; it's in black and white and written plainly enough, and on purpose, so that any individual can grasp the contents. Or, so it was. More damage done by the enstupidation of the populace.
-
Yup - this 'piece' is nauseating. But it is also illustrative of how the left thinks (as if we didn't already know) and also, of how scared they are of the Tea Party. The attacks keep coming and they seem to get more and more ludicrous as time goes on. This tells us a lot of the enemy's thought process but even more importantly it illustrates the dire position (from their point of view) that they are currently in. The left threw ALL of their power behind this liberal assault these last few years and if it all goes to 'hell-in-a-hand-basket', which seems very possible, they will have lost a HUGE amount. Good for America...VERY bad for the progressives. In the meantime we have the huge task of trying to defend the country from this onslaught. Make no mistake, this is EVERYTHING the left has that they can bring to bear...if they loose this they risk becoming irrelevant for a generation at the least.
-
.... will further affirm the signal being sent that the Supreme Court is no more willing to stand for Constitutionalism than the Oppressives, that what matters most of all is upholding precedent. THIS IS HOW WE GOT HERE! By Court after Court torturing the Commerce Clause -- CLAUSE -- into meaning anything Congress wants it to mean; by way of isolating a CLAUSE from the rest of the Constitution.
The funny part is the left thinks we will roll over because "Conservatives" in the court say so? No, that is liberals who blindly follow leaders. We think for ourselves no matter what our "betters" say. But this is how liberals view the court.. that its just a super-congress, a panel of philosopher kings handing out judgement, and "judicial activism" is a meaningless term that simply means that I didn't like the decisions. You see, the judges "know better" - try to talk to them about the founders, Black stone and the process for Legal interpretation and they will tell you that they understand the Constitution better than the Founders did ( this happened, I kid you not.)
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d8/Gadsden_flag.svg/250px-Gadsden_flag.svg.png)
From Lenina Close, a presenter at the Denver tea party 2009:
You see these yellow flags flying around – the Gadsden flags. They say Don’t tread on me. It bears the symbol of a rattlesnake. A rattlesnake never initiates an attack unless provoked, did you know that? But, if she feels threatened she will strike and once engaged she will never give up and she will never surrender. For this reason, the rattlesnake became a symbol of courage and a mascot for liberty on the Gadsden flag while the phrase don’t tread on me became a mantra for those fighting for our freedom. Here’s another interesting fact, the rattlesnake will never wound unless she has generously given notice and warning to those who threaten her. By rattling, she cautions her enemies of the fatal danger that awaits those who tread on her. I believe it is time to give our govt officials such a warning. …and to the supreme court to have failed to honor the timeless principle constitution, and to the president who wishes to restrict our freedoms…please consider this your warning…..I may be just a Mom but like the rattlesnake on the Gadgden flag I stand with all of you coiled up and ready to strike.
Lenina starts talking about the Gadsden flag at the 4:10 mark:
Denver Tea Party VII (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QsXAU8vK0o4#ws)
-
Sharpen the fangs! Use them we will!
::thumbsup::
-
Tweeted...
US Supreme Court agrees to hear appeals over President Obama's healthcare law, ruling likely by July - @Reuters (https://twitter.com/#!/BreakingNews/statuses/136096593542791169)
-
Got a POLITICO e-mail about that this morning . Said opening arguements would probably begin in the spring .
-
Our liberty hinges on just 5 1/2 hours of arguments.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45287781 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45287781)
What could possibly go wrong?
OK, prediction time!
What will The Supreme's do and how will the electorate react?
I'll go first...
I bet they let all or part stand, these gutless wonders fear the Leftists rioting in the street more than the peaceful Tea Party types who have yet to beat, rape or kill anyone yet in protests thusfar. And the reaction of the electorate will be swift, but Obama gin's up the hate and fraud is rampant and we're stuck with both he and the evil healthcare law he spawned!
Embrace the horror!
-
http://www.cnbc.com/id/45287781 (http://www.cnbc.com/id/45287781)
The Supreme Court agreed Monday [today] to decide the fate of President Barack Obama's healthcare law,
A Supreme Court spokeswoman said oral arguments would take place in March. There will be a total of 5-1/2 hours of arguments.
-
From the abbreviated length of time allotted for arguments, I suspect they've already made up their minds.
ETA: The above shows how little I know about such things. I just listened to Mark Levin's opening monologue during which he explained that in today's "modern court", 5 1/2 hours is a long time allotted for arguments, and he read from this piece:
http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/283100/obamacare-marathon-set-supreme-court-carrie-severino (http://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/283100/obamacare-marathon-set-supreme-court-carrie-severino)
It's a good breakdown of what is going to be argued.
-
It's my understanding that the supreme court have asked both sides of the issue to explain three different areas of the case. Those being: severability, the individual mandate and jurisdiction.
I think it's plausible to consider that the supreme court may well rule only on the jurisdiction aspect of the case and throw out Obamacare just based on that and not rule of the rest of the law. Thereby effectively punting the rest downstream in the hopes that the next congress acts to either complete the whole mess or repeal it and effectively negating the need for the supreme court to actually make a decision.
I can also see them upholding it altogether and letting it pass because the supreme court has a history of not undoing things like this (big pieces of legislation) and of not interfering with the workings of the other branches of government. And also because, even though this monstrosity was forced through by 'hook and by crook', it still passes the test of having been passed in both houses of congress and signed by the president.
I suspect one of the two scenarios I've outlined is most likely to happen actually.
So what happens if they punt (option 1)? Obama may or may not get re-elected...likely not.
What happens under option 2? The conservative base gets whipped into a frenzy while the liberal base relaxes on their laurels and Obama is most likely not re-elected and then he doesn't get to seat any new judges to the supreme court.
What happens if the supreme court overturns it? The liberal base gets whipped into a frenzy while the conservative base relaxes on their laurels and Obama is most likely re-elected and then he gets to seat some new liberal judges to the supreme court.
Those are my musings anyway, for what they're worth.
-
5 1/2 hours may be a lot of time allowed for argument in modern times, but I still feel queasy about it, but I suppose it stems from my queasiness from even having it before the court...the fate of our constitution hanging in the balance!
And this!
No indication that Justice Kagan plans to recuse herself from the case, despite her involvement with the case and the law (which she called “simply amazing“) as Solicitor General.
Enrages me to no end! Roberts must step in and demand she remove herself from this case! A blind man can see how tainted she is on this issue!!!
::gaah::
ETA - Link on her comments -
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-tribe-day-obamacare-passed-i-hear-they-have-votes-larry-simply-amazing (http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/kagan-tribe-day-obamacare-passed-i-hear-they-have-votes-larry-simply-amazing)
Effing POS!
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/15/the-recusal-red-herrings/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/15/the-recusal-red-herrings/)
In other words, no justice on this court will recuse themselves — and everyone knows it. The arguments taking place against Kagan and Thomas are interesting, but they only serve to shape the rhetorical battlefield for whatever decision comes down from the Supreme Court next summer. Both sides are preparing for some delegitimization ahead of the decision in order to fire up the base for the 2012 election, and for any efforts needed to repeal ObamaCare in case the court leaves it in place.
However, some Democrats seem to think that’s not likely, even if Kagan doesn’t recuse herself:
Democrats on Capitol Hill are worried that the Supreme Court will rule against President Obama’s healthcare reform law.
Over the last couple weeks, congressional Democrats have told The Hill that the law faces danger in the hands of the Supreme Court, which The New York Times editorial page recently labeled the most conservative high court since the 1950s.
While the lawmakers are not second-guessing the administration’s legal strategy, some are clearly bracing for defeat.
“Of course I’m concerned,” said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). The justices “decide for insurance companies, they decide for oil companies, they decide for the wealthy too often.”
This is just another form of delegitimization, of course, but they’re worried nonetheless. If the court tosses out ObamaCare, in whole or in part, it will put egg on the face of every Democrat that spent all of their political capital following Obama into the abyss. That will delegitimize Democrats far more than the Supreme Court, and that would come right before the 2012 elections that they’re already fearing.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa! "The arguments against Kagan AND THOMAS"?! There is NO legitimate argument "against Thomas".
-
Quite right Pan...quite right. The author seems to fall right into the leftist line of thinking though just the same. Regardless, it was still an interesting take on the nervousness of the dems on this. I still think the supreme court's going to punt it though and hope the congress deals with it. Guess we'll see.
-
Whoa, whoa, whoa! "The arguments against Kagan AND THOMAS"?! There is NO legitimate argument "against Thomas".
Damn straight! There is no comparison between a justice whose wife was a lobbyist and a justice who was Solicitor General in the Regime that pushed for this atrocity and spoke in support of it! NONE! ZERO!! NADA!!! ZILCH!!!
These damned Repub's better counter with this argument hard and fast so Roberts doesn't lose spine and demand Kagan step aside!!!!
::angry::
-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577006322431330662.html?mod=rss_opinion_main (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577006322431330662.html?mod=rss_opinion_main)
Even if ObamaCare survives Supreme Court scrutiny next spring, its trials will be far from over. That's because the law has a major glitch that threatens its basic functioning. It's so problematic, in fact, that the Obama administration is now brazenly trying to rewrite the law without involving Congress.
The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act offers "premium assistance"—tax credits and subsidies—to households purchasing coverage through new health-insurance exchanges. This assistance was designed to hide a portion of the law's cost to individuals by reducing the premium hikes that individuals will face after ObamaCare goes into effect in 2014. (If consumers face the law's full cost, support for repeal will grow.)
The law encourages states to create health-insurance exchanges, but it permits Washington to create them if states decline. So far, only 17 states have passed legislation to create an exchange.
This is where the glitch comes in: ObamaCare authorizes premium assistance in state-run exchanges (Section 1311) but not federal ones (Section 1321). In other words, states that refuse to create an exchange can block much of ObamaCare's spending and practically force Congress to reopen the law for revisions.
-
A feature, not a bug, as far as I'm concerned.
Pelosi/Reid et. al. thought they were soooo smart -- 'we have to pass the bill so you'll know what's in it'; have more ignominious and despicable words been spoken in current times?! -- and now they, and Duh Wun, are finding out how true that was. The joke's on them.
According to the same process, the fix now is to wave the wand of bureaucracy and all manner o' things will be well?
Lawless, treasonous, dictatorial bastids.
-
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/16/obama-admin-attempting-another-congressional-end-around-on-obamacare-defect/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/16/obama-admin-attempting-another-congressional-end-around-on-obamacare-defect/)
Under ObamaCare, the IRS becomes the arbiter of health-insurance acceptability. Now Barack Obama needs the IRS to rescue ObamaCare entirely, thanks to a massive legislative defect that the President has no hope of rectifying in the new Congress. Thanks to sloppy legislative work, the PPACA’s subsidies to taxpayers won’t apply in states that refuse to create exchanges — which means that the states have a clear mechanism to block ObamaCare’s implementation.
That is, unless the IRS just bypasses Congress and corrects the law.
-
Hey BMG, another article on this exchange issue...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-obama-seeks-to-circumvent-congress-to-fix-obamacare-glitch/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-obama-seeks-to-circumvent-congress-to-fix-obamacare-glitch/)
We have to shut down this fricken end-around congress right now! Letter to Bachmann going out too sweet!
-
Hey BMG, another article on this exchange issue...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-obama-seeks-to-circumvent-congress-to-fix-obamacare-glitch/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/report-obama-seeks-to-circumvent-congress-to-fix-obamacare-glitch/)
We have to shut down this fricken end-around congress right now! Letter to Bachmann going out too sweet!
He can try another end-run around Congress, but he'll be giving the USSC more ammunition, imo; I don't believe for a second they've failed to notice his usurpation of Congress' authority, nor have Alito and Roberts forgotten the unprecedented attack he made on the Court during his State of the Union address in an attempt to undermine their authority. Payback is a btch.
-
Yeah? What about the question mark?
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/SCOTUS2011.jpg)
Which way will that wishy-washy clown jump, with or without the end run attempt?!
::saywhat::
-
Yeah? What about the question mark?
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Warnings/SCOTUS2011.jpg)
Which way will that wishy-washy clown jump, with or without the end run attempt?!
::saywhat::
No telling, but the threat Duh Wun presents to the authority of the Court will adversely affect him as well. I'll not discount that as a reason for even Justice Question Mark to stand with the conservatives, if for no other purpose than to slap Obama in the face. Fear and vanity -- not the best reasons, but I'll take 'em.
-
We have to shut down this fricken end-around congress right now!
Truer words have never been spoken Libertas!
-
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/18/leading-senators-kagan-may-have-recuse-herself-hea/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/nov/18/leading-senators-kagan-may-have-recuse-herself-hea/)
Top Republican senators said late Friday the Justice Department has been stonewalling their request for more information on Supreme CourtJustice Elena Kagan, and said her previous work as solicitor general “may satisfy both requirements for recusal” from the upcoming health-care case.
The senators, led by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, are demanding Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. comply with requests for more documents about Justice Kagan’s role in planning the administration’s defense, and said unless he provides the information it could undermine confidence in the court’s eventual ruling on the case.
-
(http://i585.photobucket.com/albums/ss291/libertasinfinitio/Obama%20Admin/Obamacarekillsliberty.jpg)
-
I for one have had enough of the question of fundamental liberties coming down to the opinions of single, unelected jurists. That is not how it's supposed to work.
-
No. That's not how it's supposed to work. The partial list that is the Bill of Rights was intended to be put entirely off-limits and inviolate for all except in the case of a conflict between or among them, not a conflict between any of them and the "interest of the State".
-
Supreme Court sets dates for hearing arguments:
The Supreme Court will begin on March 26 with one hour of arguments on whether it can reach a decision on the health law before 2014. There is a possibility that a separate federal law prevents the courts from ruling until the law’s individual mandate has taken effect.
On March 27, the justices will hear two hours of arguments on the core question of whether the mandate is unconstitutional.
And on March 28, the court will hear arguments on two issues: how much, if any, of the law’s other provisions can be upheld if the mandate is unconstitutional; and whether the health law’s Medicaid expansion is constitutional.
HotAir (http://hotair.com/archives/2011/12/19/its-a-date-supreme-court-to-hear-obamacare-arguments-march-26-27-28/)
-
What a load of BS! They have a passed bill to rule on, screw trigger dates for specific actions, you wait till then the beast will be harder to kill!
Kill the bastard NOW!
-
Hopefully when the Supreme's take this issue up, they remember what this sonofabitch said!
"Newly appointed White House Chief of Staff Jack Lew appeared on five news programs Sunday and made stunning statements during at least three of his appearances. In addition to making misleading remarks on NBC and CNN in regards to the law regarding filibustering a budget vote, despite once being the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Lew also claimed that the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObamaCare) gives the President the authority to tell a private company that they have to offer a product and offer it for free."
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wh-chief-of-staff-obamacare-allows-the-president-to-tell-a-private-company-they-have-to-offer-a-product-and-offer-it-for-free/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/wh-chief-of-staff-obamacare-allows-the-president-to-tell-a-private-company-they-have-to-offer-a-product-and-offer-it-for-free/)
::outrage::
-
Please stand for the dictator of these united states, Barack Obama.
-
Umm, you mean "stomp on", right?
-
Umm, you mean "stomp on", right?
You read between the lines I see.
-
Umm, you mean "stomp on", right?
You read between the lines I see.
I do that often. ;D
-
Testifying before Congress this morning, President Obama's acting budget director Jeffrey Zients directly undercut one of the administration's key legal defenses of its national health care law as it nears a hearing before the Supreme Court.
In a hearing of the House Budget Committee Rep. Scott Garrett, R-N.J., pressed Zients on whether the penalty that the health care law imposes on individuals who do not purchase health insurance constitutes a tax. Eventually, Zients said it did not.
But this directly contradicts one of the arguments the Obama administration is making before the Supreme Court in defense of the health care law, which is that the mandate is Constitutional because it's a tax and government has taxing power.
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/omb-director-undercuts-legal-case-obamacare/376561 (http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/omb-director-undercuts-legal-case-obamacare/376561)
Oops! Can't walk that one back fast enough eh? Or this poor bastard will be looking for a new job!
Sure would be nice if those idiots on SCOTUS (they know who they are!) pays attention to this!
::saywhat::
-
Now Sebleius admits the ObamaCare tax is not a tax!
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-is-not-per-se-a-tax-sebelius-contradicts-administrations-legal-defense-of-obamacare/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/it-is-not-per-se-a-tax-sebelius-contradicts-administrations-legal-defense-of-obamacare/)
The Supreme's have to kill this!
-
Here's one for you via WND http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/supremes-refuse-to-listen-to-kagan-arguments/ (http://www.wnd.com/2012/02/supremes-refuse-to-listen-to-kagan-arguments/)
Kagan refuses to recuse herself when evidence of bias or partiality exists proof positive.
regrettably, this decision comes as no surprise,” the announcement from Freedom Watch said. “Chief Justice Roberts recently commented in the Supreme Court’s annual report that its justices do not have to adhere to the rules of judicial ethics that apply to other federal judges, essentially stating that they are above the law. … It is Freedom Watch’s hope that the Supreme Court will sober up and realize that the integrity of the court must be beyond reproach.
I ask all of you are we screwed yet? Is the experiment of self government over? These elitist jerks cannot fathom a large revolt with the people specifically targeting their lives.
There is no justice for any of us just them. I cannot even say I'm surprised by this considering so many refuse to see the constitution as a guide in jurisprudence.
-
OK, if The Regime wants this, does this signal a fix is in?
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0911/64475.html)
They got compromising picks of Kennedy or what?!
On a related note, maybe the defections from and dissatisfaction of doctors in the AMA and with ObamaCare can be spun as a positive...
http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/ (http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/09/26/doctor-and-ama-split-over-contentious-issue-of-obamacare/)
As much as I dislike the Lefties on the Court, I dont think that even they are crooked enough to be in cahoots with Obama to get some sort of "fix" in. The decision will go however it goes, whether it goes straight there or not.
The only thing I can think of is this: Obama may feel that if Obamacare loses and the Court throws it out, it will rally his base out of anger. So maybe he WANT the Court to rule against him in order to rally his base. He is pretty shrew that way. We see how he manipulated everybody on the Contraception fiasco: He started that ball rolling, and now it is all everyone talks about.
-
I don't think they ever intended to insurance mandate to pass constitutional muster. They want that part of the law overturned, leaving the rest of the law intact, leaving an unfunded mandate of astronomical proportion. then they will demagogue the hell out of Republicans wanting everyone to go without health care. Meanwhile, healthcare costs will continue to rise, and the numbers of people wanting "free healthcare" will grow, until the Leftists have enough control over government to pass a nationalized healthcare plane. Game. Set. Match. Yahtzee.
-
But is the individual mandate severable? I don't think it is.
-
But is the individual mandate severable? I don't think it is.
Supposedly, no. Whoever wrote the damn bill forgot to include a "severability clause"; technically that would be that.
However ....
That sort of thing doesn't seem to matter to courts these days. Missing parts of laws are "deemed" to have been included.
-
But is the individual mandate severable? I don't think it is.
Supposedly, no. Whoever wrote the damn bill forgot to include a "severability clause"; technically that would be that.
However ....
That sort of thing doesn't seem to matter to courts these days. Missing parts of laws are "deemed" to have been included.
I want the letter of the constitution adhered to, all this deeming and scheming be damned! If SCOTUS fails to kill this in its totality, well, next stop - civil war!
-
I want the letter of the constitution adhered to, all this deeming and scheming be damned! If SCOTUS fails to kill this in its totality, well, next stop - civil war!
SCOTUS has not been doing TOO bad lately. Let's give them a chance
-
There's been a lot of discussion in the media for several weeks over the "possibility/probability" that several conservative justices ( Kennedy , Scalia , Alito ) will side with the liberal minority . In his AP article this morning an obviously liberal schmuck reporter named Mark Sherman is proffering this very idea . He even quotes several liberal law professors to back up his premise . It's hard to know how many people are aware of actually who he's quoting and their "bona fides" but one learned lawyer he consulted is Carter Phillips with Sidley Austin LLP ... the firm based in Chicago which employed Stymie , Aunt Jemimah and "Bombing Bernadine " Dohrn . At the end of the "news article" Sherman makes the declarative statement ; " It's hard to imagine Scalia as the only conservative justice in favor of the law ." It's also not hard to figure out who's ass Sherman has his "unbiased" head up !
-
Yeah, typical MFM front-running BS! He's got an ulterior motive - justification for riots in the streets if SCOTUS kills ObamaCare!
::doublebird:: the MFM!
-
Arguments today!
AP is full of crap as usual! "Polls have consistently shown the public is at best ambivalent about the benefits of the health care law, and that a majority of Americans believe the insurance requirement is unconstitutional."
::speechless::
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120326/D9TO4G200.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120326/D9TO4G200.html)
And get a load of this Neal Katyal!
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/rejecting-obamacare-grave-profound-232716680.html (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/rejecting-obamacare-grave-profound-232716680.html)
"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."
Umm, Dickhead?!
96% against only 4% for!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/callouts/health-care-case/ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/callouts/health-care-case/)
Wanna revise your BS? Yeah, that's what I thought! Asshole!
Oh, and no recusal from Kagan on hearing arguments, eh?
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/25/ruling-on-health-care-case-hard-to-predict/?page=all#pagebreak (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/mar/25/ruling-on-health-care-case-hard-to-predict/?page=all#pagebreak)
It will come down to Kennedy, again! And I am not feeling good about that! Watch it come down to one vote and the fact that Kagan's non-recusal swung it!
One might be able to argue given the poll above that if the Supreme's do not kill this beast that a lot of people might want to burn the courthouse down if they let ObamaCare stand!
::saywhat::
-
"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."
If 95% of Americans want this law, it should be easy to get an amendment to allow it.
-
"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."
If 95% of Americans want this law, it should be easy to get an amendment to allow it.
Yes, and if a clear majority hate it then it was passed over the objections of people who knew what it was or learned later what it is, either way the fact that it was passed in the dead of night through dubious means was all meant to bypass any chance for popular democratic support unifying against it. The court might want to consider that! But a straight vote with full disclosure to the people is not what the passage of this abomination was about!
-
You've got to live it before you understand it.
-
I understand it and don't want to live it. Pretty much explains why leftists are completely 180 degrees out of phase with me!
-
"If the Supreme Court struck this down, I think that it wouldn't just be about health care. It would be the Supreme Court saying: 'Look, we've got the power to really take decisions, move them off of the table of the American people, even in a democracy. And so it could imperil a number of reforms in the New Deal that are designed to help people against big corporations and against, indeed, big governments. The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it. And that's a really profound thing for an unelected court to say."
If 95% of Americans want this law, it should be easy to get an amendment to allow it.
Yes, and if a clear majority hate it then it was passed over the objections of people who knew what it was or learned later what it is, either way the fact that it was passed in the dead of night through dubious means was all meant to bypass any chance for popular democratic support unifying against it. The court might want to consider that! But a straight vote with full disclosure to the people is not what the passage of this abomination was about!
Passed not just over people's objections, but without one vote "for" by almost half of Congress. The Republicans knew the majority of the people they represent said NO.
"The challengers are saying that this law is unconstitutional, which means even if 95 percent of Americans want this law, they can't have it."
What if 95% of Americans want slavery?
Morons. I live in a country filled with morons.
-
Morons/zombies, both heads pop when you hit 'em.
-
What if 95% of Americans want slavery?
Then they can have it. Legally. And did have for over 100 years under the Constitution. You just need to amend the document to allow it.
Of course, Civil wars have been know to break out over such things because Morally and from a Natural Rights perspective they are still wrong.
-
What if 95% of Americans want slavery?
Then they can have it. Legally. And did have for over 100 years under the Constitution. You just need to amend the document to allow it.
Of course, Civil wars have been know to break out over such things because Morally and from a Natural Rights perspective they are still wrong.
I know that, you know that; my asking was rhetorically aimed at the moron who believes the Court is going to deprive people of "what they want". Oh, excuse me, "the unelected court". One of the morons who believe in a living Constitution", if they consider it at all, which the aforesaid moron apparently doesn't."
-
I will no longer refer to this monstrosity as the Affordable Health Care blah , blah , blah .... or even Stymiecare ... From now on when or if I post about it ... I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !
-
I will no longer refer to this monstrosity as the Affordable Health Care blah , blah , blah .... or even Stymiecare ... From now on when or if I post about it ... I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !
I like that idea.
Today Medved starts out by declaring that Republicans need to "moderate their tone" if they want to attract more "undecideds" to their side. I hope the guy in the car next to me didn't think I met him when I shouted out, " "F" you Medved!"
-
I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !
Yes, this most definitely is Obama's BFD. This BFD will
determine America's future for the next half century or more.
We must search for edification of America before Roosevelt
will there be any evidence of America before Obama?
-
I will no longer refer to this monstrosity as the Affordable Health Care blah , blah , blah .... or even Stymiecare ... From now on when or if I post about it ... I'll use Biden's description ... it's "The Big F*cking Deal" ! ... Democrats are famous for their "Deals" ... and this one is the pisser of all time !
I like that idea.
Today Medved starts out by declaring that Republicans need to "moderate their tone" if they want to attract more "undecideds" to their side. I hope the guy in the car next to me didn't think I met him when I shouted out, " "F" you Medved!"
Again, with the "tone" crap! ::gaah::
-
The New Deal
The Square Deal
The Fair Deal
The Big F*cking Deal
Remember, odds always favor the house!
-
The New Deal
The Square Deal
The Fair Deal
The Big F*cking Deal
Remember, odds always favor the house!
That's why I am asking if the house should be burned down if the BFD is upheld.
-
The AIA argument seemed doomed from the start, but it is a preliminary item and a sideshow, the real meat & taters arguments are yet to come.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/reporters-notebook-obamacares-first-day-at-the-supreme-court-the-calm-before-the-storm/ (http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/reporters-notebook-obamacares-first-day-at-the-supreme-court-the-calm-before-the-storm/)
-
The mandate took center stage in todays oral arguments.
"That changes the relationship of the individual to the federal government," Kennedy said.
Hope that sentiment is dominate on the court!
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-signal-possible-trouble-ahead-for-health-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,423592.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-signal-possible-trouble-ahead-for-health-insurance-mandate-20120327,0,423592.story)
-
Here is the link (http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday) to the audio file of today's Supreme Court hearing.
-
I was listening to Mark Levin demolish the Solicitor General's incoherent and rambling attempts to defend the indefensible.
I suspect the June decision is going to satisfy no one and piss off everyone, the Justices are going to slice it so fine with their abominable "tests". They do and all bets are off.
-
I encourage listening to the oral arguments along with reading the transcript at the same time. The linked page allows several ways to listen to the audio (I downloaded the mp3 file to listen via iTunes).
It's not for everyone given the constraints of time, etc. but I do believe that this is the best way to have at least a basic familiarization with the issues that might have more than a little bearing on the outcome of this decision. Another advantage to listening with the transcript is that you know who is talking at any given moment.
It is a two hour commitment. Having listened so far to almost 40 minutes I can understand why it isn't any more than two hours per day...the non-jurist participants (in today's session that seems primarily to be the Solicitor General) seem to be undergoing a form of mental torture. Occasionally the Solicitor General was given a few brief moments of respite when one of the liberal jurists (usually Ginsberg) attempted to figuratively hold his hand and guide him in a direction that might help his case but for the most part the guy just floundered. Or so it appeared to the layperson.
-
One other observation: As much as the Solicitor General appears to be constantly off balance and floundering, he manages to make his arguments without any of the verbal/mental pauses ("Uh") that plague most of us in both everyday speech and formal speech. If nothing else, that was impressive...that he was able to mostly form complete sentences while he seemed to be struggling to answer theoretical questions and explain his point of view however illogical it may have been.
-
One other observation: As much as the Solicitor General appears to be constantly off balance and floundering, he manages to make his arguments without any of the verbal/mental pauses ("Uh") that plague most of us in both everyday speech and formal speech. If nothing else, that was impressive...that he was able to mostly form complete sentences while he seemed to be struggling to answer theoretical questions and explain his point of view however illogical it may have been.
I beg to differ. His incoherent blather filled in the spaces where "uh" would have gone. He's a lawyer; that's what they DO.
-
14 GENERAL VERRILLI: I — I — this is not a
15 purchase mandate. This is a — this is a law that
16 regulates the method of paying for a service that the
17 class of people to whom it applies are either
18 consuming -
19 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: General -
20 GENERAL VERRILLI: — or — or inevitably
21 will consume.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNOJ2mUk (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNOJ2mUk)
Does this asshat know he just perjured himself?
8 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: So on that ground,
19 you're answering affirmatively to my colleagues that
20 have asked you the question, can the government force
21 you into commerce.
22 GENERAL VERRILLI: So — no.
23 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: And there is no limit to
24 that power.
25 GENERAL VERRILLI: No. No. Because that's
22
1 — that's the first part of our argument.
2 The second part of our argument is that the
3 means here that the Congress has chosen, the minimum
4 coverage provision, is a means that regulates the -
5 that regulates economic activity, namely your
6 transaction in the health care market, with substantial
7 effects on interstate commerce; and it is the
8 conjunction of those two that we think provides the
9 particularly secure foundation for this statute under
10 the commerce power.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNOrsYAX (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNOrsYAX)
Unlimited power, how nice!
21 JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't understand your -
22 GENERAL VERRILLI: This is in -
23 JUSTICE SCALIA: Whatever the States have
24 chosen not to do, the Federal Government can do?
25 GENERAL VERRILLI: No, not at all.
28
1 JUSTICE SCALIA: I mean, the Tenth Amendment
2 says the powers not given to the Federal Government are
3 reserved, not just to the States, but to the States and
4 the people. And the argument here is that the people
5 were left to decide whether they want to buy insurance
6 or not.
7 GENERAL VERRILLI: But this — but, Your
8 Honor, this is — what the Court has said, and I think
9 it would be a very substantial departure from what the
10 Court has said, is that when Congress is regulating
11 economic activity with a substantial effect on
12 interstate commerce that will be upheld. And that is
13 what is going on here, and to embark on — I would
14 submit with all due respect, to embark on the kind of
15 analysis that my friends on the other side suggest the
16 Court ought to embark on is to import Lochner-style
17 substantive due process -
18 CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The key in Lochner
19 is that we were talking about regulation of the States,
20 right, and the States are not limited to enumerated
21 powers. The Federal Government is. And it seems to me
22 it's an entirely different question when you ask
23 yourself whether or not there are going to be limits in
24 the Federal power, as opposed to limits on the States,
25 which was the issue in Lochner.
29
1 GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except,
2 Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I
3 read the Court's cases is that the way in which you
4 ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere
5 and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is
6 by policing the boundary: Is the national government
7 regulating economic activity with a substantial effect
8 on interstate commerce?
9 JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason
10 this is concerning, is because it requires the
11 individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of
12 torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't
13 have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in
14 danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and
15 you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation
16 between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms
17 of that rule, but that's generally the rule.
18 And here the government is saying that the
19 Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual
20 citizen that it must act, and that is different from
21 what we have in previous cases and that changes the
22 relationship of the Federal Government to the individual
23 in the very fundamental way.
24 GENERAL VERRILLI: I don't think so, Justice
25 Kennedy, because it is predicated on the participation
30
1 of these individuals in the market for health care
2 services. Now, it happens to be that this is a market
3 in which, aside from the groups that the statute
4 excludes, virtually everybody participates. But it is a
5 regulation of their participation in that market.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNQ46mhI (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNQ46mhI)
He just keeps runninghome to momma (the commerce clause)! It is the last refuge of a statist looking to streamroll everyone and abuse the intent of the constitution!
If this comes down to the commerce clause in the affirmative, the constitution might as well get tossed into a fire and be done with it!
1 cover very large numbers of unhealthy people -
2 JUSTICE SCALIA: You could solve that
3 problem by simply not requiring the insurance company to
4 sell it to somebody who has a — a condition that is
5 going to require medical treatment, or at least not -
6 not require them to sell it to him at — at a rate that
7 he sells it to healthy people.
8 But you don't want to do that.
9 GENERAL VERRILLI: But that seems to me to
10 say, Justice Scalia, that Congress — that's the problem
11 here. And that seems to be -
12 JUSTICE SCALIA: That seems to me a
13 self-created problem.
14 GENERAL VERRILLI: Congress cannot solve the
15 problem through standard economic regulation, and
16 that — and — and I do not think that can be the
17 premise of our understanding of the Commerce Clause -
18 JUSTICE SCALIA: Whatever -
19 GENERAL VERRILLI: — this is an economic
20 problem -
21 JUSTICE SCALIA: — whatever problems
22 Congress's economic regulation produces, whatever they
23 are, I think Congress can do something to counteract
24 them. Here, requiring somebody to enter — to enter the
25 insurance market.
37
1 GENERAL VERRILLI: This is not a — it's not
2 a problem of Congress's creation. The problem is that
3 you have 40 million people who cannot get affordable
4 insurance through the means that the rest of us get
5 affordable insurance. Congress, after a long study and
6 careful deliberation, and viewing the experiences of the
7 States and the way they tried to handle this problem,
8 adopted a package of reforms. Guaranteed-issue and
9 community rating, and — and subsidies and the minimum
10 coverage provision are a package of reforms that solve
11 that problem.
12 I don't — I think it's highly artificial to
13 view this as a problem of Congress's own creation.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNRFF0kZ (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74537.html#ixzz1qNRFF0kZ)
An out and out lie, it is a man-made problem and the Left's answer was ObamCare intrusion into our lives via an omnipitent commerce clause!
::gaah::
-
Not in the transcript which was cited here, but ...
"Society" or the "social compact" or whateverthehell he described it as, has decided (barf! it was the Court that decided) that the ill should be treated even if they could not pay, which is what started the "free-rider" ball rolling.
So, as usual, government feeeeeeeeeeeeels it has to act to rectify the @#$**! it created by unConstitutionally interfering the first place!
God! Please! Rid us of these troublesome "priests"!
-
Yes, and that BS argument is easily counted by asking why the statists in Congress didn't create a catastrophic coverage plan for uninsured who desire coverage that would have left the vast majority people the hell alone! But Noooooo, we had to have a massive intrusion upon every life born and yet to be born shoved into a coerced government program!
God, I hate these people!!!
ETA - I am not advocating an alernate plan like above, I am merely using it for arguments sake to highlight the gross overreach of Congress. If I were forced tro advocate a "plan" for the uninsured it would have been along the lines of Congress breaking down the interstate ban on private sector providers of insurance and offer catastrophic plans in the marketplace. If states get involved that is their choice, and again the aim should be in freeing up the private sector to lead it.
-
...He just keeps runninghome to momma (the commerce clause)! It is the last refuge of a statist looking to streamroll everyone and abuse the intent of the constitution!
If this comes down to the commerce clause in the affirmative, the constitution might as well get tossed into a fire and be done with it!
...
::gaah::
Why not rescue the Constitution (of which the Decaration is part) and
take Her someplace safe and protect Her?
RESCUE ME/FONTELLA BASS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwt3kr0_l6I#)
-
Yes, and that BS argument is easily counted by asking why the statists in Congress didn't create a catastrophic coverage plan for uninsured who desire coverage that would have left the vast majority people the hell alone! But Noooooo, we had to have a massive intrusion upon every life born and yet to be born shoved into a coerced government program!
God, I hate these people!!!
ETA - I am not advocating an alernate plan like above, I am merely using it for arguments sake to highlight the gross overreach of Congress. If I were forced tro advocate a "plan" for the uninsured it would have been along the lines of Congress breaking down the interstate ban on private sector providers of insurance and offer catastrophic plans in the marketplace. If states get involved that is their choice, and again the aim should be in freeing up the private sector to lead it.
"Congress didn't create ... "? Hello, that is beyond their authority.
-
Yes, and that BS argument is easily counted by asking why the statists in Congress didn't create a catastrophic coverage plan for uninsured who desire coverage that would have left the vast majority people the hell alone! But Noooooo, we had to have a massive intrusion upon every life born and yet to be born shoved into a coerced government program!
God, I hate these people!!!
ETA - I am not advocating an alernate plan like above, I am merely using it for arguments sake to highlight the gross overreach of Congress. If I were forced tro advocate a "plan" for the uninsured it would have been along the lines of Congress breaking down the interstate ban on private sector providers of insurance and offer catastrophic plans in the marketplace. If states get involved that is their choice, and again the aim should be in freeing up the private sector to lead it.
"Congress didn't create ... "? Hello, that is beyond their authority.
Arguments sake dearie, arguments sake! I favor private sector answers requiring Congress to get out of our way! The policies and programs of Congress created this whole fiasco (see relevant SCOTUS transcript above) and OabmaCare is the end to that nefarious means!
-
Old news, but worth repeating - ”It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can’t afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don’t.” - Obama, criticizing Hillary over individual mandate requirement in her proposal...
“I have come to that conclusion,” Obama said to CBS. “During the campaign I was opposed to this idea because my general attitude was the reason people don’t have health insurance is not because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it. And if you make it affordable, then they’ll come. I am now in favor of some sort of individual mandate as long as there’s a hardship exemption.”
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revealed-inside-obamas-individual-mandate-memo-and-why-he-changed-his-mind/ (http://www.theblaze.com/stories/revealed-inside-obamas-individual-mandate-memo-and-why-he-changed-his-mind/)
http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/03/the-mandate-memo-how-obama-changed-his-mind.html#ixzz1qGLQcREN (http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/03/the-mandate-memo-how-obama-changed-his-mind.html#ixzz1qGLQcREN)
It was unpopular in the campaign, made popular after election, and after enormous visceral unpopularity after passage the Regime is putting lipstick on it and a pretty dress and passing this pig off before SCOTUS as popular once more.
Being a Leftist douchebag means not having a soul nor the morals and ethics associated with those who do!
::gaah::
-
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story)
::cool:: ::beertoast:: ::newyear:: ::praying:: ::bows:: ::whoohoo:: ::danceban:: ::bustamove:: ::clapping::
-
Rush made an interesting point today, that if they declare the individual mandate unconstitutional, yet leave the rest of the legislation largely intact, that will simply provide an impetus for Congressional liberals to cut to the chase and go for what they wanted anyway: outright single payer government medicine. Medicaid for all!
Our Constitution is a brilliant document, but what can you do when one part of government refuses to "check and balance" the other because they're all united in their desire for tyranny? All those built-in safeguards are rendered meaningless. There's only one safeguard left in there. It's clear to me that it's the only one that really has any chance of working, and even at that the odds aren't great.
Slavery is simply the natural condition of Man.
-
You posted that while I was writing Libertas. I certainly do hope they see it as a total package!
-
I don't trust Kennedy until the court renders a decision.
-
Ginsberg, whew. She wants to conduct a "salvage" operation instead of a condemnation. What she wants to do is have the Court rewrite the law. ::gaah::
-
After the end of the hearing, Senators gathered for a press conference. This is Rubio's portion. At 1:38, he switches to Spanish.
Sen. Rubio Discusses Supreme Court's Review Of ObamaCare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29ORVKmhGLg#ws)
-
Ginsberg, whew. She wants to conduct a "salvage" operation instead of a condemnation. What she wants to do is have the Court rewrite the law. ::gaah::
What's most interesting to me is the fact that the liberal justices and media completely ignore the fact that a majority of Americans consistantly made it clear that they never wanted this monstrosity to become law in the first place .
-
Ginsberg, whew. She wants to conduct a "salvage" operation instead of a condemnation. What she wants to do is have the Court rewrite the law. ::gaah::
What's most interesting to me is the fact that the liberal justices and media completely ignore the fact that a majority of Americans consistantly made it clear that they never wanted this monstrosity to become law in the first place .
But the Left views "the people" as stupid, so what the vast majority says is discounted and such bills are passed under dubious means to get around those stupid troublemakers!
Oh, speaking of stupid, nobody can out-do The Regime!
The Obama administration is now referring to Obamacare as a “bi-partisan bill” and calling the unpopular individual mandate “a Republican idea,” following three days of tough questioning by the Supreme Court.
“The Affordable Care Act is a bipartisan plan and one that we think is constitutional,” Deputy White House press Secretary Josh Earnest told reporters on Wednesday afternoon.
No Republican voted for the Affordable Care Act on final passage.
He also referred to the individual mandate as the “individual responsibility” clause of the bill, in an attempt to distance the administration from the term individual mandate.
“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.
http://freebeacon.com/white-house-tries-to-rebrand-mandate/ (http://freebeacon.com/white-house-tries-to-rebrand-mandate/)
You can stick your rebranding! ::mooning::
Nobody is going to eat your candy-sprinkled turd!
-
This is good, as good a supporting argument to junk the whole damn thing as there is!
http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/ (http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/)
Cruel & unusual! Heh! Good one Antonin! ::thumbsup::
Now, please be sure to end our cruel and unusual punishment and allow us to free ourselves from this monstrous impediment to our freedom and liberty and KILL OBAMACARE NOW!
-
“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.
Thus pinning it right on Romney.
eta: fixed the darned tags
-
“The administration remains confident that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional; one of the reasons for that is that the original personal responsibility clause…was a conservative idea,” he said.
Thus pinning it right on Romney.
Confident it is constitutional because the idea is conservative...LOL That's funny as hell. What a defense of your law.Whining, "Well, the conservatives said it is constitutional so it must be".
What's sad is we have no conservative leadership who can pick this idiotic thought apart.
eta: fixed my previous tag error - P.
-
Will they let us know, or make us wait?
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120330/D9TQLQDO0.html (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20120330/D9TQLQDO0.html)
I hope Kennedy doesn't get swayed like he did when he switched sides and struck down school prayer!
::angry::
-
The only example of bipartisanship with that monstrosity was the roll call of Nays.
-
Interesting article (http://dyn.politico.com/printstory.cfm?uuid=AFBC482A-AF7F-45EE-A262-BC132A40BEC8) at Politico (via HotAir) about the possible consequences of the SCOTUS overturning O'BongoCare...
The Supreme Court has yet to rule on President Barack Obama’s health care law, but court watchers already are handicapping the domino effect if it falls.
If the justices knock out key parts of the law or bring down the whole thing, the reverberations could be felt across the legal landscape for generations to come, radically reining in the scope of federal power, according to supporters of the law and others who closely track the high court.
And if the justices decide the individual mandate is a constitutional overreach, these observers say, federal labor and environmental laws could be the next on the firing line.
Yeah, in my dreams.
Interesting read. I have to look at this and similar articles as the liberal media trying to influence the court ("Oh, please don't strike down O'BongoCare! The world will just end! Please, believe us when we say this...we are only trying to prevent the end of the world as we know it!) any way they can...again, carrying the water for the Democrats.
Of course, it's absolute nonsense. But you should read the whole thing if for no other reason than to fully realize how scared the left is right now.
I truly hope that the SCOTUS strikes down the whole thing. I am not confident that they will but I hope they do. The leftists, OTOH, seem to have done a complete 180 in their thinking. As recently as last Monday they believed that O'BongoCare would be upheld my a lopsided majority and now they are totally convinced that it will go down in flames.
This article is emblematic of their true inner thinking now.
Again, I have no idea if O'BongoCare will live or die at the end of this session of the SCOTUS but I will enjoy the mental anguish of the left for the next couple of months.
-
Funny how they talk about it "radically reining in the scope of federal power" without immediately having a corollary question pop up in their heads: How did Federal power radically expand in the first place?
Thomas Sowell coined a great term regarding liberals -- they engage in "first order thinking", seemingly unable (or unwilling) to consider the many contingencies that can arise as the result of doing this or that. The Law of Unintended Consequences writ large.
-
Funny how they talk about it "radically reining in the scope of federal power" without immediately having a corollary question pop up in their heads: How did Federal power radically expand in the first place?
Funny how they are all but having a coronary over the oral arguments of last week.
-
Michael Barone's (http://rightwingnews.com/column-2/americans-are-worrying-about-the-constitution-again/) thoughts on the matter:
“I don’t worry about the Constitution,” said Rep. Phil Hare, Democrat of Illinois, at a town hall meeting where voters questioned his support of the legislation that became Obamacare. You can find the clip on youtube.com, where it has 462,084 hits.
That was before the 2010 election, in which Hare, running for a third term in a district designed by Democrats to elect a Democrat, was defeated 53 to 43 percent by Bobby Schilling, proprietor of a pizza parlor in East Moline.
A lot of politicians are worrying about the Constitution these days. Liberal commentators were shocked this past week when in three days of oral argument in the lawsuits challenging Obamacare, five Supreme Court justices — a majority — asked questions strongly suggesting they think the legislation is unconstitutional.
And so the Constitution — and the limits it places on Congress’ powers — is once again part of our politics. And will continue to be, whichever way the Court rules.
-
Gawddam'em. One doesn't need a crystal ball, the throwing of the bones, or the I-Ching to know the gawdamm law is unConstitutional, thank you one and all y'all legal nitpicking Volohkhers.
-
He's still at it.
Fox News’ Martha McCallum advised Thursday that the Obama Administration has been quietly sending missives to the Supreme Court threatening that if it doesn’t rule in his favor on ObamaCare, Medicare will face disruption and “chaos.” Therefore, if SCOTUS rules in favor of the US Constitution, Obama & Co will begin its campaign to either destroy Medicare or make those on it suffer greatly. The Obama syndicate is said to be threatening to hold off Medicare payments to doctors and hospitals if SCOTUS does not comply with Obama’s demands and submit to him.
Canada Free Press via Gateway Pundit (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/05/obama-threatens-the-supreme-court-again/)
We can add blackmail to his list of crimes. Or is extortion?
-
That one's extortion.
-
And the bigger question: is anyone ever going to do anything about it?
-
Call his bluff.
-
We recently had the dire warning (whatever) from Ruth Badbreath Ginsburg about a sharply divided court...now evidence is emerging that the lawless Obama Regime is set to dictate the implementation of key elements of ObamaCare if SCOTUS nixes all or part of the unconstitutional law.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-18-16-22-27 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-18-16-22-27)
Shocking I know, such a surprise that the Great Destroyer and Usurper would plan to subjugate us all to his whimsical desires.
I think if this comes to pass it is Obama's way of asking all American's if they want to be slaves or fight back and spill blood to retain their liberty. Any other interpretation would be dangerously foolish and terminally naive.
-
Oh Rhett Libertas, sometimes you can be so eloquent.
-
Oh Rhett Libertas, sometimes you can be so eloquent.
Thanks...Scarlett. ::curtsy4::
-
Another interesting take on this is the long trail of abuses we've suffered by leftists first using a pry bar to expand the Commerce Clause, then with ObamaCare driving a fully-loaded semi through the darn thing!
Via HotAir -
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/18/new-scalia-book-landmark-supreme-court-decision-in-1942-expanded-commerce-clause-beyond-all-reason/ (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/18/new-scalia-book-landmark-supreme-court-decision-in-1942-expanded-commerce-clause-beyond-all-reason/)
Things not looking good for ObamaCare...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/in-scalias-new-book-hints-of-health-ruling.html?_r=1 (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/16/us/in-scalias-new-book-hints-of-health-ruling.html?_r=1)
...but I sure would love to see this entire Commerce Clause issue tackled and the Wicker ruling blown away!
Back to HotAir -
Anyway, about that atomic bomb. It’s not breaking news that Scalia is leaning hard against ObamaCare’s mandate: He was the most vocal opponent of the statute during oral arguments, at one point lecturing Obama’s hapless Solicitor General Donald Verrilli about enumerated powers. His vote to strike it down seems a foregone conclusion. What’s more tantalizing, per the passage in his book about Wickard, is the possibility that he might call for the Court to more broadly revisit its Commerce Clause jurisprudence starting with the Roosevelt-era cases that established the precedent that Congress’s commerce power is more or less limitless. Which brings us to the atomic bomb scenario: How many justices would join him on that? It’s no stretch to think Thomas might. What about Alito and Roberts? If five justices signed onto the idea of overturning Wickard, the scope of federal regulatory power would contract dramatically. It would be a true judicial earthquake, with aftershocks far beyond health care.
Bomb away!
I hope Kennedy and the other four can gut this atrocity called ObamaCare and rip apart Wicker. I hope Obama's threats anger those 5 and bite lib's hard in the ass!
Ending Wicker would rollback so much governmental overreach...we could end so much tyranny in one fell swoop!
::thumbsup:: ::cool:: ::whoohoo:: ::beertoast:: ::danceban:: ::newyear:: ::bows:: ::bustamove::
-
This decision could be announced tomorrow (according to a story up on Drudge at the moment). It must be decided before the end of business on next Thursday because that's when the court adjourns for the year.
Of course, the AZ immigration decision will also come down between now and then.
I think it's time to rename this thread based on what might be rather momentous things about to hit the fan.
So...without further ado...
-
« on: September 27, 2011, 07:31:10 AM »
Re: Obama Regime Skipping 11th, Wants to Take ObamaCare Case to Supreme's
Posted by: Libertas
« Today [June 20, 2012] at 09:22:59 PM »
Posted by: trapeze
SCOTUS 2012: The Grand Finale
We've all be waiting, this is the opening chorus of the first act.
May we all play our parts well and may God be with SCOTUS,
us and the USA.
-
Here's a teaser (http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/insiders-high-court-will-kill-obama-health-care-mandate/1?csp=34news#.T-KoFo75vhu) for tomorrow:
A survey of 56 legal insiders predicts that the Supreme Court will strike down the key part of President Obama's health care law.
Oral arguments in March persuaded a group of attorneys and former clerks that the justices will kill the individual mandate, the requirement that nearly all Americans buy health insurance or pay a fine, according to the survey by Purple Insights.
"In March, our experts believed that likelihood (of an overturn) stood at 35%," said a memo from Doug Usher of Purple Insights. "After hearing the oral arguments and the justices' questioning, our experts now place that probability at 57%."
-
They need to kill the thing in its entirety; killing just the mandate isn't enough. I'm TELLING y'all.
-
I'm weary of fundamental liberties seeming to always come down to what sort of mood one particular USSC Justice happens to be in. That's not how things are supposed to be.
The Commerce Clause, or more specifically the...shall we say generous...interpretations of it, needs to be put back in its cage. If it were as broad in scope and authority as the Left has claimed since FDR, then why would the Framers have ever bothered to put anything else in the Constitution? It's obvious on its face that the Commerce Clause was never intended to justify all these overreaches.
-
Agreed G, which is why I would like to see Wicker overturned. But, back to the rely on the whims of the Supreme's...
::gaah::
For AZ and ObamaCare and everything, where is Kennedy?
Will Kennedy be a hero or a villian?
::whatgives::
Links on AZ & OC cases -
http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE85I07820120619 (http://af.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idAFBRE85I07820120619)
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-may-release-healthcare-verdict-thursday-20120620,0,4104967.story (http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-supreme-court-may-release-healthcare-verdict-thursday-20120620,0,4104967.story)
Won't know till the 28th? ::facepalm:: Oh, wait, what am I thinking? This is DC, aka Leakville.
-
Yep, we have until Monday or Thursday to speculate some more. Sort of like, "Who shot J.R?" except with real life implications.
-
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/22/obama_trips_at_campaign_event_in_tampa.html (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/06/22/obama_trips_at_campaign_event_in_tampa.html)
-
LINK (http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/poll-former-supreme-court-clerks-think-the-mandate-is-done-for/2012/06/21/gJQAYn8ZtV_blog.html)
A new poll of 56 former Supreme Court clerks finds that 57 percent think the individual mandate will be overturned. That’s a 22-point jump from the last time the same group of clerks was surveyed, right before oral arguments. Back then, 35 percent thought the court would toss out the required purchase of health insurance.
Most of the clerks found the Supreme Court’s questioning to be more skeptical than they had expected. As one clerk put it to Purple Strategies’ Doug Usher, who conducted the research, “I feel like a dope, because I was one of those who predicted that the Court would uphold the statute by a lopsided majority…it now appears pretty likely that this prediction was way off.”
-
The four likely scenarios. (http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2012/06/22/decisions-decisions-how-high-court-could-rule-on-health/)
-
Only #4 is acceptable.
-
LINK (http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/06/hhs_spending_like_theres_no_tomorrow_on_obamacare.html)
Conservatives wanted the White House to stop spending on the health care law until the Supreme Court rules on whether it's constitutional.
But the administration has forged ahead, spending at least $2.7 billion since oral arguments in the case ended on March 28. That's more than double the amount that was handed out in the three-month period leading up to the arguments, according to a POLITICO review of funding announcements from the Department of Health and Human Services.
HHS is being disingenuous. They know as well as we do that the justices read the newspapers as closely as anyone. The sudden increase in spending is a gambit - an appeal to the practical side of the justices who may see spending billions on a government program as a good reason not to strike down the entire law.
SCOTUS may not do that anyway. But HHS is pulling out all the stops to convince the court that fooling with Obamacare would be an expensive proposition.
-
Yeah...I got their stops raght heeah!
::gaah::
-
And the winner is...
(probably not going to be announced today.)
-
Two rulings so far.
One denying life in prison without possibility of parole for juveniles and the other affirming the Citizens United case against limits in corporate campaign spending...this time as it applies to state laws.
-
Key part of AZ law upheld.
No O'BongoCare ruling today.
Prepare for MFM theme, "Another bad week for O'Bongo."
-
At what point does an endless string of "bad weeks" become a "bad presidency" to these clowns?
-
AZ opinion pdf file. (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/11-182b5e1.pdf)
-
At what point does an endless string of "bad weeks" become a "bad presidency" to these clowns?
Of course the irony is that it's been a bad three and half plus years for America, for liberty, etc.
I have to wonder if they are drawing out the O'BongoCare decision as a sort of revenge for the public insult he threw their way at the SOTU as regards Citizens United. There really is no technical reason to delay the annoucement...as in, they haven't finished writing the opinions or something...so it does make you wonder why there is no ruling today.
-
Final word from the SCOTUS is that their next (and final) release will be on Thursday. So there you have it...three more days of excruciating anticipatory pain for President Zero.
-
I'm praying that the thing is struck down, or at least enough of it to make the rest unworkable - and that at least one of the liberal justices joins the majority. Unanimous would be about as poetic as justice could be.
-
I'd bet Zero already knows the outcome. The Leftist justices are committed Leftists - two of whom were appointed by the chimp. The idea that the decision has not been delivered to him already seems ludicrous to me.
-
Rumor is that the O'BongoCare majority opinion is to be authored by Roberts with assistance from Kennedy. That, if true, does not sound like the law will be upheld...at least not in whole.
-
AZ case - 3 parts struck down, check as part of unrelated action if reasonable suspicions is OK.
Gosh, I wonder what reasonable suspicions are.
::facepalm::
The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-healthcare-ruling-today-scotus-rejects-parts-arizona-immigration-law-obama-defeat#comment-2557807 (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-healthcare-ruling-today-scotus-rejects-parts-arizona-immigration-law-obama-defeat#comment-2557807)
::cussing:: Kennedy! Statist bastard! Not a good omen for eliminating all of ObamaCare I'd say! ::cussing:: ::angry:: ::gaah::
-
Kagan will almost certainly vote to uphold. That she didn't recuse herself for O'BongoCare (but did for the AZ immigration case) is disgusting but hardly a surprise...she is, after all, an O'Bongo toady.
Kagan almost certainly has shoveled info directly to O'Bongo regarding the voting. That there has been no pre-emptive positive spin coming out of the WH is telling.
I am not sure that the wise Latina can be counted on to deliver for O'Bongo on this one. I'm probably wrong but I just have a feeling about it. Ginsburg and Breyer are ironclad reliable votes for all things leftist and extra Constitutional based on their stated opinions about foreign laws having legal consequences for us. So...I think there is a possibility (albeit slim) that O'BongoCare could be a 6-3 opinion. Much better chance of a 5-4 decision either way.
-
It smells like 5-4 for only striking down the mandate to me and that still sucks! The whole damn thing should go, but it won't! ::gaah::
-
Still left to rule on are the following (plus O'BongoCare, of course)
First American Financial Corp. v. Edwards
At Issue: Can a homebuyer sue a bank and title company if a kickback was paid to close a mortgage loan - and the homebuyer suffered no actual harm?
U.S. v. Alvarez
At issue: Whether the Stolen Valor Act, which makes it illegal to falsely represent oneself as a recipient of a medal by the Armed Forces, violates free speech.
Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum (linked with Mohamad v. Rajoub)
At issue: Whether corporations can be held liable in the United States for human rights violations under the Alien Tort Statute, which allows foreigners to sue for conduct outside the U.S.
Magner v. Gallagher
At issue: Can plaintiffs sue under the Fair Housing Act claiming they suffered discrimination on a “disparate impact” basis?
-
Obligatory spin from Jan Brewer's spokesman:
“Today’s decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a victory for the rule of law. It is also a victory for the
10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens. After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in
accordance with the U.S. Constitution.
“While we are grateful for this legal victory, today is an opportunity to reflect on our journey and focus upon the true task ahead: the implementation and enforcement of this law in an even-handed manner that lives
up to our highest ideals as American citizens. I know the State of Arizona and its law enforcement officers are up to the task. The case for SB 1070 has always been about our support for the rule of law. That means every
law, including those against both illegal immigration and racial profiling. Law enforcement will be held accountable should this statute be misused in a fashion that violates an individual’s civil rights.
“The last two years have been spent in preparation for this ruling. Upon signing SB 1070 in 2010, I issued an Executive Order directing the Arizona Peace Officer Standards and Training Board (AZ POST) to develop and provide training to ensure our officers are prepared to enforce this law efficiently, effectively and in a manner consistent with the Constitution. In recent days, in anticipation of this decision, I issued a new Executive Order asking that this training be made available once again to all of Arizona’s law enforcement officers. I am confident our officers are prepared to carry out this law responsibly and lawfully. Nothing less is acceptable.
“Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey. It can be expected that legal challenges to SB 1070 and the State of Arizona will continue. Our critics are already preparing new litigation tactics in response to their loss at the Supreme Court, and undoubtedly will allege inequities in the implementation of the law. As I said two years ago on the day I signed SB 1070 into law, ‘We cannot give them that chance. We must use this new tool wisely, and fight for our safety with the honor Arizona deserves.’”
-
Here is one more possibility for Thursday and O'BongoCare...
It is entirely possible that O'BongoCare will be upheld (for now) because of "standing." That is, since the law has not gone into effect yet, no one has any standing to bring the case before the court...that is, no harm has yet occurred. I say this because one of the other four cases to be ruled upon on Thursday is First American Financial vs. Edwards where (just judging from the summary) there appears to be no harm inflicted.
Sure hope that guess is wrong.
-
AZ case - 3 parts struck down, check as part of unrelated action if reasonable suspicions is OK.
Gosh, I wonder what reasonable suspicions are.
::facepalm::
The Supreme Court has issued 5-3 decision in favor of U.S. government, with Justice Kennedy saying that the government has significant power to regulate immigration and while Arizona may have signifacnt frustrations they may not have policies that undermine federal law.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-healthcare-ruling-today-scotus-rejects-parts-arizona-immigration-law-obama-defeat#comment-2557807 (http://www.zerohedge.com/news/no-healthcare-ruling-today-scotus-rejects-parts-arizona-immigration-law-obama-defeat#comment-2557807)
::cussing:: Kennedy! Statist bastard! Not a good omen for eliminating all of ObamaCare I'd say! ::cussing:: ::angry:: ::gaah::
The Constitution is quite clear that the federal government reciprocally must not have policies that undermine the states.
-
Trap, do you think the SCOTUS would have accepted the case now if the issue of standing were to come out?
-
Undermine? My providing stiffer penalties than what Fedaral Law already provides?
Oh undermining polices- like the current administration's policy to NOT UPHOLD THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES .. Didn't he take an oath? Oh right. It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
-
Trap, do you think the SCOTUS would have accepted the case now if the issue of standing were to come out?
I think they had to accept it because it was in the lower courts and was ruled upon over non-standing issues. I'm no legal beagle so my opinion (more of a guess) is worthless.
-
Here is one more possibility for Thursday and O'BongoCare...
It is entirely possible that O'BongoCare will be upheld (for now) because of "standing." That is, since the law has not gone into effect yet, no one has any standing to bring the case before the court...that is, no harm has yet occurred. I say this because one of the other four cases to be ruled upon on Thursday is First American Financial vs. Edwards where (just judging from the summary) there appears to be no harm inflicted.
Sure hope that guess is wrong.
I guarantee there will be harm if it goes into effect. I will either kill the person trying to enforce it on me, or they will kill me. Give me Liberty of Give me Death .
-
It would push this into next year's SCOTUS session. Again. So on the one hand I can see it being deferred until someone has suffered actual harm but on the other hand I can see the SCOTUS not wanting to go through this mess again...why bother with a dry run this year?
-
From the political point of view, today's ruling allows O'Bongo to spin this as a victory of sorts. Of course, the thinking portion of the electorate will not be fooled but that isn't his target voting block these days. I think you can count on him doing some kind of victory dance, though.
-
It would push this into next year's SCOTUS session. Again. So on the one hand I can see it being deferred until someone has suffered actual harm but on the other hand I can see the SCOTUS not wanting to go through this mess again...why bother with a dry run this year?
If they panned to make it a dry run, I can't see them taking this long to make a decision either. Of course, it does boost their ratings as it were. as FrankJ at IMAO.us said: "I just hope SCOTUS tells us soon. Come on, you jerks, this is the only decision we care about. Of course, they’ll announce it last to force us to pay attention to all their other decisions. Bunch of jerks."
-
It would push this into next year's SCOTUS session. Again. So on the one hand I can see it being deferred until someone has suffered actual harm but on the other hand I can see the SCOTUS not wanting to go through this mess again...why bother with a dry run this year?
SCOTUS is the most respected branch of government if they kick this down the road to next year much frustration that has been cast to the other two will be intensified and redirected to them. They should know this.
-
It would push this into next year's SCOTUS session. Again. So on the one hand I can see it being deferred until someone has suffered actual harm but on the other hand I can see the SCOTUS not wanting to go through this mess again...why bother with a dry run this year?
SCOTUS is the most respected branch of government if they kick this down the road to next year much frustration that has been cast to the other two will be intensified and redirected to them. They should know this.
Well, there are 4 1/2 that appear to not care.
-
The Constitution obligates the Federal government to guarantee a republican form of government to all the states. Yet the USSC is cool with the Feds' policy of willfully allowing border states to be inundated with illegal immigrants who burden their criminal, education, and health systems to the breaking point.
I just wish the cultural and social balkanization would hurry up and lead to physical, political balkanization.
-
The idiots at MSNBC are spinning the AZ immigration decision as a "possible" win for O'Bongo. The mental gymnastics are painful to watch...painful in that they are decidedly lacking in mental agility and strength.
-
Another 5-4 ruling.
Get used to seeing that number.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_MONTANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-25-10-07-37 (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_SUPREME_COURT_CAMPAIGN_FINANCE_MONTANA?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-06-25-10-07-37)
Citizens United ruling applies to state campaign finance laws also.
-
Huffington Post headline: (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/arizona-immigration-law-ruling_n_1614067.html)
"AZ Immigration Law Gutted"
Color me "shocked."
And from their comments:
HP/LOL calls it "gutted".
I call it "Meat, Potatoes and Gravy" made it while the broccoli and greens got cut.
That, of course, would be Red Meat !!!
-
Not surprising.
Dear Lord I pray the Supremes are toying with these punks!
It would be sweet if ObamaCare went down in total. Most likely the Supreme's want to hold it so they can safely get out of town before the big tamale hits the wires.
Instilled with great confidence I am not.
But a pleasant surprise would be nice.
-
DailyKos scribblers are predictably apoplectic about the AZ immigration law being upheld on its major point. One of the things not being discussed is that the decision to uphold the police immigration status checks was apparently a unanimous decision. Darned inconvenient facts.
-
O'Bongo ran past reporters without answering any questions as he boarded Air Force One today...that's not exactly new behavior for the nation's top narcissist but you can bet that he would have been all over everywhere had the AZ ruling truly gone in his favor.
-
DailyKos scribblers are predictably apoplectic about the AZ immigration law being upheld on its major point. One of the things not being discussed is that the decision to uphold the police immigration status checks was apparently a unanimous decision. Darned inconvenient facts.
In a way, it is not too surprising that the one part of the AZ immigration law that SCOTUS approves of unanimously is the part that gives the widest latitude to law enforcement.
Just noticing.
-
DailyKos offers this (http://www.Dailykos.com/story/2012/06/25/1103011/-Mitt-Romneybot-on-SB1070-ruling-President-Obama-sucks) analysis of Romney's post SCOTUS announcement:
Here's a sentence-by-sentence analysis of his statement:
1. Obama sucks.
2. Obama sucks.
3. Obama sucks.
4. SB1070 was Arizona's duty and responsibility because Obama sucks.
5. Obama sucks.
6. Obama sucks.
They are capable of cogent thought. Who knew?
-
As long as they uderstand Obama sucks, I guess that's something.
::)
-
Dingus in Chief's official response to the AZ immigration law decision:
I am pleased that the Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's immigration law. What this decision makes unmistakably clear is that Congress must act on comprehensive immigration reform. A patchwork of state laws is not a solution to our broken immigration system – it’s part of the problem.
At the same time, I remain concerned about the practical impact of the remaining provision of the Arizona law that requires local law enforcement officials to check the immigration status of anyone they even suspect to be here illegally. I agree with the Court that individuals cannot be detained solely to verify their immigration status. No American should ever live under a cloud of suspicion just because of what they look like. Going forward, we must ensure that Arizona law enforcement officials do not enforce this law in a manner that undermines the civil rights of Americans, as the Court’s decision recognizes. Furthermore, we will continue to enforce our immigration laws by focusing on our most important priorities like border security and criminals who endanger our communities, and not, for example, students who earn their education – which is why the Department of Homeland Security announced earlier this month that it will lift the shadow of deportation from young people who were brought to the United States as children through no fault of their own.
I will work with anyone in Congress who’s willing to make progress on comprehensive immigration reform that addresses our economic needs and security needs, and upholds our tradition as a nation of laws and a nation of immigrants. And in the meantime, we will continue to use every federal resource to protect the safety and civil rights of all Americans, and treat all our people with dignity and respect. We can solve these challenges not in spite of our most cherished values – but because of them. What makes us American is not a question of what we look like or what our names are. What makes us American is our shared belief in the enduring promise of this country – and our shared responsibility to leave it more generous and more hopeful than we found it.
Translation:
"I am totally screwed and my only hope for re-election is to somehow get everyone's attention focused anywhere but on the economy. So you Republicans please lose your minds for the next few months and let's get going on comprehensive immigration reform. Oh, and I won the immigration debate anyway just in case you were keeping score."
-
The Court refused to uphold the requirement of the carrying of one's registration papers? That's a freakin' Federal rule as well, so WTF?!
-
Big Sis doubles Down.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/)
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
I think when conservatives are back in charge we should "suspend" any laws dealing with any crime where a registered Democrat is the victim. Theft, rape and murder of Democrats, while still technically illegal, just shouldn't be prosecuted, and the Federal DOJ and any State DOJs we control should announce that fact. And if any F'ing Democrats complain, their names and addresses should be posted. After all, the fewer democrats there are, the more the GOP will gain in an election. And obviously the Dems feel that suspending laws for political gain is a fine idea.
-
Big Sis doubles Down.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/)
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
I think when conservatives are back in charge we should "suspend" any laws dealing with any crime where a registered Democrat is the victim. Theft, rape and murder of Democrats, while still technically illegal, just shouldn't be prosecuted, and the Federal DOJ and any State DOJs we control should announce that fact. And if any F'ing Democrats complain, their names and addresses should be posted. After all, the fewer democrats there are, the more the GOP will gain in an election. And obviously the Dems feel that suspending laws for political gain is a fine idea.
Fricken works for me!
-
Big Sis doubles Down.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/ (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/25/homeland-security-suspends-immigration-agreements-/)
Administration officials, speaking on condition they not be named, told reporters they expect to see an increase in the number of calls they get from Arizona police — but that won’t change President Obama’s decision to limit whom the government actually tries to detain and deport.
“We will not be issuing detainers on individuals unless they clearly meet our defined priorities,” one official said in a telephone briefing.
I think when conservatives are back in charge we should "suspend" any laws dealing with any crime where a registered Democrat is the victim. Theft, rape and murder of Democrats, while still technically illegal, just shouldn't be prosecuted, and the Federal DOJ and any State DOJs we control should announce that fact. And if any F'ing Democrats complain, their names and addresses should be posted. After all, the fewer democrats there are, the more the GOP will gain in an election. And obviously the Dems feel that suspending laws for political gain is a fine idea.
So the obummer administration has effectively "sanctioned" Arizona. Wow. Lets see.....Iran, Libya, Arizona.....Oh sorry, we really don't sanction the first two.
We'll never treat dems as they have treated us....And i'm not sure we should. I want to. I really do. I'll take solice, one day, I won't have to endure antics by dems.
-
I want to treat them worse. Way worse. That is my sinful nature.
-
I want to treat them worse. Way worse. That is my sinful nature.
I dispise the way dems use the general religious/ moral nature of conservatives as, literally, a weapon, while living thier lives with little values, morals, ethics or principle.
-
Alinsky 101.
-
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/IronDioPriest/Picture6-3.png)
-
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/IronDioPriest/Picture6-3.png)
They will more than likely be a victim of gun violence resulting from fast and furious...... or it could be Bush's fault.
-
(http://i126.photobucket.com/albums/p98/IronDioPriest/Picture6-3.png)
They will more than likely be a victim of gun violence resulting from fast and furious...... or it could be Bush's fault.
Mexican police would have a typically punitive response to such a statement.
One would be fortunate if he could make that telephone call; he'd be fortunate
if he could breathe.
-
That'd make a damn good t-shirt to sport if around these morons though...like on Cinqo de Mayo.
::stirpot::
-
How about a last minute poll on Obamacare? Supposed to be announced on Thursday. I don't have a great feeling about it. I don't think it will be knocked down in its entirety. It might even be upheld. I'm sort of wondering if Roberts is turning into another one of those conservative disappointment appointments.
-
How about a last minute poll on Obamacare? Supposed to be announced on Thursday. I don't have a great feeling about it. I don't think it will be knocked down in its entirety. It might even be upheld. I'm sort of wondering if Roberts is turning into another one of those conservative disappointment appointments.
I am not hopeful. I will probably have to be medicated after hearing the announcement. I fully expect American Revolution II to start on Thursday. I will not comply with this bill and I am not going to Jail or having my property confiscated over a $95 fine.. if I am going to jail its going to be for something that deserves jail time.
-
@Glock:
I'm of the school of thought that thinks that the mandate is toast but everything else is going to be upheld. The court will effectively be punting the bill back to congress then you see, without vacating it. So they will essentially be giving congress a do-over since the monstrosity can't stand without that accursed mandate.
I think that this will be the way the court goes simply as a face-saving device for them. Politically speaking, if they strike it down, as should be done, their image will be tarnished.
And yeah, everybody knows that that should be the furthest thing from their minds - but this isn't a perfect world and I guess I'm cynical. So that's how I see it going down.
-
I just don't see how the bill can stand without the mandate. Without the mandate, the whole thing crumbles. Just at first glance, take the prohibition against insurance companies discriminating against "pre-existing conditions" into consideration. There is no possible way to fund that provision without the mandate. It is the only mechanism in ObamaCare that addresses that specific and massive influx of uninsured people into the system. Take away the mandate and keep the pre-existing condition provision, and there will be a flood of people dropping their insurance, and every insurance company in the country will be bankrupt within the month.
It seems to me that if ObamaCare fails, that failure will reside in the political reality that the mandate was crafted as a substitute for the power to level a tax, at a time when such a massive tax increase was politically untenable. If the funding mechanisms for this bill were built on the federal government's power to tax, I think it may have been unstoppable. But that kind of tax increase was never going to happen. In the end, if this falls, in hindsight it will appear that the best the Leftists could do was cram through something that would give their hardcore base a new "hill" to fight for. They've certainly upped the stakes and clarified the issue, if nothing else.
-
I think they'll strike down the mandate but leave enough of the rest of it that the libs will know they're on the right path to universal healthcare.
-
Take away the mandate and keep the pre-existing condition provision, and there will be a flood of people dropping their insurance, and every insurance company in the country will be bankrupt within the month.
I believe this is one of their primary goals. Even with the mandate that is a likelihood, because it is crafted in such a way that many people will pay the fine and then get insurance only when they have a need for it (a pre-existing condition, in other words). Either path leads to the elimination of private health care, enter Uncle Sugar atop his white horse to the rescue.
-
Revolution be coming one way or another...
-
Take away the mandate and keep the pre-existing condition provision, and there will be a flood of people dropping their insurance, and every insurance company in the country will be bankrupt within the month.
I believe this is one of their primary goals. Even with the mandate that is a likelihood, because it is crafted in such a way that many people will pay the fine and then get insurance only when they have a need for it (a pre-existing condition, in other words). Either path leads to the elimination of private health care, enter Uncle Sugar atop his white horse to the rescue.
Indeed. It follows then that in the event the mandate is stricken down leaving the remainder (or at least a hefty chunk of it) in tact, that the Supreme Court is either wittingly or unwittingly doing the Left's bidding. The health care system will be destroyed, people will be without care, and will be made pliable for demands of new taxation to replace the mandate.
-
Indeed. It follows then that in the event the mandate is stricken down leaving the remainder (or at least a hefty chunk of it) in tact, that the Supreme Court is either wittingly or unwittingly doing the Left's bidding. The health care system will be destroyed, people will be without care, and will be made pliable for demands of new taxation to replace the mandate.
Ultimately the States don't have to do a dang thing on Obamacare, immigration or anything else. . The States will start forming Citizen militias and basically tell the Fed to shove it, just as the Fed just told Az. In the Federalist that was exactly how the Founders felt that States should react to overreach by the Fed- as a rallying point and alternative government for their citizens. Tell your citizens that until the government removes its edicts to fund Medicare, starts enforcing immigration law, or whatever that they will NO CO-OPERATE with any Federal Seizure of property for income tax due. Tell your police force that they will not allow them to be tried in a federal court. Shut down all federal agencies in the State and send the employees packing. We are reaching the South's "make me" moment. Obama likes to compare himself to Lincoln - and this is why - he WANTS a civil war. He wants to wipe away the constitution or at least leave the Union shattered. And at this point folks, he has succeeded. I will never live peacefully with a liberal neighbor, I will never help them with anything and I will be cussing them out to their faces till the day they die.
Az should just announce it will no longer prosecute anyone for the murder of an illegal alien (murder comes under State law)- and claim they have as much right to not enforce certain laws as the President does. and form a militia under control of the governor. It would take care of their illegal alien problem over-nignt and ultimately without armed force being used ( National Guard or Military) Obama can't make them do a damn thing. Like the Catholic Hospitals you just need to keep doing what you were doing, and then make them use the heavy handed tactic of storming buildings and shooting at families to make you stop. Force their hand before they are ready- after this stunt by Obama (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/26/jan-brewer-the-obama-administration-basically-just-told-arizona-to-drop-dead/) there can be no doubt that they are trying to force a conflict. (http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/06/cops-military-gear/) Its time to give them one. Make them shoot at women and children. Make them explain why Illegals are being hunted by Vigilantes because the Fed refuses to take them into custody and remove them from AZ..
-
Didn't Roberts write Az? He's writing Obama.
There could be a deal. It could be a bad deal.
-
Kennedy wrote AZ as instructed by Roberts. Roberts is assumed to be writing ObamaCare ruling.
I am inclined to think like Weisshaupt, time to force the weak sisters out and settle these issues more definitively. Shirking from a confrontation doesn't avoid a confrontation, it merely postpones it and ensures your enemy consolidates deeper and makes your losses greater when the crap does hit the fan. Pretending otherwise is folly. Time for a general and widespread rebellion against the federal beast which has destroyed just about every tenent this nation was founded upon. That may wash with some folk, sure as hell doesn't wash with me.
-
At this point I am willing to embrace almost anything that would weaken the Federal government: asteroids, alien invasion (the little green men kind), anything. It is a malignant cancer that has clearly exceeded its mandate. The statists argue that is nonsense, because after all we still have the trappings of a representative republic; that is no defense, because they have simply and cynically wagered that they can get away with consistent overstepping and abuse because each particular thing in itself doesn't immediately effect that many people. If you compress all these oversteps over the past century or so into a single act, you really see the magnitude of it all. But hey, we still get to participate in a rigged game every couple of years so I guess all of this has been done with our consent eh? Nonsense.
To echo Weisshaupt's point, if I were the governor and legislature of Arizona I'd be issuing a few edicts of my own. I would instruct all state agencies to immediately and henceforth stop enforcing ALL federal laws and regulations. The feds depend on the states to perform the actual implementation of a lot of their bullsh*t, so stop doing it for them. Right now I think lots of us are just waiting for some state somewhere to start showing some balls. It would immediately become like Texas attracting defenders from other states, like the famous Volunteers from TN.
-
I agree G.
Check this out, backup for Brewer's argument that the Fed's told her and her state to eff off -
http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/06/26/obama-terminates-287g-immigration-enforcement-program-anyone-home/ (http://www.redstate.com/dhorowitz3/2012/06/26/obama-terminates-287g-immigration-enforcement-program-anyone-home/)
Until there is widespread open defiance of all Federal overreach, until states and their people take charge of themselves...the Federal power will only increase day after day.
I am despondent that so many of my countrymen are so tolerant of this much interference into every single aspect of our lives.
We should be revolting already.
Instead I find myself revolted by indifference and inaction.
-
Interesting that 287-g is still in effect in Texas and New Mexico . This was a blatant and nakedly punitive swipe at Az. and should be considered illegal .
-
Take away the mandate and keep the pre-existing condition provision, and there will be a flood of people dropping their insurance, and every insurance company in the country will be bankrupt within the month.
I believe this is one of their primary goals. Even with the mandate that is a likelihood, because it is crafted in such a way that many people will pay the fine and then get insurance only when they have a need for it (a pre-existing condition, in other words). Either path leads to the elimination of private health care, enter Uncle Sugar atop his white horse to the rescue.
Personally , I think the pre-existing condition provision stinks to high heaven purely from the standpoint that it's unfair to the insurance companies . It's demanding a whole lot of something for little or nothing . Aside from that , I'm hopeful that the mandate is declared unconstitutional since it's what's holding this over-stuffed monstrosity up .
-
Personally , I think the pre-existing condition provision stinks to high heaven purely from the standpoint that it's unfair to the insurance companies . It's demanding a whole lot of something for little or nothing . Aside from that , I'm hopeful that the mandate is declared unconstitutional since it's what's holding this over-stuffed monstrosity up .
That provision means you are NOT purchasing "insurance", as insurance insures against unforeseen events.
That provision makes this a co-op with mandatory participation in which we all agree to pay the Health care bills as a group, in violation of our right of conscience, our right of association,and our right to property. These people deserve no mercy. Especially when they dare call this "insurance"
-
It hasn't been "insurance" for a long time.
Jason Lewis was talkng about this just last night.
-
It hasn't been "insurance" for a long time.
Jason Lewis was talkng about this just last night.
There certainly are insurance companies which offer coverage for pre-existing conditions ... but you'll pay a hefty premium for it ... in most cases more than it's worth .
-
It hasn't been "insurance" for a long time.
Jason Lewis was talkng about this just last night.
There certainly are insurance companies which offer coverage for pre-existing conditions ... but you'll pay a hefty premium for it ... in most cases more than it's worth .
Sure, because typically your employer will either self insure or pay those premiums? Why? FDR. Of course. He imposed wage controls during WWII that induced employers to offer other perks to attract employees: one of those was Health Insurance, and that is how it became a standard offering, and now, of course , a "Right" provided by the enslavement of others. Before then, you <MIGHT> have had a catastrophic plan but more than likely you did what you could, made deals with doctors, or simply didn't get treated. Of course, back then people knew and accepted there were no guarantees in life.
-
I don't know about anyone else but I'll not be getting much sleep tonight. For tomorrow we shall learn if we still have a republic. The stakes are huge and the circumstances dire. And based on recent events, the outcome extremely iffy. If we can be compelled by the federal government to involuntarily purchase a product for no god-damned good reason and fined or imprisoned for disobedience then we are subjects not citizens of this once-great nation and can be forced to do anything. Anything means anything and the law means nothing. And I withdraw my consent to be governed.
While I won't be deterred in I am the only one who stands in defiance I desperately hope that millions of us stand together and tell them "no". Consider this my manifesto - Take my liberty away from me and I will go to my grave fighting you. I will do everything within my power to derail this Øbomination.
Pray for our country.
-
I don't know about anyone else but I'll not be getting much sleep tonight. For tomorrow we shall learn if we still have a republic. The stakes are huge and the circumstances dire. And based on recent events, the outcome extremely iffy. If we can be compelled by the federal government to involuntarily purchase a product for no god-damned good reason and fined or imprisoned for disobedience then we are subjects not citizens of this once-great nation and can be forced to do anything. Anything means anything and the law means nothing. And I withdraw my consent to be governed.
While I won't be deterred in I am the only one who stands in defiance I desperately hope that millions of us stand together and tell them "no". Consider this my manifesto - Take my liberty away from me and I will go to my grave fighting you. I will do everything within my power to derail this Øbomination.
Pray for our country.
I am there with you. I won't be sleeping. I will not submit Nice to know there will at least one more prepared to deal back what they are dealing out. Liberty or Death.
.
-
I was just about to come here and post the same sentiment, I am very apprehensive. I just have bad feeling they're going to uphold it entirely. I hope I am wrong. But it's really as if the three branches of government are no longer checking and balancing each other, no they're in collusion with each other for the singular goal of always expanding the size and scope of government. Any institution will eventually become more concerned with its "institutionality" than with its original mission, and I think that explains much of the hubris that we have allowed to grow in DC.
-
Should have live coverage of the decisions here...
http://www.scotusblog.com/ (http://www.scotusblog.com/)
BTW...if it is not overturned, for me, it isn't the end or anything. It is merely another thing to go to war over...another thing to fight the good fight about.
We are meant to struggle.
There are, in this life, brief respites from the struggle but those are anomalies rather than the norm. This is an imperfect world and we are its imperfect inhabitants.
We are a paradox of sorts. We represent the best and the worst and these things which are constantly at odds with each other. There are no perfect people. Every time we lift someone up onto a pedestal (most recently Tim Tebow as an example) it is only a matter of time before they inevitably fail in one way or another and those who put their faith in an imperfect human being are crushed...again.
So we have those on the left with all of their smug and humanist piety in opposition to those on the right with our morality, our principles and our unwavering dedication to the rule of law as set forth in our Constitution. We know we are right and we are almost always able to win a fair argument on any given subject or controversy. But the left believes just as strongly (if also illogically and irrationally) that they are right, too.
And hence, the struggle. It never ends. (and the political class that benefits from these differences feeds it...it's what they do)
And thus, we must remain vigilant and steadfast. We must overcome everything including our own discouragement and the inevitable setbacks. The left will never stop. They will keep fighting, keep bringing the fight from some new angle...
The impending decision, as historical and momentous as it is and regardless of whether we win or lose, is just another battle in a fight which we are doomed to continue forever.
So buck up, campers. You will continue to be needed. Stand fast.
-
BTW...if it is not overturned, for me, it isn't the end or anything. It is merely another thing to go to war over...another thing to fight the good fight about.
I don't think any of us is talking about quitting. We are admitting to ourselves that if this law is allowed to stand, under any pretext, the checks and balances of the system have been entirely destroyed. Health Care is a "Unique" market because everyone needs health care? Because we have a law enslaving doctors to provide care for free? How about Food? Clean Water? Internet Service? Sanitation? Everyone needs those. All we need is a law requiring those who work in those professions to provide heir services for free as well, and then those are unique markets as well. No matter what line is drawn, it will give complete power to the Fed to do anything, and any limits or pretext that there are limits will be destroyed.
[blockquote]“Well, Doctor, what have we got—a Republic or a Monarchy?”
“A Republic, if you can keep it.”[/blockquote]
If this vote stands we have failed to keep our republic, and the checks and balances will have failed to such a degree that the system cannot be fixed from within. The entire history of mankind and certainly of the Roman Republic shows us how this will end. A Monetary catastrophe, a revolt, a revolution - the unpredictable and potentially disastrous courses we all fear-- will be the only roads left to us. Its either that or sit down and wait out the new dark ages in some remote corner of the world.
Electing Romney isn't a solution. Even if Obamacare is repealed, he is already worrying out loud about not depriving people who currently have coverage via the law. The bribe for those souls was offered and accepted, and Romney doesn't have the guts to tell people to pay their own way. Repeal at that stage is but a reprieve, and a temporary one. If the court can find this acceptable they have abandoned all pretense that they are guided via the consent of the people, and they will continue to act in that manner, until the liberals get a change to try again.
We can't live with the liberals, in competition or anything else , anymore than the Romans could live with Barbarians inside the city gates.
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”-John Adams
They will not follow the laws. They Crave the rule of men, and believe might makes right. They use our government and our obedience to it, as a weapon against us. They are Evil. When this finally comes to blows , it will be us or them. We are incompatible, and they are hell bent on eradicating us - through indoctrination, through attrition, through punishment and persecution, and finally via the ovens. It is what they do. . We will only survive if we respond in kind.
-
I'm waiting, calmly.
If it passes, I'll know what to do.
If it doesn't, I'll also know what to do.
It's a fight, either way, because, as you say, Romney doesn't have the balls to tell the free-riders it's time to pay, walk or sit where they are and die.
But we'll know exactly where we stand, without a doubt.
-
Frankly, this republic has fallen.....no matter what whe ruling. The very fact we are anxiously awaiting what should be a slam dunk decision is proof.
I'm in the process is writing my own response. I will write a response no matter what the outcome, the subject matter the unfettered power of a govt which can force you into anything or a response to the fragile nature of our republic because there was question whether this abomination is constitutional. I hope to have it published in our small local paper......even if I pay for the ad myself.
Hopefully, it will be therapeutic for me...... Maybe it will wake up one other person. I'm sure there will be op eds galore in the national scene, no matter the ruling, but to win this battle, our message must be delivered to the places people live their lives.....to wake them up.
-
I tend to think that they will cut the baby in half.
The Republic has been gone for some time.
Whether Ocare stands or falls.
Liberty is just a distant memory in a few of our minds.
Each new law takes more of our Freedom.
Most applaud them.
The masses are ignorant and lazy.
They have been dumbed down by the educational system or bought off by handouts.
Endless wars, bolder and bolder intrusions on our persons and privacy.
And for leaders of the opposition we have Romney, Boehner and McConnell.
There's not a pair of balls among the three of them.
There is no checks or balances.
Patriots must do their duty.
Fight the tyranny
But, I suspect these Patriots will be like those who defended the Alamo.
Certain death with no hope of reinforcements.
But there is no Sam Houston that is waiting for the time to catch the enemy unawares
-
Frankly, this republic has fallen.....no matter what whe ruling. The very fact we are anxiously awaiting what should be a slam dunk decision is proof.
I'm in the process is writing my own response. I will write a response no matter what the outcome, the subject matter the unfettered power of a govt which can force you into anything or a response to the fragile nature of our republic because there was question whether this abomination is constitutional. I hope to have it published in our small local paper......even if I pay for the ad myself.
Hopefully, it will be therapeutic for me...... Maybe it will wake up one other person. I'm sure there will be op eds galore in the national scene, no matter the ruling, but to win this battle, our message must be delivered to the places people live their lives.....to wake them up.
Your opinion PD, mirrors my own.
-
Not long now.
Of course, there are the minor decisions which will certainly be released first.
What incredible hype.
-
I have FNC on and, as expected, there is a circus/zoo-like atmosphere in front of the court. Everyone with a cause is out in force with a sign.
-
Curiously, on MSNBC they are ignoring the SCOTUS event and are discussing presidential campaign strategy.
Perhaps that will change. I have it recording in case it's overturned so that I can watch the long sad faces.
UPDATE: the Chuck Todd show is ending and another one is getting ready to start so presumably they will be covering the ruling. But this is not a network that is excited about the ruling.
-
Curiously, on MSNBC they are ignoring the SCOTUS event and are discussing presidential campaign strategy.
Perhaps that will change. I have it recording in case it's overturned so that I can watch the long sad faces.
Trap! You are an exceptionally bad man. Bad and evil! But in a delightfully, good way! ::thumbsup::
-
Frankly, this republic has fallen.....no matter what whe ruling. The very fact we are anxiously awaiting what should be a slam dunk decision is proof.
Like Rome, its a long slow fall.
It was falling when Fed power was expanded as a result of the Civil War
It was falling when Senators become popularly elected
It was falling when FDR pushes through his reforms and "interstate" commerce was deemed to apply to subsistence farming.
However, this, I think, is the moment where we will have fallen past the point of no return. Where the system can no longer be corrected from within. Which is why we are looking at each other and saying Liberty or Death, and expecting to die in our homes.
If this stands the world will become toxic to me. I love my family, but I am the sort that will not be able to experience real joy with them - because I will be unable to forget that I and they are slaves, and that their "Freedom" is only what is left over after our masters have made their demands. I will go on because I have responsibilities, but my only chance for joy in my life will have been extinguished. I am not the sort of person who can be happy as a slave.
-
Oh yeah, MSNBC has Chris Mathews and Andrea Mitchell up on a panel. Mathews is looking especially unenthusiastic...very little hyperventilating. Andrea Mitchel is putting on a brave face.
Matthews is making a case that O'Bongo, if defeated on O'BongoCare, should not "take it" and should fight back against the SCOTUS. Makes you wonder what he thinks O'Bongo could do in a legal sense...arrest the justices?
-
FNC is reporting that the mandate is ruled unconstitutional.
-
Now they are saying that the mandate may be surviving as a "tax."
-
That the mandate is going to be characterized as a tax is going to be a pretty big millstone around the necks of the Democrats who claimed that it was not a tax.
So...we are looking at a win/lose for the Democrats. They win the O'BongoCare debate and almost certainly lose the war.
Oh, and look for O'Bongo to do a victory dance. He won't be able to help it.
-
I never would have guessed that Kennedy would not be the deciding vote.
-
Bye-bye Republic. It was a good run.
-
It's been quite a while since news has brought a tear to my eye. I can barely bring myself to think what this means for my children and grandchildren, both in the short-term strife that will occur because of this, and the long-term effect on liberty should we fail to make the Left choke on it until it dies.
-
So the govt has unfettered power to call anything a tax.
So if you refuse to comply, it will reflect in your tax return.
It's been a good run.
-
I s'pose if there is a silver lining, it is this: Thanks to this ruling, every American just received a massive tax increase 5 months before an election. There is a possibility that the political backlash could be so massive that the GOP takes all three branches and we can force them to undo this.
-
I knew Roberts was a snake. And for all those milquetoast Republicans in the Senate, at the confirmation hearings, who always say this or that thing is "not the hill to die on", well you know what you craven motherf**kers? Maybe it WAS the hill to die on.
And why can't Republicans appoint Supreme Court justices worth a damn? It's because they've so bought into this idea of moderate, centrist, event-tempered BS. The Democrats never do that. They appoint justices who are ideologically reliable, and the GOP Senators obediently confirm them. I have never been more certain that the GOP as an entity needs to just go away. They have ruined this republic through their failure to be an opposite number to the progressives.
This pisses me off mightily. But I have to say, my gut told me it was going down this way. Perhaps it will be beneficial, it will help break the back of the docile morons who just keep working and paying for all this.
-
I should add, whether or not this energizes the effort to repeal Obamacare is ultimately meaningless. Sure, we could get rid of this particular act. But the Supreme Court has just established as precedent that the Federal government can compel you to do anything it wants, if it is couched in the penumbra of taxation. So where is the limit? There was scarcely any limit before today. Now, there is officially none.
-
When I was driving my kids to their activities this morning I had this sense that the fight was just beginning.
I cried for my children.
-
Jackson?
Paging Andrew Jackson.
Would Andrew Jackson please come to the fore?
-
We now know where we stand with this supreme court after these rulings. They are in favor of turning this country into a communist republic.
Our hopes do not stem from the supreme court, congress, or the presidency.
All three co-equal branches have been successfully seized by the communists.
There you go!
-
I s'pose if there is a silver lining, it is this: Thanks to this ruling, every American just received a massive tax increase 5 months before an election. There is a possibility that the political backlash could be so massive that the GOP takes all three branches and we can force them to undo this.
I can't be doing this at work but I have to. IDP I nevcer have a beef with what you say but how the hell is this a silver lining of any kind?Even if it means getting that a s s h o l e out of office this mess is permanent and at woest he would have been around 4 lousy years.
If this ends up being like Canadas tax system we can look forword to a 48% tax rate at a minimum not to mention all the other taxes that they impose on most purchases totaling a sales tax of about 15% above and beyond the income tax and not to mention the healthcare system going to hell.
Unless you think that cowards we have as leaders are going to repeal it.
Were not scrwed were effed but good at the hands of that traitor Roberts,Kennedy called as it is and Roberts went the other way the same SOB we cheered for just stuck it to us.
-
That's the worst part of it. Roberts SAVED Obamacare. He didn't go over because Kennedy already had and wanted to give a narrow ruling, no, he could have squashed it right then and there. Government institutions are about the furtherance of the government. Any connection to a mission of serving the people is long since forgotten. I guess I'm surprised we even have the expectation.
At this point trying to "salvage" the USA is a fool's game. It needs to be broken apart by whatever means necessary. It has simply become too large, too populous, and too diverse. You can't have one country out of that arrangement. We're just Yugoslavia with better personal hygiene. We literally have two nations within one territory, and better you believe it is going to come down to which one of them can kill the other one quicker, harder, faster, stronger. Civil war is inevitable, and I'd rather it start while I am still young and healthy.
-
...Unless you think that cowards we have as leaders are going to repeal it...
I don't think they'll do it on their own. I don't have faith or trust that they can be forced to do it. But I have hope that with a large enough majority and intense pressure from the citizenry, they can be coerced to repeal. It is a thin hope, but I won't lose all hope until the country crumbles around my ears. It's how I'm built. I have moments of despair, but then I look for hope.
-
...Civil war is inevitable, and I'd rather it start while I am still young and healthy.
I've said for a long time that if it's going to start, I'd rather it start when my sons are fully grown men. They're turning 17 and 18 in August. I want so much more for them than the future that seems to be unfolding. And I have a little girl, and a grandson. So I guess there is no "right" time for a nation to witness upheaval.
-
...Unless you think that cowards we have as leaders are going to repeal it...
I don't think they'll do it on their own. I don't have faith or trust that they can be forced to do it. But I have hope that with a large enough majority and intense pressure from the citizenry, they can be coerced to repeal. It is a thin hope, but I won't lose all hope until the country crumbles around my ears. It's how I'm built. I have moments of despair, but then I look for hope.
Right now all I see is despair and I can't find a way out from it,I'm sick to my stomach.
-
Beck says Romney's getting ready to speak.
-
Beck says Romney's getting ready to speak.
He better have something brilliant to say or he can go to hell too.
-
We can either ride the horse we've got or walk.
-
Or send all the horses to the glue factory. All of them.
-
This is Tyranny. The voting booth means nothing because the will of the people means nothing.
The question is, do we find a way to resist or meekly accept our shackles?
-
We can either ride the horse we've got or walk.
I this horse wont fight for it why do I need to back him.If were going to get our asses handed to us as often as we do why bother.
-
It is a thin hope, but I won't lose all hope until the country crumbles around my ears. It's how I'm built. I have moments of despair, but then I look for hope.
I keep telling myself because I'm like that too. In moments when I think I can't go on I remember the Lord has never let me down and somehow I do make it.
You know I don't want to fight this or any battle. I just want to be left alone. I'm physically ill right now.
-
This is Tyranny. The voting booth means nothing because the will of the people means nothing.
The question is, do we find a way to resist or meekly accept our shackles?
Get used to waring them it's all we got from both sides.
-
It is a thin hope, but I won't lose all hope until the country crumbles around my ears. It's how I'm built. I have moments of despair, but then I look for hope.
I keep telling myself because I'm like that too. In moments when I think I can't go on I remember the Lord has never let me down and somehow I do make it.
You know I don't want to fight this or any battle. I just want to be left alone. I'm physically ill right now.
Foget being left alone they just got the keys to your front door.
-
It is a thin hope, but I won't lose all hope until the country crumbles around my ears. It's how I'm built. I have moments of despair, but then I look for hope.
I keep telling myself because I'm like that too. In moments when I think I can't go on I remember the Lord has never let me down and somehow I do make it.
You know I don't want to fight this or any battle. I just want to be left alone. I'm physically ill right now.
Foget being left alone they just got the keys to your front door.
I know.
They'll want my parental rights next.
-
ou know I don't want to fight this or any battle. I just want to be left alone. I'm physically ill right now.
We all just wanted to be left alone. But there is none of that with the Left. They will cajole and compel everyone to adhere to their vision. That is our biggest weakness as conservatives. Because we want to be left alone and free to live our own lives as we see fit, we are automatically in a defensive posture vis-a-vis the Left. On everything. And I think we can all witness the fruits of that passivity.
It is clear to me now that the Left can only be destroyed by destroying Leftists. The sooner we get down to that, the sooner this gets settled one way or the other. There's no moral dilemma, really, because even if we continued with a passive and accommodating posture they would still force the issue for us. This is because they long ago came to the conclusion that they will eliminate their ideological enemy by eliminating the individuals who subscribe to that ideology.
-
This is Tyranny. The voting booth means nothing because the will of the people means nothing.
The question is, do we find a way to resist or meekly accept our shackles?
Get used to waring them it's all we got from both sides.
As individuals, we can live our lives in such a way that we do not feed this beast. The beast will never be satisfied until it has taken every drop of sustenance from us - I will seek every chance to legally deny it.
Although I'm not sure what path that will be, I'm thinking step one is cashing out every dime we have in savings before they get their greasy, thieving hands on it for "redistribution".
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-if-we-want-get-rid-obamacare-were-going-have-replace-ppresident-obama_647937.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-if-we-want-get-rid-obamacare-were-going-have-replace-ppresident-obama_647937.html)
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reacted to the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision by saying that, "if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama."
Mitt Romney
"Let's make clear that we understand what the Court did, and did not do," Romney said in Washington, D.C., according to a rough transcript of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's statement. "What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."
Romney added: "Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today."
This presidential election is "a choice," Romney said. "You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you're comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we will pass onto the coming generations. [Or] whether you're willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make share choices as to what kind of health insurance they want."
"This is the time of choice for the American people," Romney said.
-
This is Tyranny. The voting booth means nothing because the will of the people means nothing.
The question is, do we find a way to resist or meekly accept our shackles?
Get used to waring them it's all we got from both sides.
As individuals, we can live our lives in such a way that we do not feed this beast. The beast will never be satisfied until it has taken every drop of sustenance from us - I will seek every chance to legally deny it.
Although I'm not sure what path that will be, I'm thinking step one is cashing out every dime we have in savings before they get their greasy, thieving hands on it for "redistribution".
To what end they control how you can spend it anyway.
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-if-we-want-get-rid-obamacare-were-going-have-replace-ppresident-obama_647937.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-if-we-want-get-rid-obamacare-were-going-have-replace-ppresident-obama_647937.html)
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reacted to the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision by saying that, "if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama."
Mitt Romney
"Let's make clear that we understand what the Court did, and did not do," Romney said in Washington, D.C., according to a rough transcript of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's statement. "What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."
Romney added: "Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today."
This presidential election is "a choice," Romney said. "You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you're comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we will pass onto the coming generations. [Or] whether you're willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make share choices as to what kind of health insurance they want."
"This is the time of choice for the American people," Romney said.
No sh*t Sherloc.
-
Glock I know you didn't mean me personally but I've never passive. And it's gained me no friends I can tell you.
Over and over I've said no and put my foot down and got nothing but grief even from family. I've been called stubborn, dogmatic, a worrywart, overprotective, etc.
On Tuesday I took my youngest to the oral surgeon. Unfortunately, in our family going to the oral surgeon is not a rare event. In the past 15 years I've taken kids as young as 3 and as old as 16 to have teeth pulled. Every single time I've stayed in the room. They aren't put to sleep and want me there. So the doc and nurses know us and me. AND yet the nurse suggests I leave.
My daughter screams no and the nurse backs down. I simply said I always stay.
I asked my daughter later what would she had done if the nurse had insisted I leave and she said I would have gotten up and left. ( hehehe That's my girl.)
Question: Roberts says it's not up to the Court to protect people from the consequences of their choices. If that's not the STUPIDEST thing I've ever heard. What the point of the Court then? If we're so dumb we elect officials who decide to ignore the Constitution then what? too bad?
-
Of course LV I didn't mean you personally. Just from reading posts on this forum I know many of our members are stalwart in their own personal encounters with our ideological enemies. The passivity I speak of is that of the conservative population. It's always about compromising, reaching across the aisle, swallowing pride for the sake of comity and easygoingness, and so on. You see it especially from the feckless leadership of the GOP.
How many different versions of "this ain't the hill to die on" have we heard from those cowards? Well guess what, we've ceded all the hills so I guess we get to die on the flat lands instead.
-
States do not have to participate in the new medicade expansion and cannot be penalized by the Fed for opting out. There will be many Red states opting out.
-
Of course LV I didn't mean you personally. Just from reading posts on this forum I know many of our members are stalwart in their own personal encounters with our ideological enemies. The passivity I speak of is that of the conservative population. It's always about compromising, reaching across the aisle, swallowing pride for the sake of comity and easygoingness, and so on. You see it especially from the feckless leadership of the GOP.
How many different versions of "this ain't the hill to die on" have we heard from those cowards? Well guess what, we've ceded all the hills so I guess we get to die on the flat lands instead.
In our community a local organization has been sponsoring speakers about Obamacare and religious freedom. I went to hear a couple. I can't tell you how many people are surprised by the information they're hearing!! It's stuff I've heard for YEARS!
-
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-if-we-want-get-rid-obamacare-were-going-have-replace-ppresident-obama_647937.html (http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/romney-if-we-want-get-rid-obamacare-were-going-have-replace-ppresident-obama_647937.html)
Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney reacted to the Supreme Court's Obamacare decision by saying that, "if we want to get rid of Obamacare, we're going to have to replace President Obama."
Mitt Romney
"Let's make clear that we understand what the Court did, and did not do," Romney said in Washington, D.C., according to a rough transcript of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's statement. "What the Court did today was say that Obamacare does not violate the Constitution. What they did not do was say that Obamacare is good law or that it's good policy."
Romney added: "Obamacare was bad policy yesterday. It's bad policy today. Obamacare was bad law yesterday. It's bad law today."
This presidential election is "a choice," Romney said. "You can choose whether you want to have a larger and larger government, more and more intrusive in your life, separating you and your doctor, whether you're comfortable with more deficits, higher debt that we will pass onto the coming generations. [Or] whether you're willing to have the government put in place a plan that potentially causes you to lose the insurance that you like or whether instead you want to return to a time when the American people will have their own choice in health care, where consumers will be able to make share choices as to what kind of health insurance they want."
"This is the time of choice for the American people," Romney said.
I choose war. Kill them all and let God sort it out.
-
This is Tyranny. The voting booth means nothing because the will of the people means nothing.
The question is, do we find a way to resist or meekly accept our shackles?
Get used to waring them it's all we got from both sides.
As individuals, we can live our lives in such a way that we do not feed this beast. The beast will never be satisfied until it has taken every drop of sustenance from us - I will seek every chance to legally deny it.
Although I'm not sure what path that will be, I'm thinking step one is cashing out every dime we have in savings before they get their greasy, thieving hands on it for "redistribution".
To what end they control how you can spend it anyway.
It makes no difference. The object is not spending it, or making it available to them. That sum of money though, I should be careful or it could get stolen, or lost..
-
Erick Erickson finds many silver linings, (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/) and I think there's merit to some of them...
Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points.
First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.
Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.
Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.
Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.
Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue is gone. (for them, but not for us; IDP)
Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.
60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground. Oh, and as I mentioned earlier, because John Roberts concluded it was a tax, the Democrats cannot filibuster its repeal because of the same reconciliation procedure the Democrats used to pass it.
It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.
*A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now.
Small consolation in the process of wallowing in the implications of this.
-
That's the worst part of it. Roberts SAVED Obamacare. He didn't go over because Kennedy already had and wanted to give a narrow ruling, no, he could have squashed it right then and there. Government institutions are about the furtherance of the government. Any connection to a mission of serving the people is long since forgotten. I guess I'm surprised we even have the expectation.
At this point trying to "salvage" the USA is a fool's game. It needs to be broken apart by whatever means necessary. It has simply become too large, too populous, and too diverse. You can't have one country out of that arrangement. We're just Yugoslavia with better personal hygiene. We literally have two nations within one territory, and better you believe it is going to come down to which one of them can kill the other one quicker, harder, faster, stronger. Civil war is inevitable, and I'd rather it start while I am still young and healthy.
Not Civil War, but Revolutionary War II, or is that just semantics?
From the Declaration of Independence:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.
Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.
But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.
-
Erick Erickson finds many silver linings, (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/) and I think there's merit to some of them...
No Merit that matters. The Court has affirmed that the Fed can compel you to buy things, eat your broccoli, or eat a sh*t sandwich or fine/tax you for your disobedience. This is Harry Reid's "Paying taxes is voluntary" argument writ large. After all you can always choose to not pay your taxes, and its not the courts job to protect you from going to jail if you fail to obey your masters.
Repeal won't matter now the that the Constitution says "the Fed can do whatever they want as long as they call it a tax or tax penalty"
The only way this gets reset is via blood. Its either that or accept our slavery.
-
if we take power this year we will need to start pushing for an amendment to ensure that this will never happen again.
-
I am henceforth referring to it as Robertscare.
-
if we take power this year we will need to start pushing for an amendment to ensure that this will never happen again.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-governors-vow-to-ignore-obamacare/article/2500862 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-governors-vow-to-ignore-obamacare/article/2500862)
Republican governors are planning to ignore the Supreme Court's decision
...
Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform
****
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html)
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that the Republican-led House will vote on repealing the health care law soon after the July 4 recess.
Cantor, who sets the floor schedule in the House, said in a statement that the House will vote on the repeal the week of July 9 – which Cantor said will clear the path for “patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice.” ::explodinghead::
No fool, just show us your manhood and repeal it. Nobody's crying for something new we're crying for relief from your idiocy.
-
People have long accepted the idea of taxing as a way to compel behavior.
The tax code is full of exceptions or deferments or credits etc... these are often called loopholes but what they do is cause people/companies to change their behavior.
-
if we take power this year we will need to start pushing for an amendment to ensure that this will never happen again.
http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-governors-vow-to-ignore-obamacare/article/2500862 (http://washingtonexaminer.com/gop-governors-vow-to-ignore-obamacare/article/2500862)
Republican governors are planning to ignore the Supreme Court's decision
...
Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform
****
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html (http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-congress/2012/06/cantor-house-will-vote-on-repeal-week-of-july-127555.html)
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) said Thursday that the Republican-led House will vote on repealing the health care law soon after the July 4 recess.
Cantor, who sets the floor schedule in the House, said in a statement that the House will vote on the repeal the week of July 9 – which Cantor said will clear the path for “patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice.” ::explodinghead::
No fool, just show us your manhood and repeal it. Nobody's crying for something new we're crying for relief from your idiocy.
AND THIS HORSE SHYT will be followed with a fund raising letter.Screw them repeal it first.
-
Alright so now it's a tax matter meaning budgetary which also says that a simple majority is needed. Am I correct in this assumption? ::whatgives::
-
if we take power this year we will need to start pushing for an amendment to ensure that this will never happen again.
Even if we got an Amendment passed, the court would ignore it as they just ignore the clear intent and text of the Constitution.
Our government has been overrun by Barbarians, and there is only one solution to that.
-
Alright so now it's a tax matter meaning budgetary which also says that a simple majority is needed. Am I correct in this assumption? ::whatgives::
Sounds correct.
-
There are side issues of concern that have passed as well.
The medical schools are mandated to accept more "minority" students regardless of aptitude or merit; these will be your future doctors.
There's the tax on medical devices.
There's the additional 3%+ tax on your house.
There's the Death Panel.
And there's probably more of which we're unaware - 2700 pages of it, that even Scalia wouldn't impose the reading of on himself or his staff.
On Tuesday, a radio-show caller from North Carolina was upset that his 63 year-old mother was denied a PETscan by Medicare, and the law is such that she cannot pay to have one with her own money. I'm 58. Will this sort of thing be de riguerre with insurance company policies written by the government?
-
if we take power this year we will need to start pushing for an amendment to ensure that this will never happen again.
Even if we got an Amendment passed, the court would ignore it as they just ignore the clear intent and text of the Constitution.
Our government has been overrun by Barbarians, and there is only one solution to that.
You got that war javelin ready?
Told you all I did. We'll never correct this peaceful means. ::rockets::
-
Erick Erickson finds many silver linings, (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/im-not-down-on-john-roberts/) and I think there's merit to some of them...
No Merit that matters. The Court has affirmed that the Fed can compel you to buy things, eat your broccoli, or eat a sh*t sandwich or fine/tax you for your disobedience. This is Harry Reid's "Paying taxes is voluntary" argument writ large. After all you can always choose to not pay your taxes, and its not the courts job to protect you from going to jail if you fail to obey your masters.
Repeal won't matter now the that the Constitution says "the Fed can do whatever they want as long as they call it a tax or tax penalty"
The only way this gets reset is via blood. Its either that or accept our slavery.
Yea, "repeal obamacare" will become the new buzzword for republicans, as I believe many are giddy over the fact anyone can be courced thru taxation.
And get ready for republicans to suger coat this turd by "recommending" a larger tax write off. You know, ease the pain. Nope, our constitution has become such a living breathing document that literally all goes.
Change the tax code? It won't matter. Flat tax? So what. The ultimate power thru taxation is here in all its glory, chris matthews is jerkin off right now and won't matter what the rates are, if you pay in or not or you don't earn a red cent.
-
Will this sort of thing be de riguerre with insurance company policies written by the government?
That's rhetorical, right?
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
Elaboration please.
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
Oh chit....thanks. I can conduct my personal affairs without a checking or savings account, but not my business.
-
The old saying is when you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Why bother going to work every day? Why don't we all just become freeloaders ourselves? Milk every government program you can. Claim every conceivable credit, write off, and offset. Become a burden to the system rather than an enabler.
Anyone been laid off recently? Don't even bother looking for a job. Milk that unemployment for every cent you can. I mean how the hell else are we supposed to reign in this government? Being the responsible ones has for damn sure accomplished nothing.
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
Oh chit....thanks. I can conduct my personal affairs without a checking or savings account, but not my business.
I am not sure, but I believe a C-Corporation is exempt for that edict. Thanks to corporations being people, I don't think they can put a lien on your corporate accounts if the corporation keeps separate books.
-
Come on y'all, the words "can" and "cannot" are meaningless anymore. There is no rule of law! The government will do whatever it wants, law or no law.
-
There's the Death Panel.
Who here wouldn't be affected by that?
My mother got a pacemaker 3 years ago. She's in her 70's.
My youngest was a preemie. No one among the med staff thought she'd survive birth and if she did she's be handicapped. One doc even said something to effect that I already had *3* kids......
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
Oh chit....thanks. I can conduct my personal affairs without a checking or savings account, but not my business.
I am not sure, but I believe a C-Corporation is exempt for that edict. Thanks to corporations being people, I don't think they can put a lien on your corporate accounts if the corporation keeps separate books.
Right now, I'm an LLC.....and hell, it may be exempt today but maybe not tomorrow.
-
There's the Death Panel.
Who here wouldn't be affected by that?
My mother got a pacemaker 3 years ago. She's in her 70's.
My youngest was a preemie. No one among the med staff thought she'd survive birth and if she did she's be handicapped. One doc even said something to effect that I already had *3* kids......
Did you slap the taste right out of his mouth?
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
Oh chit....thanks. I can conduct my personal affairs without a checking or savings account, but not my business.
I am not sure, but I believe a C-Corporation is exempt for that edict. Thanks to corporations being people, I don't think they can put a lien on your corporate accounts if the corporation keeps separate books.
I don't know that anyone or anything is exempt. This is why the IRS is given new taxing authority through the bill and why 16,000 new agents were hired. "Opt" to pay the penalty instead of an insurance premium and decide not to pay the penalty either? The IRS has the authority now to just go get it.
Glock is correct; whatever you think may or may not be legal is vaporware; "the Secretary may ....." is written 300+ times in the bill.
-
The old saying is when you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Why bother going to work every day? Why don't we all just become freeloaders ourselves? Milk every government program you can. Claim every conceivable credit, write off, and offset. Become a burden to the system rather than an enabler.
Anyone been laid off recently? Don't even bother looking for a job. Milk that unemployment for every cent you can. I mean how the hell else are we supposed to reign in this government? Being the responsible ones has for damn sure accomplished nothing.
That is where we are at. Galt's Gulch here we come.
I am going to do as Pelosi said, and follow my dream of making macaroni pictures of dear leader and the State will make sure I still have health care and food.
A number of comments on Zerohedge said the same. A number of people declared they closed businesses and laid off employees to get under the Obamacare limits today. Others claimed they were leaving the country - that it was time. Others simply stated they were staying put and going Galt. Will anyone notice?
[blockquote] "So this is the tale of the castways,
They're here for a long, long time,
They'll have to make the best of things,
It's an uphill climb.
The first mate and the Skipper too,
Will do their very best,
To make the others comfortable,
In the tropic island nest.
No phone, no lights no motor cars,
Not a single luxury,
Like Robinson Crusoe,
As primative as can be. [/blockquote]
-
Did you slap the taste right out of his mouth?
No I wasn't in any condition to say anything--I'd just been admitted to what became a 2 month confinement at the hospital so I was in shock and not saying much.
I did, however, outlast him. Five weeks in he changed rotations and came in to see me one last time. He said "I never expected you to "last" this long." Then he paused and said "I guess there are miracles."
-
Weasel Zippers (http://weaselzippers.us/2012/06/28/john-roberts-wikipedia-page-updated-to-reflect-proper-status-chief-traitor-of-the-united-states/)
(http://weaselzippers.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Screen-shot-2012-06-28-at-1.38.35-PM.png)
-
Did you slap the taste right out of his mouth?
No I wasn't in any condition to say anything--I'd just been admitted to what became a 2 month confinement at the hospital so I was in shock and not saying much.
I did, however, outlast him. Five weeks in he changed rotations and came in to see me one last time. He said "I never expected you to "last" this long." Then he paused and said "I guess there are miracles."
The miracle is that you were in such a weakened state you couldn't rise up and smite him, so he lived.
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
Oh chit....thanks. I can conduct my personal affairs without a checking or savings account, but not my business.
I am not sure, but I believe a C-Corporation is exempt for that edict. Thanks to corporations being people, I don't think they can put a lien on your corporate accounts if the corporation keeps separate books.
I don't know that anyone or anything is exempt. This is why the IRS is given new taxing authority through the bill and why 16,000 new agents were hired. "Opt" to pay the penalty instead of an insurance premium and decide not to pay the penalty either? The IRS has the authority now to just go get it.
Glock is correct; whatever you think may or may not be legal is vaporware; "the Secretary may ....." is written 300+ times in the bill.
From Legal Insurrection (http://legalinsurrection.com/2009/08/irs-the-new-health-care-enforcer/), August '09, referred to in a post today:
Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.
The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and “such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe.” (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS.
The House bill contains similar provisions in section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176). The following information must be reported by the person providing health coverage:
(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
This information is to be provided to the IRS for good reason. The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at “any time” during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code:
(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a “shared responsibility payment” not a tax. Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually
the Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).
The reporting requirements can only be understood in this tax context. In order to know which taxpayers to tax, the IRS needs to know which taxpayers do not have coverage received from someone else (normally, an employer).
These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage.
These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals.
The IRS involved in health care monitoring and enforcement.
Furthermore, anybody remember a couple months ago, the IRS arrogated to itself the power to confiscate your passport, or render it void, if it was decided you were "in violation"; no lien, no court decision required?
-
Plus, the IRS no longer needs a warrant or a lien to access your bank accounts.
Oh chit....thanks. I can conduct my personal affairs without a checking or savings account, but not my business.
I am not sure, but I believe a C-Corporation is exempt for that edict. Thanks to corporations being people, I don't think they can put a lien on your corporate accounts if the corporation keeps separate books.
I don't know that anyone or anything is exempt. This is why the IRS is given new taxing authority through the bill and why 16,000 new agents were hired. "Opt" to pay the penalty instead of an insurance premium and decide not to pay the penalty either? The IRS has the authority now to just go get it.
Glock is correct; whatever you think may or may not be legal is vaporware; "the Secretary may ....." is written 300+ times in the bill.
From Legal Insurrection (http://legalinsurrection.com/2009/08/irs-the-new-health-care-enforcer/), August '09, referred to in a post today:
Under both the House and Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee bills released to the public, the Internal Revenue Service will play a key role in monitoring and enforcing health care mandates against individual taxpayers. Yet the introduction of the IRS into the health care system has received scant attention.
The Senate bill imposes a new requirement that all persons who provide health care coverage to others must file a return with the IRS listing the names, addresses, social security numbers, and the coverage period for each person, and “such other information as the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] may prescribe.” (Section 161(b) starting at page 107). The bill does not limit what information the Secretary may request, so it is conceivable and likely that information as to the nature of the coverage, the family members included, and other details will be reported to the IRS.
The House bill contains similar provisions in section 401(b) (at pp. 175-176). The following information must be reported by the person providing health coverage:
(A) the name, address, and TIN of the primary insured and the name of each other individual obtaining coverage under the policy, (B) the period for which each such individual was provided with the coverage referred to in subsection (a), and (C) such other information as the Secretary may require.
This information is to be provided to the IRS for good reason. The House bill provides for a tax on people who do not have acceptable coverage at “any time” during the tax year. House bill section 401 provides for a new section 59B (at pp. 167-168) of the Internal Revenue Code:
(a) TAX IMPOSED.—In the case of any individual who does not meet the requirements of subsection (d) at any time during the taxable year, there is hereby imposed a tax equal to 2.5 percent of the excess of—
(1) the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income for the taxable year, over
(2) the amount of gross income specified in section 6012(a)(1) with respect to the taxpayer.
The Senate version is similar, although the tax is called a “shared responsibility payment” not a tax. Section 161 (at pp. 103-104) words new section 59B of the IRC to require lack of coverage for a month (subject to certain exemptions) before the tax kicks in, and does not specify a specific percentage, but instead, directs that annually
the Secretary shall seek to establish the minimum practicable amount that can accomplish the goal of enhancing participation in qualifying coverage (as so defined).
The reporting requirements can only be understood in this tax context. In order to know which taxpayers to tax, the IRS needs to know which taxpayers do not have coverage received from someone else (normally, an employer).
These reporting provisions would allow the IRS to cross-check income tax returns and health coverage filings, and withhold tax refunds or utilize other collection methods for persons who do not have coverage unless they can prove they have acceptable coverage from some other source. This is similar to the cross-checking the IRS does on income reported separately by the person making the payment and the taxpayer receiving the payment. But for the first time the IRS is not checking for income to tax, but for lack of health coverage.
These provisions should have people interested in privacy greatly concerned. While income information already is reported to the IRS, the IRS traditionally has not received personal health care information about individuals.
The IRS involved in health care monitoring and enforcement.
Furthermore, anybody remember a couple months ago, the IRS arrogated to itself the power to confiscate your passport, or render it void, if it was decided you were "in violation"; no lien, no court decision required?
So we're offically prisoners?
-
YES!
-
Comrade.
::grouphug::
-
We are not citizens, we are subjects. We exist solely to perform our daily drudgery, so that half or more of our earnings can be taken under threat of physical violence to pay for the very instruments of state which violate our liberties and dignities. In the process the oligarchs, the plutocrats, live lives of material pleasure just like the high ranking apparatchiks in the USSR.
Next Wednesday this country will go through the motions of celebrating its birth, with flags waving everywhere, pretending we are still anything like a free country. If you have any respect for what our Founders bequeathed to us, do not participate in the offensive charade of July 4th. It should be a day of protest.
-
I'm so pissed, I'm calm.
Roberts, that sonofabitch, rewrote the law by claiming the mandate was a tax. That was how Virelli tried to avoid arguing it and that's not how it was written.
Furthermore, his opinion stated it wasn't the job of the Court to protect us from our political decisions and that in itself is a faulty premise -- the job of the Court is to uphold the Constitution, until it's amended -- no matter what the stupid sheeple vote for. Would he have given the green light to a reimposition of slavery through legislation because it's only his job "to umpire"?
-
I just got back from driving through town--car dealerships, a hospital, a restaurant. It all seemed foreign to me. And suddenly I understood that tipping point that must have occurred fom my ancestor, John, who came to this country decades before it was the United States as a 21 year old man, leaving his family behind. He served in the War for Independence and was a leader in his community. I wondered about that decision to leave all behind and find somewhere new.
In 1836 on this date James Madison died. (h/t ricochet.com)
-
HT: Allah...
...from Romney’s website: (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/romney-website-mitt-will-nominate-judges-in-the-mold-of-chief-justice-roberts/) “As president, Mitt will nominate judges in the mold of Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito.”
-
I forgot to add that when I was out I heard a clip from ABC radio news of a woman relieved that her 4 year old who'd already had one kidney transplant won't be denied insurance coverage.
I yelled back at her. "And every other child that comes after with kidney disease will not get a a transplant! And if she thinks her daughter is going to get the same level of care she gets now , that mother is living in fantasy land."
-
We are not citizens, we are subjects. We exist solely to perform our daily drudgery, so that half or more of our earnings can be taken under threat of physical violence to pay for the very instruments of state which violate our liberties and dignities. In the process the oligarchs, the plutocrats, live lives of material pleasure just like the high ranking apparatchiks in the USSR.
Next Wednesday this country will go through the motions of celebrating its birth, with flags waving everywhere, pretending we are still anything like a free country. If you have any respect for what our Founders bequeathed to us, do not participate in the offensive charade of July 4th. It should be a day of protest.
Glock, there will be no celebration in my household......we will be home, offer a prayer for our country and it's subjects.....may we wake from our slumber and find the courage to embrace real change.
-
I just got back from driving through town--car dealerships, a hospital, a restaurant. It all seemed foreign to me. And suddenly I understood that tipping point that must have occurred fom my ancestor, John, who came to this country decades before it was the United States as a 21 year old man, leaving his family behind. He served in the War for Independence and was a leader in his community. I wondered about that decision to leave all behind and find somewhere new.
In 1836 on this date James Madison died. (h/t ricochet.com)
...and so did the Republic.
Scrap it all start new based on the original constitution plus the bill of rights.
Destroy all socialist animals in the mean time. Happy hunting!
-
Unh hunh. I am vindicated and validated:
It required, as Justice Scalia noted in the dissent, a rewriting of the legislation, and the enactment of a tax via judicial fiat where the legislature knowingly and deliberately had refused to do so.
More of Scalia's dissent at the link, (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/supreme-judicial-activism-in-restraints-clothing/)
-
we will be home, offer a prayer for our country and it's subjects.....may we wake from our slumber and find the courage to embrace real change.
There's a church having a service near us and a lunch after that we're going to on the 4th. Plus we will be reading the Declaration of Independence at home sometime in the afternoon.
-
Just for the love of God, I implore everyone to forget the usual fireworks and cookouts and what not. Our Republic is dead. There is nothing to celebrate, only to mourn. The thought of an ordinary Fourth of July is incomprehensible.
-
Just for the love of God, I implore everyone to forget the usual fireworks and cookouts and what not. Our Republic is dead. There is nothing to celebrate, only to mourn. The thought of an ordinary Fourth of July is incomprehensible.
I will be imploring for God's mercy. Though after 30 + years of abortion we don't deserve it.
-
Everyone please go to http://heritagenextsteps.org/ (http://heritagenextsteps.org/) and donate to The Heritage Foundation's "Stop Obamacare" fund if you are able to. I am a member of THF and give a small monthly donation, but I decided to make an additional donation to this fund.
-
Perhaps it's time to bring in the plowshares for a little design modification.
-
Dear GOP: Fight (http://minx.cc/?post=330556)
Dear GOP,
This is your last chance. If you blow this, I'm out and you need to be destroyed.
What is it? Repeal ObamaCare on Day 1. Don't worry about replace, don't worry about anything else. We will do everything we have to drag your sorry asses over the line this fall, including electing Mitt f**king Romney.
In return this is what you will do: Link (http://minx.cc/?post=330556)
-
Perhaps it's time to bring in the plowshares for a little design modification.
Way ahead of you here, but spread it around.
-
Just for the love of God, I implore everyone to forget the usual fireworks and cookouts and what not. Our Republic is dead. There is nothing to celebrate, only to mourn. The thought of an ordinary Fourth of July is incomprehensible.
I'll be cleaning my guns ::evilbat::
-
Unh hunh. I am vindicated and validated:
It required, as Justice Scalia noted in the dissent, a rewriting of the legislation, and the enactment of a tax via judicial fiat where the legislature knowingly and deliberately had refused to do so.
More of Scalia's dissent at the link, (http://legalinsurrection.com/2012/06/supreme-judicial-activism-in-restraints-clothing/)
If we can conclude that Justice Scalia is correct and he's usually right in these cases as explained we must also conclude that the SCOTUS just did an illegal thing by rewriting this legislation to which is NOT a power delegated to them via the Constitution of the United States ratified by the several states 1787 therefore Roberts just gave ammunition for his impeachment. This is serious sh*t people further indicating the lawlessness of our entire government. The citizenry should be inflamed so much by this illegal act that the justification of force is now in play. If the states had any power as they had at the ratification, they could easily start impeachment proceedings against Roberts.
I think we can agree that even if the "chess game" was a step in the right direction it was an unconstitutional act by a Chief Justice of the SCOTUS. Further more we must conclude that the Republic is either dead or we're just going to beat our plow shears into swords. See you on the battlefield. ::grouphug::
-
I just read on another site that Hugh Hewitt noted something in Scalia's opinion, where he refers to the other side as the minority and the dissent. This implies that when Scalia wrote his opinion, he was in the majority. That would mean Roberts changed his vote after Scalia had written his opinion.
-
It appears that a certain someone became a little too toxic at work today. So that certain someone left early and went home. Once safely off the streets that same someone raised his Gadsden flag, chugged a beer, and told his leftist neighbor to FOAD.
I know - I saw the whole thing. ::evil::
-
It appears that a certain someone became a little too toxic at work today. So that certain someone left early and went home. Once safely off the streets that same someone raised his Gadsden flag, chugged a beer, and told his leftist neighbor to FOAD.
I know - I saw the whole thing. ::evil::
I sent the final Piss off to my family. I know other friends who did the same to their friends and co-workers. Bridges are being Burnt. Sides are being taken. Businesses are being closed. People are being laid off. Others are renouncing Citizenship and leaving. The Stats in the next few weeks and months are going to be interesting.
I always told myself I would know when it was time to move to the Teotwaki house, and that time is now. House in town goes up for sale tomorrow, with no plans to buy another one. Once that Mortgage is gone, I will see what I will do with the job situation. You have heard me agonize over isolating my children and disrupting their lives, but I can't stay here anymore. I probably will be lurking more than posting too. None of it seems to matter now, because we know there is no fighting it within the system. Like Pan, I am so angry I am calm. Worse fears confirmed. Like Lady V, I finally understand how one can contemplate just leaving it all behind. The event I have been dreading is over. Call me if and when the shooting starts.
-
Perhaps it's time to bring in the plowshares for a little design modification.
Way ahead of you here, but spread it around.
These idiots really do want to start a shooting revolution don't they. There are more and more people I hear talking about a real revolution. I personally don't care for the idea of a shooting revolution, but I think that may be the only way to get our country back. ::rockets:: machinegun
-
I just read on another site that Hugh Hewitt noted something in Scalia's opinion, where he refers to the other side as the minority and the dissent. This implies that when Scalia wrote his opinion, he was in the majority. That would mean Roberts changed his vote after Scalia had written his opinion.
Rush talked about this today, also about rumors of intimidation.
-
Perhaps it's time to bring in the plowshares for a little design modification.
Way ahead of you here, but spread it around.
These idiots really do want to start a shooting revolution don't they. There are more and more people I hear talking about a real revolution. I personally don't care for the idea of a shooting revolution, but I think that may be the only way to get our country back. ::rockets:: machinegun
It's always been the only retort. For the last century the left has eroded the freedoms and people like my mother allowed them to do it with a yawn. They'll be dead soon enough and the rest of us will be stuck with the damaged caused by their flirtation with socialism and all it's poisonous offshoots. I wish you good luck in the hard times ahead. My prayers to you and your families. ::rockets::
-
I'm having a real bad time with this. Today I lost control at work and one o the guys told me to try and get over this and I told him to go f**k himself and get out of my face before I give him something to get over.
The 4th I'll be celebrating nothing. The country is FUBAR and all I can do is vote for somebody I don't faith in to do what needs to be done and a senate that won't do anymore than ask for money so they can win. Then what?Wait for the next bullshyt problem that they can use to raise more money so I can get sold short again?
-
I'm having a real bad time with this. Today I lost control at work and one o the guys told me to try and get over this and I told him to go f**k himself and get out of my face before I give him something to get over.
The 4th I'll be celebrating nothing. The country is FUBAR and all I can do is vote for somebody I don't faith in to do what needs to be done and a senate that won't do anymore than ask for money so they can win. Then what?Wait for the next bullshyt problem that they can use to raise more money so I can get sold short again?
I know, JF. I cooked. I didn't eat much.
I don't know that I'll be able to sleep either. If -- IF -- I could catch a little buzz, maybe I could slow my heartrate, but tonight there doesn't seem to be enough wine in the world.
-
I'm having a real bad time with this. Today I lost control at work and one o the guys told me to try and get over this and I told him to go f**k himself and get out of my face before I give him something to get over.
The 4th I'll be celebrating nothing. The country is FUBAR and all I can do is vote for somebody I don't faith in to do what needs to be done and a senate that won't do anymore than ask for money so they can win. Then what?Wait for the next bullshyt problem that they can use to raise more money so I can get sold short again?
I know, JF. I cooked. I didn't eat much.
I don't know that I'll be able to sleep either. If -- IF -- I could catch a little buzz, maybe I could slow my heartrate, but tonight there doesn't seem to be enough wine in the world.
I have to be up by 6.AM ans I've tried to go to bed a couple of times and I just want to scream.This is the first time I've come home from work and haven't said a word to Nancy ever and thank God she knows me well enough to to leave me alone when I get like this and this may last a few days.I feel bad because it looks like I'm taking it out on her and I' not. Right now I can't stand to be with me.
-
I barely ate today. It was also the first time in my life that I got physically ill over hearing some news.
-
http://adaptivecurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-bingo-ii-justifying-whatever-the-hell-feels-good/ (http://adaptivecurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2012/06/28/obamacare-bingo-ii-justifying-whatever-the-hell-feels-good/)
-
I just want to vote. I want to vote Democrats out of office. Every one I can.
That's it. Pretty simple really.
-
Oh, and I would also like to see an expansion of the Supreme Court. I'm thinking that fifteen justices would be about right. Half a dozen more from the Mark Levin school of thought should about do it.
-
Mark Levin Reacts To SCOTUS Ruling: Obamacare Decision 'Absolutely Lawless' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UTuczm7f39k#)
H/T Legal Insurrection
-
I'm trying to let it go, especially at work. A few members understand my stances and they could tell my mood was not good.
I had to stop a trainer from lamenting the decision out loud, even tho I agree with him 100%. I want to think life will get back to " normal", but there is no normal anymore. All that's left is when will the time come when I won't accept some stupid precept my govt thrusts on me, I tell them to shove it and dare to arrest me.
-
We've been hearing the expression "fundamental transformation", well people, we were fundamentally transformed at 10:00 yesterday morning. If we were really meant to live under a government that is completely unencumbered from doing whatever it wants to the individual, it would have been a lot simpler to just lose the Revolutionary War, or WWII for that matter.
I just hope at some point those responsible can be held to account.
-
[A repost.]
There is a kind of tax revolt that could be put into play. It'll take some time to get the word out, but then we've got time until next April 15th (no matter who wins this November). My idea is this:
Tax compliance only works in this country because we voluntarily submit the forms and write the checks. If all tax returns were sent back blank, that is filed with name and other info only, the government would be given a clear shot across the bow by We The People. Of course, it will only work if more than 50% of taxpayers do this, especially the ones with money owed on their returns (you could even put the tax amount into some sort of 'escrow account' under the mattress). Now doing something like filing blank tax returns would be illegal and subject one to penalties. But we face a Hobson's Choice of penalties now. The only way such a protest would work is by word of mouth, to get the idea into people's heads now the game plan for next April 15th. This would be an 'anonymous' protest that could be epic or epic fail, but in any case no one would or should want to be the Rick Santelli of the 'file blank personal tax returns' movement.
The Government did not listen when over one and a half million people marched on DC in protest of Owebama/RobertsCare in 2009. In fact, they laughed and denigrated those citizens, many taking part in a political protest for the first time, that is, they were not professional or paid protesters as the Dims are wont to use. So we already know they ignore us. They don't care what we think. The only way to hit back at the beast is to starve it. So while you can manipulate your W-4s only so much, you can reduce your current personal income tax withholding by taking a few more deductions. That would decrease some money now, and if enough did it it might even be noticeable. But the odds are that any tax revenue drop from that would never be noticed, especially with unemployment being so high and now sure to climb higher. No, the only way to really hit back at the beast is to starve it on it's major feeding day, April 15th. If enough taxpayers sent in blank tax returns, someone would begin to notice, even a dim-bulb AFSCME member. The Government might just get the message that We The People are pissed, and here is your last chance before we decide to, well, to do whatever is necessary as Free Men And Women.
Just a thought. Because if there's one thing the Dems can't do as a protest it's a 'denying to pay tax' protest as they too often do not work, or the tax monies are small due to minimum wage jobs; in other words, no one would notice. But the producers whom the takers want to rape time and time again do have income, do owe taxes. It is a protest We The People can do but the Dems cannot. And I personally think April 15th, 2013 is a good time to do it.
-
[A repost.]
There is a kind of tax revolt that could be put into play. It'll take some time to get the word out, but then we've got time until next April 15th (no matter who wins this November). My idea is this:
Tax compliance only works in this country because we voluntarily submit the forms and write the checks. If all tax returns were sent back blank, that is filed with name and other info only, the government would be given a clear shot across the bow by We The People. Of course, it will only work if more than 50% of taxpayers do this, especially the ones with money owed on their returns (you could even put the tax amount into some sort of 'escrow account' under the mattress). Now doing something like filing blank tax returns would be illegal and subject one to penalties. But we face a Hobson's Choice of penalties now. The only way such a protest would work is by word of mouth, to get the idea into people's heads now the game plan for next April 15th. This would be an 'anonymous' protest that could be epic or epic fail, but in any case no one would or should want to be the Rick Santelli of the 'file blank personal tax returns' movement.
The Government did not listen when over one and a half million people marched on DC in protest of Owebama/RobertsCare in 2009. In fact, they laughed and denigrated those citizens, many taking part in a political protest for the first time, that is, they were not professional or paid protesters as the Dims are wont to use. So we already know they ignore us. They don't care what we think. The only way to hit back at the beast is to starve it. So while you can manipulate your W-4s only so much, you can reduce your current personal income tax withholding by taking a few more deductions. That would decrease some money now, and if enough did it it might even be noticeable. But the odds are that any tax revenue drop from that would never be noticed, especially with unemployment being so high and now sure to climb higher. No, the only way to really hit back at the beast is to starve it on it's major feeding day, April 15th. If enough taxpayers sent in blank tax returns, someone would begin to notice, even a dim-bulb AFSCME member. The Government might just get the message that We The People are pissed, and here is your last chance before we decide to, well, to do whatever is necessary as Free Men And Women.
Just a thought. Because if there's one thing the Dems can't do as a protest it's a 'denying to pay tax' protest as they too often do not work, or the tax monies are small due to minimum wage jobs; in other words, no one would notice. But the producers whom the takers want to rape time and time again do have income, do owe taxes. It is a protest We The People can do but the Dems cannot. And I personally think April 15th, 2013 is a good time to do it.
Rick, as a small business owner, I have a slightly different tact which I'll be implementing, at least in the short term. I've always tried to be as truthful and honest as I could in regards to paying my taxes, only using legal means in which to reduce my tax burden. I've always rendered "my fair share" and along with my CPA, we have legally kept my business Taxes low.
You know, business isn't so good and my sales have been falling. I may find myself several thousand dollars short this year......probably will need to reduce the hours of an employee or two.....I certainly hope they can " live" on less money shown on thier W2. My salary will probably take a hit, but being the compassionate conservative I am, I will give more to charity in the coming years.
-
The Republic of the United States of America
7/4/1776 - 6/28/2012 9:00 CDT
By intent and need I refrained from logging on here yesterday. Like others I had a really bad feeling that this would be the day that would decide the fate of America once and for all. By rewriting the healthcare law and classifying it as a tax the Supreme Court as witnessed by the traitorous action of Chief Justice Roberts has ruled that Congress has unlimited power to pass any and all legislation no matter how wrongful or injurious to We the People it may be. We no longer live in a free republic that respects liberty, individuals, property or unalienable human rights. We have been told to accept slavery as the new "normal" condition of man. Politics is henceforth insufficient to remedy the evil which has officially taken root in our once proud republic. Replacing Obama with Romney, replacing Democrats with Republicans and replacing Supreme Court justices is insufficient in and of itself to safeguard our rights and liberties granted to us by our Creator. To believe otherwise denies reality. People can replace all of the above and rollback some of the excess, but the nature of the beast will march on. What has happened before can and will happen again. We can fool ourselves into believing that replacing all of the above will right what has been wrong, but it is all temporary. Precedent has been set, define any and all bills as a tax and power is unlimited for whoever occupies power. Occupying power is now the only reason to seek higher office more so than ever before in history. Those who thirst for power will come like moths to flame. If we think we have been ill-served by our elected representatives before, it will pale in comparison to what will gravitate to power now. And with one major party permanently wedded to fighting with both hands behind their backs and their heads up their asses and willingly clinging to naïve sentiments of fair play and decency and who demonstrate a complete lack of ability to learn from their many mistakes…it does not take one long to realize where we are headed. Some may argue that we have one last chance, that this time the people will arise in a massive political tsunami. I have heard that one more times than I can count, and look where we are. Some argue this time the people will wake from their sloth and slumber and all will be well. I have been waiting since Reagan, we’ve had H.W.Bush, the tainted Clinton Presidency and 9/11 and G.W.Bush, and look where we are today. We had a good run, the world has gone toxic and now we have reached our point of no return…our republic is gone in all but name. Abuses and usurpations are the new reality, the new SOP for America, and still America sleeps. Sure, some are stirred, shocked at was has become of our nation, but many will still willingly stay asleep because they are fearful of accepting reality and realizing our only way out of this fate is too much for them to bear. Arguments will ensue. Why did this happen? Was Chief Justice Roberts reacting badly to his medication as suggested by Michael Savage, or was he a liberal all along? Was Roberts “gotten to” as the anecdotal evidence suggests (the release of the healthcare opinion indicates that Roberts changed his vote late in the game, too late to correct language indicating the four hardcore liberals on the court were in the “minority” dissent) and my mother believes? These questions deserve answers but they are immaterial to the issue before us as a people and a nation. People have to decide which side to take – the side of tyrants and slaves or the side of freedom and liberty. It is that simple. I will fight tyranny to the death and I will die before becoming a slave. I am on the righteous side of God-given rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and I will openly resist these abuses and usurpations to my last breath. I can only pray that most of my fellow countrymen are of a like belief and are committed to act accordingly.
-
Roberts vote -
RobertsFlipped (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/justice-roberts-change-obamacare-vote-minute/story?id=16673072#.T-2LNlL-VeR)
-
The way I'm seeing it it's like this bastarb has his foot on my throat and anytime he feels like it he can put more pressure on it.
-
Yup, and what is more infuriating is that a lot of people are OK with that.
-
The Republic of the United States of America
7/4/1776 - 6/28/2012 9:00 CDT
By intent and need I refrained from logging on here yesterday. Like others I had a really bad feeling that this would be the day that would decide the fate of America once and for all. By rewriting the healthcare law and classifying it as a tax the Supreme Court as witnessed by the traitorous action of Chief Justice Roberts has ruled that Congress has unlimited power to pass any and all legislation no matter how wrongful or injurious to We the People it may be. We no longer live in a free republic that respects liberty, individuals, property or unalienable human rights. We have been told to accept slavery as the new "normal" condition of man. Politics is henceforth insufficient to remedy the evil which has officially taken root in our once proud republic. Replacing Obama with Romney, replacing Democrats with Republicans and replacing Supreme Court justices is insufficient in and of itself to safeguard our rights and liberties granted to us by our Creator. To believe otherwise denies reality. People can replace all of the above and rollback some of the excess, but the nature of the beast will march on. What has happened before can and will happen again. We can fool ourselves into believing that replacing all of the above will right what has been wrong, but it is all temporary. Precedent has been set, define any and all bills as a tax and power is unlimited for whoever occupies power. Occupying power is now the only reason to seek higher office more so than ever before in history. Those who thirst for power will come like moths to flame. If we think we have been ill-served by our elected representatives before, it will pale in comparison to what will gravitate to power now. And with one major party permanently wedded to fighting with both hands behind their backs and their heads up their asses and willingly clinging to naïve sentiments of fair play and decency and who demonstrate a complete lack of ability to learn from their many mistakes…it does not take one long to realize where we are headed. Some may argue that we have one last chance, that this time the people will arise in a massive political tsunami. I have heard that one more times than I can count, and look where we are. Some argue this time the people will wake from their sloth and slumber and all will be well. I have been waiting since Reagan, we’ve had H.W.Bush, the tainted Clinton Presidency and 9/11 and G.W.Bush, and look where we are today. We had a good run, the world has gone toxic and now we have reached our point of no return…our republic is gone in all but name. Abuses and usurpations are the new reality, the new SOP for America, and still America sleeps. Sure, some are stirred, shocked at was has become of our nation, but many will still willingly stay asleep because they are fearful of accepting reality and realizing our only way out of this fate is too much for them to bear. Arguments will ensue. Why did this happen? Was Chief Justice Roberts reacting badly to his medication as suggested by Michael Savage, or was he a liberal all along? Was Roberts “gotten to” as the anecdotal evidence suggests (the release of the healthcare opinion indicates that Roberts changed his vote late in the game, too late to correct language indicating the four hardcore liberals on the court were in the “minority” dissent) and my mother believes? These questions deserve answers but they are immaterial to the issue before us as a people and a nation. People have to decide which side to take – the side of tyrants and slaves or the side of freedom and liberty. It is that simple. I will fight tyranny to the death and I will die before becoming a slave. I am on the righteous side of God-given rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and I will openly resist these abuses and usurpations to my last breath. I can only pray that most of my fellow countrymen are of a like belief and are committed to act accordingly.
Libertas, may I repost elsewhere (with a link back here, of course) and send this on to some email friends?
-
Yup, and what is more infuriating is that a lot of people are OK with that.
Sheep waiting for slaughter.
-
The Republic of the United States of America
7/4/1776 - 6/28/2012 9:00 CDT
By intent and need I refrained from logging on here yesterday. Like others I had a really bad feeling that this would be the day that would decide the fate of America once and for all. By rewriting the healthcare law and classifying it as a tax the Supreme Court as witnessed by the traitorous action of Chief Justice Roberts has ruled that Congress has unlimited power to pass any and all legislation no matter how wrongful or injurious to We the People it may be. We no longer live in a free republic that respects liberty, individuals, property or unalienable human rights. We have been told to accept slavery as the new "normal" condition of man. Politics is henceforth insufficient to remedy the evil which has officially taken root in our once proud republic. Replacing Obama with Romney, replacing Democrats with Republicans and replacing Supreme Court justices is insufficient in and of itself to safeguard our rights and liberties granted to us by our Creator. To believe otherwise denies reality. People can replace all of the above and rollback some of the excess, but the nature of the beast will march on. What has happened before can and will happen again. We can fool ourselves into believing that replacing all of the above will right what has been wrong, but it is all temporary. Precedent has been set, define any and all bills as a tax and power is unlimited for whoever occupies power. Occupying power is now the only reason to seek higher office more so than ever before in history. Those who thirst for power will come like moths to flame. If we think we have been ill-served by our elected representatives before, it will pale in comparison to what will gravitate to power now. And with one major party permanently wedded to fighting with both hands behind their backs and their heads up their asses and willingly clinging to naïve sentiments of fair play and decency and who demonstrate a complete lack of ability to learn from their many mistakes…it does not take one long to realize where we are headed. Some may argue that we have one last chance, that this time the people will arise in a massive political tsunami. I have heard that one more times than I can count, and look where we are. Some argue this time the people will wake from their sloth and slumber and all will be well. I have been waiting since Reagan, we’ve had H.W.Bush, the tainted Clinton Presidency and 9/11 and G.W.Bush, and look where we are today. We had a good run, the world has gone toxic and now we have reached our point of no return…our republic is gone in all but name. Abuses and usurpations are the new reality, the new SOP for America, and still America sleeps. Sure, some are stirred, shocked at was has become of our nation, but many will still willingly stay asleep because they are fearful of accepting reality and realizing our only way out of this fate is too much for them to bear. Arguments will ensue. Why did this happen? Was Chief Justice Roberts reacting badly to his medication as suggested by Michael Savage, or was he a liberal all along? Was Roberts “gotten to” as the anecdotal evidence suggests (the release of the healthcare opinion indicates that Roberts changed his vote late in the game, too late to correct language indicating the four hardcore liberals on the court were in the “minority” dissent) and my mother believes? These questions deserve answers but they are immaterial to the issue before us as a people and a nation. People have to decide which side to take – the side of tyrants and slaves or the side of freedom and liberty. It is that simple. I will fight tyranny to the death and I will die before becoming a slave. I am on the righteous side of God-given rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” and I will openly resist these abuses and usurpations to my last breath. I can only pray that most of my fellow countrymen are of a like belief and are committed to act accordingly.
Libertas, may I repost elsewhere (with a link back here, of course) and send this on to some email friends?
Of course AP! ::hat-tip::
-
Yup, and what is more infuriating is that a lot of people are OK with that.
Sheep waiting for slaughter.
Yeah. Oh well, can't say they were not warned.
-
Oops! I didn't realize another thread had already been posted
-
...Rick, as a small business owner, I have a slightly different tact which I'll be implementing, at least in the short term. I've always tried to be as truthful and honest as I could in regards to paying my taxes, only using legal means in which to reduce my tax burden. I've always rendered "my fair share" and along with my CPA, we have legally kept my business Taxes low.
You know, business isn't so good and my sales have been falling. I may find myself several thousand dollars short this year......probably will need to reduce the hours of an employee or two.....I certainly hope they can " live" on less money shown on thier W2. My salary will probably take a hit, but being the compassionate conservative I am, I will give more to charity in the coming years.
I smell whatchyer cookin'.
-
Tax compliance only works in this country because we voluntarily submit the forms and write the checks. If all tax returns were sent back blank, that is filed with name and other info only, the government would be given a clear shot across the bow by We The People. Of course, it will only work if more than 50% of taxpayers do this, especially the ones with money owed on their returns (you could even put the tax amount into some sort of 'escrow account' under the mattress). Now doing something like filing blank tax returns would be illegal and subject one to penalties. But we face a Hobson's Choice of penalties now. The only way such a protest would work is by word of mouth, to get the idea into people's heads now the game plan for next April 15th. This would be an 'anonymous' protest that could be epic or epic fail, but in any case no one would or should want to be the Rick Santelli of the 'file blank personal tax returns' movement.
I reduced my W-4 deductions the day the stimulus passed. The Wage slaves on W-4s can't do much. A blank form causes the IRS more work, but then they don't tell you about it for a year later and add penalties for late payment that will often be more than the tax itself. After all - you are a year late. So fill out your tax form like it should be. Use paper so a human has to look at it. Maybe make 3-5 mistakes and then file 3-5 separate amended forms - all on paper. Do not e-file. Smudge certain fields so they are legible, but unlikely to be read by OCR. You want a human looking at every page. And all perfectly legal. After all everyone makes mistakes.
We are third world now. This is a Banana Republic. In those places people hide money, misreport income, use all cash for transactions, and bribes to officials to pay lower taxes are common place, and its only a matter time till they become so here. But to benefit from that you must become incorporated. (http://www.starvingthemonkeys.com/taxated/IncorporationTips.html) The link explains why. Bonus is doing so will double and maybe quadruple the paperwork. Predator Don has the right track. You have to become your own small business. You must look to the IRS like two people. A Cheater - one of them, playing ball. And a poor looter/taker wage slave, cruelly exploited by that cheater. This trick lets you take a 6 figure income and turn it into two separate five figure incomes, taxed accordingly, and again its perfectly legal. Many expenses are legally deductible. Its more paperwork and hassle for you, but reducing your tax bill will be worth it.
Finally. Just Reduce your income. They have made it clear you are a slave. They have made it clear that what work you do, you do for them. Your "freedom" is what is left over after they have extracted what they want from you, and the demands will now be increasing every year. But the "poor" always seem to get the "breaks" don't they. And "Poor" is usually measured on income. This little tax/penalty doesn't apply to them, because the government will give them money to buy the insurance.
If possible, pay off or eliminate any loans, and reduce what you need. Move to a smaller house. (The American dream used to be 1200 sq ft, 3 beds and a bath. IF you were rich you had a dishwasher ) Eat out less. Cancel the cable (watch Netflix or Hulu if you need it) Grow some of your own food. Become as independent and self-sufficient as possible - so that when you become a dependent slave of the government, you are not actually so. When Peter Schiff went to OWS a woman told him that he couldn't quit - he was a go-getter- he could not help himself but to earn great piles of cash. That he was too greedy to do otherwise. We need to show them that is BS.
Find and get on as many govt programs as you can legally qualify for. We need to not just starve this beast, but Cloward-Piven it to death. After all, they have made it clear this is not your country. That people like you are not welcome here except as slaves. Its time to use the lefts own tools to bring it down ( but even if we don't, its going to happen. Lets make it happen on our schedule.) Empty the bank accounts. Cash out the IRAs ( and pay the damned 10% penalty) - its only a matter of time before they just seize and invest that money - socializing our retirement funds. Use cash whenever possible. Use prepaid credit cards like Greenbank to pay the bills where cash won't be accepted.
If you can and feel comfortable living and working abroad, go and go NOW. They have a really hard time tracking your income then. There may even be freer and better places to live now if you can fit in. And fitting in will be key.. when the dollar goes Americans are going to universally despised ( right now we are tolerated because we bring money) The "ugly American" refugees will be everywhere and unlike America - Racism is an accepted and long standing practice everywhere else in the world. In other words, if you can pass for the right color or have family, this is an option. Otherwise, make friends in a small place and prove in advance you "aren't one of THOSE Americans"
I don't know if the government or the liberals realize what they have released. That the final line in the sand was crossed. That any goodwill or tolerance we had for the liberals is gone. That in order to actually pay for this, they will have to get out the whips and chains and drop the facade that they are well meaning and generous and act like the slavers they are, and then its on.
-
Roberts did not destroy the ideas captured in our founding documents. On the 4th I will be reminding my children of that. These are ideas to be carried within them no matter where the family may end up. As long as even one person walks this earth and believes those ideas which are the culmunation of centuries of Western thought then Evil will not win.
-
I agree LV, the sentiments of our Founders live on, even if the nation they created no longer exists. If we remember Founding Principles perhaps one day they can be reconstituted in a new America.
And Weisshaupt, the "Empty the bank accounts. Cash out the IRAs ( and pay the damned 10% penalty) - its only a matter of time before they just seize and invest that money - socializing our retirement funds" plan is being implemented. I think it is a matter of when not if, and before tax rates can go any higher I am pulling out now.
My Galtification plans have to be accelerated. Again!
-
Empty the bank accounts. Cash out the IRAs ( and pay the damned 10% penalty)
At least until we go all cashless.
Brush up on bartering skills
-
Krauthammer (http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/roberts-saved-obamacare-article-1.1104128?pgno=1), for what it's worth:
...That’s not how I would have ruled. I think the “mandate is merely a tax” argument is a dodge, and a flimsy one at that. (The “tax” is obviously punitive, intended to compel.) Perhaps that’s not how Roberts would have ruled had he been just an associate justice, and not the chief. But that’s how he did rule.
Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new President and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is saying: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.
-
So the Republic ends not with the bang of a gun but with the bang of a gavel. Wonderful.
I have felt ill since yesterday and I really can't afford the stress.
Oh well, I guess I'll imbibe those sea breezes I didn't consume yesterday.
-
Krauthammer can stick it. For all he believes Roberts was saying "your job, not mine", he did Congress' job when he essentially rewrote the mandate as a tax, not a penalty, and he didn't do his own which is protecting and upholding the Constitution.
I hit a lot of places on the web yesterday to evaluate reactions and, for the most part, from the comments, it seems many people are flabbergasted and shocked. One thing I read, though, further shocked and angered me. From J. Christian Adams (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/06/28/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-court-decision/2/):
Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional. Roberts particularly hails from that jurisprudential pedigree, as opposed to someone like Justice Thomas or Scalia.
They do? The Courts have an obligation to presume the laws Congress is passing are Constitutional? Since the hell when? And judging from what Roberts did yesterday, I suppose the presumption is also that if the statute ISN'T Constitutional, it is the Court's job to MAKE it so?
It's obvious Adams has no access to the backstory on Roberts' history, as I posted in another thread, or he might have had second thoughts about his jurisprudential "pedigree".
-
So the Republic ends not with the bang of a gun but with the bang of a gavel. Wonderful.
I have felt ill since yesterday and I really can't afford the stress.
Oh well, I guess I'll imbibe those sea breezes I didn't consume yesterday.
They assume that the new Senate rules have to be the same as the old ones but our side can play the bullsh*t game as well by installing the simple majority rule for passing committee out onto the floor. Why play by our rules when theirs will do just fine. Just be sure to exclaim
"living constitution" so that the left can feel betrayed as we have.
-
I hit a lot of places on the web yesterday to evaluate reactions and, for the most part, from the comments, it seems many people are flabbergasted and shocked. One thing I read, though, further shocked and angered me. From J. Christian Adams (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/06/28/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-court-decision/2/):
Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional. Roberts particularly hails from that jurisprudential pedigree, as opposed to someone like Justice Thomas or Scalia.
They do? The Courts have an obligation to presume the laws Congress is passing are Constitutional? Since the hell when? And judging from what Roberts did yesterday, I suppose the presumption is also that if the statute ISN'T Constitutional, it is the Court's job to MAKE it so?
It's obvious Adams has no access to the backstory on Roberts' history, as I posted in another thread, or he might have had second thoughts about his jurisprudential "pedigree".
I saw that exact same thing and it pissed me off too. So many of our problems stem from this idea that we have a certain decorum we must adhere to, meanwhile the Left can barely contain their laughter as they run roughshod over such idiotic notions time and time again. The courts have an obligation to assume constitutionality? Really? Well isn't the whole reason they are even reviewing a law because someone somewhere has complained of unconstitutionality? This is pure bullsh*t. Continuing to adhere to these fanciful ideas that politics in this day and age are some gentlemanly parlor game with both sides showing deference to tradition is one of the major reasons we're getting our asses handed to us by the Left. The Left recognizes a battlefield when they see one, they have always known this is a war and always prosecuted it as such.
-
Krauthammer can stick it. For all he believes Roberts was saying "your job, not mine", he did Congress' job when he essentially rewrote the mandate as a tax, not a penalty, and he didn't do his own which is protecting and upholding the Constitution.
I hit a lot of places on the web yesterday to evaluate reactions and, for the most part, from the comments, it seems many people are flabbergasted and shocked. One thing I read, though, further shocked and angered me. From J. Christian Adams (http://pjmedia.com/jchristianadams/2012/06/28/the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly-in-the-court-decision/2/):
Courts have an obligation to presume statutes are constitutional. Roberts particularly hails from that jurisprudential pedigree, as opposed to someone like Justice Thomas or Scalia.
They do? The Courts have an obligation to presume the laws Congress is passing are Constitutional? Since the hell when? And judging from what Roberts did yesterday, I suppose the presumption is also that if the statute ISN'T Constitutional, it is the Court's job to MAKE it so?
It's obvious Adams has no access to the backstory on Roberts' history, as I posted in another thread, or he might have had second thoughts about his jurisprudential "pedigree".
That's what angered me so much. Since when is it that the job of judicial branch to rewrite laws that Congress writes. Many times the SCOTUS has reached out to Congress telling them why it was unconstitutional but since when do they rewrite the laws?
Dangerous times we live with enemies abroad and now certifiable enemies here interlaced in the government at all levels and branches. The time is now to declare for the abolition of this oppressive government.
-
Empty the bank accounts. Cash out the IRAs ( and pay the damned 10% penalty)
At least until we go all cashless.
Brush up on bartering skills
Yep. Cashless means pay the bills and take what is left and put it into automatic purchases of silver and gold. You can always barter that or sell it back ( note the IRS wants 30% of any increase in value on this "collectible" - so watch when and where you sell) Of course as this spirals fdown other commodities like toothpaste, tampons and toilet paper as well as the usual Ammo will probably also work
-
...Since when is it that the job of judicial branch to rewrite laws that Congress writes....
That's the thing that's really pissing me off with this decision. Blatant activism run amok. All the posturing about long-game victory, restraint, reputation of the court, blah-blah-f***ing blah...
The legislature SPECIFICALLY AVOIDED new taxes in funding ObamaCare. The mandate was overtly used to compensate for the fact that new taxes would not be implemented to fund this monstrosity. The mandate in lieu of new taxes was a KEY FEATURE. The bill that was crammed through and signed specifically and conspicuously featured the individual mandate and equally specifically and conspicuously DID NOT include a tax increase. The constitutional power to tax originates in the HOUSE, and the HOUSE - under Nancy f***ing Pelosi - did NOT include new taxes in this bill.
Roberts rewrote the bill. Roberts implemented a new tax where the House did not. Not only did he implement a new tax, but he redefined taxation. Now, government can compel citizens to engage in commerce, and the refusal to do so can be taxed. I wonder how our liberal "friends" feel about government compelling people to engage in commerce with the evil 1% - in essence saying that insurance companies are now in the position of compelling taxation? The paradox puts their entire ideology to the lie.
John Roberts is a stealth Leftist activist. There can be no other answer. His installment into the role of Chief Justice was meant for this moment - for him to make this ruling, at this time. Roberts is the blade of the Left's coup de grace.
Which, I admit, raises implications about the entirety of the George W. Bush presidency. I'm willing to suffer ridicule for making the accusation. But in looking back at what the Bush presidency accomplished for the Left, and the groundwork that was laid by Bush with stimulus, bailouts, war, and Chief Justice Roberts, I think George W. Bush was a stealth leftist as well.
-
Krauthammer can stick it.
yep.
I'm sick of hearing these people describing the "silver lining".
Kind of like your spouse saying I'm leaving for your own good. Doesn't make it any better.
-
What Roberts has done is put defenders of liberty in the position of having to prove a negative. That is now the basis of taxation. It's essentially a new Not-Sales Tax. We have sales tax, and now we have not-sales tax too. You can be taxed when you purchase something, and well golly gee now you can be taxed for not purchasing something too!
I mean, might as well say if you don't install the 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor in your DeLorean, gotta pay the tax. And kids? Let me tell you about the new Imaginary Friend tax. You may want to meet with your financial planner and try to whittle your list of imaginary friends down to a manageable number. There is literally no end to what they can use as a basis for taxation, because you in essence are trying to prove a negative.
-
Which, I admit, raises implications about the entirety of the George W. Bush presidency. I'm willing to suffer ridicule for making the accusation. But in looking back at what the Bush presidency accomplished for the Left, and the groundwork that was laid by Bush with stimulus, bailouts, war, and Chief Justice Roberts, I think George W. Bush was a stealth leftist as well.
The whole NWO thing is looking a bit more likely now, isn't it? It sure stinks of conspiracy. Both sides, pushing for the same thing. ..But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism.....
and we now have a Government that has declared that "Everything not forbidden is compulsory."
-
I'm sick of hearing these people describing the "silver lining".
I don't mind absorbing the arguments as part of the total picture. But I take silver linings in the intended purpose of the metaphor. They are the positive gleanings from an otherwise negative situation - in this instance, a dismal one. Just as I would never look at the silver lining to the exclusion of the cloud, I would ever look at the cloud to the exclusion of the silver lining. I'll look at the whole cloud, and form my opinions.
In this case, I'm hearing what they're saying, but I mostly reject it. Our hope now lies in the American people. Do we or do we not as a people have what it takes to force the hands of politicians to do our will? I tire of the "most important election of our lifetimes" BS. But it is, and I'll give it one more shot for posterity and hope.
-
I agree, the new Not-Sales-Tax is the vehicle through which so much more statist sh*t is going to have trucks driven through it which will crush every last vestige of the old republic into dust.
PS-Rick - the new avatar is so spot on!
PPS-IDP - I might vote...if I am around and an election is still on...but I have little hope the Rubicon can be recrossed without still triggering the reset button.
-
What Roberts has done is put defenders of liberty in the position of having to prove a negative. That is now the basis of taxation. It's essentially a new Not-Sales Tax. We have sales tax, and now we have not-sales tax too. You can be taxed when you purchase something, and well golly gee now you can be taxed for not purchasing something too!
I mean, might as well say if you don't install the 1.21 gigawatt flux capacitor in your DeLorean, gotta pay the tax. And kids? Let me tell you about the new Imaginary Friend tax. You may want to meet with your financial planner and try to whittle your list of imaginary friends down to a manageable number. There is literally no end to what they can use as a basis for taxation, because you in essence are trying to prove a negative.
The EPA is already doing this sort of thing:
New York Times reporter Matthew L. Wald provided further proof of EPA’s disconnect from reality earlier this week. The agency plans to penalize U.S. fuel suppliers to the tune of $6.8 million for “failing to do the impossible.”
In 2007, Congress passed a law mandating refiners use a nonexistent product: cellulosic ethanol. Four years later, scientific advances still have yet to create a commercially viable fuel from cellulose. But EPA regulators aren’t letting the fact that the fuel is not available stop them from punishing refiners for not using it. (Next they’ll be fining delivery companies for not switching half their fleet to hover boards.)
http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/12/epa-to-fine-u-s-gas-producers-6-8-million-for-not-using-nonexistant-fuel/ (http://fuelfix.com/blog/2012/01/12/epa-to-fine-u-s-gas-producers-6-8-million-for-not-using-nonexistant-fuel/)
Okay, so it's not called a tax, it's called a "penalty". Nevertheless .........
-
Contestant - "I'll take 'nonexistent' for $400 Alex.
Alex - "Just like 'cellulosic ethanol', this parchment residing in the National Archives is also 'nonexistent'!"
Contestant - "What is the Constitution?"
Alex - "Correct!"
::falldownshocked::
-
Okay, so it's not called a tax, it's called a "penalty". Nevertheless .........
And "they" have been doing that for years to all of us in one form or another! Fines, fees, etc etc. No one ever made it an issue. And why would they? People rather pay the extra $10 or 20 and be done with it than stand up and argue about it. I lived in a town once that charged a permit fee to have a garage sale!
-
It's almost Pythonesque really. I am imagining a Python sketch about taxes levied on the taxes you pay. "Have you paid your tax tax yet?" "What?! You haven't paid your tax tax? You do know there's a late payment penalty for that don't you?"
-
I don't know why but I began feeling uneasy about this Wednesday night and couldn't shake it even up to the point that the decision was announced . I wasn't as shocked as most but just as angry . If Roberts made his decison based on public opinion of the court rather than the constitutionality of the issue in question , then he doesn't belong on the court . If the mandate didn't pass muster under the Commerce Clause then it should have been struck down . Essentially , Roberts re-wrote the law .
-
Seriously, the only upside to what Roberts declared is this "Making the mandate a tax has at least one other effect. It makes repeal easier. Now that the mandate has been deemed taxation, it can likely be jettisoned through use of the reconciliation process — meaning the Senate will need to muster only a bare majority for repeal, not 60 votes."
by Joshua Hawley is a former law clerk to Chief Justice Roberts and an associate professor of law at the University of Missouri.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/john-roberts-surprising-decision/#ixzz1zCx6gMUY (http://dailycaller.com/2012/06/28/john-roberts-surprising-decision/#ixzz1zCx6gMUY)
This will in effect drive the left into cranial unlimited expansion(exploding head) providing that Mitch isn't afraid to use it as what it is, a gift. ::whatgives:: McConnell as we know isn't quite as bright as we conservatives would prefer so we may have to ditch him or spell it out for him in political terms as English isn't his cup of TEA party.
-
I knew the Court wouldn't save us. We have to save ourselves.
-
PPS-IDP - I might vote...if I am around and an election is still on...but I have little hope the Rubicon can be recrossed without still triggering the reset button.
If you are around? Are you leaving the country? Or just expect a confrontation sooner rather than later? Since Obama was still talking about being able to be more flexible after the election, I would surmise that he expected there to be one. Or perhaps it was code for "after I declare martial law".
-
I knew the Court wouldn't save us. We have to save ourselves.
Or, trust our sovereign heavenly Father to do what He will do, and allow what He wall allow. He judges nations, after all.
I am getting weary enough of the fight that I'm feeling ready to turn it over completely to Him. Not meaning lay down and die, but meaning fight on, with no earthly chance of success - asking for the God-given courage of Gideon, and the complete trust of Joshua at Jericho - relying not on my own power or skill, but His will alone.
I'm thinking we just cannot save this nation without God, and that it may even be His will that this nation should perish in its current form. There is, after all, supposed to be strife, persecution, and tribulation before the return of Jesus Christ. I think anyone who believes in Him better start thinking about how to be at peace with that, and preparing for however it might look.
-
@ HotAir, via Erika Johnsen: (http://hotair.com/archives/2012/06/29/paul-ryan-the-american-people-have-one-last-chance/)
Paul Ryan:
[blockquote]“We have a law that we have one more chance to repeal, and that’s this November election,” Ryan continued. “That’s basically what the Supreme Court did; they raised the stakes of this election. We have one more chance – and that’s basically what they said. The people of this country are going to be the final arbiters of this.”[/blockquote]
For one reason or another, I’m sure many of us will be bristling with Chief Justice Robert’s mandate-permitting opinion on ObamaCare for some time to come, but everybody’s been discussing at least one key takeaway from his decision that I thought very profound:
Roberts:
[blockquote]Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.[/blockquote]
At the end of the day, it is absolutely true that we did this to ourselves. As the years have worn on, we’ve consistently demonstrated a prevailing penchant for electing people into office who do little to safeguard our personal freedom and responsibility. Instead, we reward politicians for signing more ‘free’ stuff into law and sending home as much pork as possible. If we don’t stop living in our little bubbles of willful ignorance and summon the political will to reverse the bacchanalian frenzy of entitlement spending and big government, America’s best days really are behind us — and it’ll be nobody’s fault but our own.
"We did this to ourselves" is simplistic, but not inaccurate. The citizenry were supposed to be the final arbiters all along, and somehow, we were "Pied-Pipered" as a society into believing that our vote was our primary civic duty. It was never our primary duty, but the “long train of abuses and usurpations” were heretofore tolerable to an adequate degree to lull us to collective complacency and stay our wrath.
I think that is about to change. If people don't see now that voting is among the minimum of their civic duties, they never will.
-
Roberts:
[blockquote]Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law; we possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.[/blockquote]
That is BS. Its basically claiming we are a democracy - and that a majority has the right to enslave, tyrannize and persecute a minority if their elected representatives choose to do so. So if the majority want making theft from an minority a "policy" - its okay? According to Roberts it is.
If you believe, as Jefferson did, that this government was instituted to safeguard the inalienable rights of individuals, then you know this court and decision have nothing to do with consent, justice or even common sense. May Roberts burn in hell for all eternity.
Maybe when the fascist libs really get going I can get a job as a torturer. There is a line of work I think I would enjoy. Especially if fed a constant supply of rubes who voted for Obama. After all, its these useful idiots who always find themselves on the chopping block next. Can't have them laying around and following some other cheating lying demagogue.
-
It was never our primary duty, but the “long train of abuses and usurpations” were heretofore tolerable to an adequate degree to lull us to collective complacency and stay our wrath.
Okay, then. What IS our primary duty? I pay my taxes, obey the law, help others where I can, pray; what have I been neglecting?
IDP, I sense that you are trying desperately to come to grips with this last blow, to determine a course ahead that will allow at least a modicum of peace in your soul and heart, so please tell me what not laying down/not ceasing to fight but turning it over to God looks like in real terms?
Every time lately that it has appeared we may have triumphed in a small way on one issue or another, we're defeated in the least likely of ways from unsuspected sources; it's as though we just can't catch a break.
-
I knew the Court wouldn't save us. We have to save ourselves.
Or, trust our sovereign heavenly Father to do what He will do, and allow what He wall allow. He judges nations, after all.
I am getting weary enough of the fight that I'm feeling ready to turn it over completely to Him. Not meaning lay down and die, but meaning fight on, with no earthly chance of success - asking for the God-given courage of Gideon, and the complete trust of Joshua at Jericho - relying not on my own power or skill, but His will alone.
I'm thinking we just cannot save this nation without God, and that it may even be His will that this nation should perish in its current form. There is, after all, supposed to be strife, persecution, and tribulation before the return of Jesus Christ. I think anyone who believes in Him better start thinking about how to be at peace with that, and preparing for however it might look.
http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,2232.msg25118.html#msg25118 (http://itsaboutliberty.com/index.php/topic,2232.msg25118.html#msg25118)
-
...Okay, then. What IS our primary duty? I pay my taxes, obey the law, help others where I can, pray; what have I been neglecting?
In hindsight, it looks like the main thing Americans failed to do that would have prevented this end was a widespread sustained and fully engaged generational citizen activism in the extreme. Think "Tea Party" activism, sustained from the time of our great-great grandparents carried through the generations in response to the over-reaction to the Civil War going forward. I think it's likely the only thing that could've prevented this outcome or something similar. Hindsight. Phhht.
The fact remains, year after year, cycle after cycle, the American people have gone to the polls and cast a vote for people who carried us further and further from the constitution. If prior generations only could have seen where that would ultimately bring us, and had a "Tea Party" of their own, and passed that kind of foundational zeal down through the generations...
IDP, I sense that you are trying desperately to come to grips with this last blow, to determine a course ahead that will allow at least a modicum of peace in your soul and heart, so please tell me what not laying down/not ceasing to fight but turning it over to God looks like in real terms?
You sense correctly, and I don't know. But Psalm 46 has been on my heart: "Be still, and know that I am God." In the end, that may be the most logical answer.
Can I trust in Him to tell me what to do, when to do it, when to fight, when to feint? That's difficult to do. But maybe that's what I need to do.
Every time lately that it has appeared we may have triumphed in a small way on one issue or another, we're defeated in the least likely of ways from unsuspected sources; it's as though we just can't catch a break.
Indeed. America's back is against the wall.
-
In hindsight, it looks like the main thing Americans failed to do that would have prevented this end was a widespread sustained and fully engaged generational citizen activism in the extreme. Think "Tea Party" activism,
I don't think there's was an instance in our history where that opportunity existed and was missed. People forgot the Constitution. They talked liberty and freedom but they were never close to the Constitution. They have some vague idea that it exists but it's not relevant to them.
Can I trust in Him to tell me what to do, when to do it, when to fight, when to feint? That's difficult to do. But maybe that's what I need to do.
I think that's what we need to do.
-
"A Principled Prescription for America's Health: The Perspective of a Doctor-Turned-Lawmaker" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mH4f6KBUrOU#)
The suggestions of this Republican congressman made back in April doesn't inspire me.
-
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/29/obamacare-forces-ewtn-to-pay-fine-on-faith/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/29/obamacare-forces-ewtn-to-pay-fine-on-faith/)
The leading Catholic media organization in the world, Eternal Word Television Network, is prepared to pay a “financial fine on faith” likely to exceed at least $600,000 per year rather than comply with Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate.
EWTN is suing the federal government over the anti-conscience mandate, which requires religious institutions to provide “preventative” services — including abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization — in its health plans, regardless of the institution’s moral or religious objections.
-
http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/29/obamacare-forces-ewtn-to-pay-fine-on-faith/ (http://blog.heritage.org/2012/06/29/obamacare-forces-ewtn-to-pay-fine-on-faith/)
The leading Catholic media organization in the world, Eternal Word Television Network, is prepared to pay a “financial fine on faith” likely to exceed at least $600,000 per year rather than comply with Obamacare’s anti-conscience mandate.
EWTN is suing the federal government over the anti-conscience mandate, which requires religious institutions to provide “preventative” services — including abortion-inducing drugs, contraceptives and sterilization — in its health plans, regardless of the institution’s moral or religious objections.
I just made a donation to them. I'm willing to financially support any organization willing to stand up against Obamacare.
-
Laura Ingraham's O'Reilly Factor Interview with Two Constitutional Scholars
http://minx.cc/?post=330610 (http://minx.cc/?post=330610)
-
CO, to what website is that link? I'm not clicking on anything anymore that I can't see.
-
AoSHQ
Thought it'd be recognizable.
-
AoSHQ
Thought it'd be recognizable.
Not from the url, it isn't, and apparently "minx etc etc" IS Ace's usual permalink url. I didn't know that; his "home" url is recognizable.
eta: And that isn't correct either; the "minx" url is the comments url.
-
It is correct in that it is the AoSHQ article in it's entirety, including comments, that I directed to.
-
It is correct in that it is the AoSHQ article in it's entirety, including comments, that I directed to.
Right, but it doesn't show up as "ace.mu.nu"; it shows up as "minx" and as I don't know "minx" I don't click.
Sorry for appearing to nitpick; I'm just trying to explain.
-
EWTN doesn't need to pay any fine. They should keep on as they are and force the Regime to send their jackbooted thugs and physically remove them from their broadcast facilities. The same should go for every other Christian organization that refuses to pay for legalized murder. The sooner the ante is upped and the government forced to reveal just who they really are, the better. The worst thing any of us can do now is to let them get away with the narrative that there is voluntary compliance.
-
EWTN doesn't need to pay any fine. They should keep on as they are and force the Regime to send their jackbooted thugs and physically remove them from their broadcast facilities. The same should go for every other Christian organization that refuses to pay for legalized murder. The sooner the ante is upped and the government forced to reveal just who they really are, the better. The worst thing any of us can do now is to let them get away with the narrative that there is voluntary compliance.
::thumbsup::
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7pqRjHQ9BU&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I7pqRjHQ9BU&feature=player_embedded#)!
-
I was considering posting that at the local forum, but I realized none of the Lefties would watch because the female in it would look them like Sarah Palin.
-
Rush is reporting that this "disastrous" opinion was reported correctly in this
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/ article, therefore, Roberts is effectively hostage to the media. He changed his opinion because of media pressure and the dissent did not mention Roberts because they were so mad at him the left him out.
-
Rush is reporting that this "disastrous" opinion was reported correctly in this
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/ article, therefore, Roberts is effectively hostage to the media. He changed his opinion because of media pressure and the dissent did not mention Roberts because they were so mad at him the left him out.
Ann jumped the shark when she advocated not voting for Romney, none the less this topic would be remiss if her commentary were not included. It's a
lively read.
[blockquote]Stupid, Stupid Jackasses. Part 1
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - June 30, AD 2012 3:32 PM MST
It isn’t just Lindsey Graham that is a stupid, stupid jackass. If you’re buying any of this, “Everything’s fine! We actually WON on ObamaCare, and Roberts is a genius!” jackassery, then go look in the mirror and behold the Sombrero of all Asshats.
Are you detecting ire? Are you getting the sense that I’m just a LITTLE pissed off? It’s one thing to watch a bunch of godless, drug-addled, moloch-worshiping Marxist dumbasses spew mental diarrhea, but to have to sit and watch pretty much everyone on the right do the same thing is just too much. Do you people not have functioning brains? Is there truly no capacity for any intelligent thought or the ability to recall and parse objective facts and evidence? Really?
Let’s start with an analogy. Defending this week’s SCOTUS decision is directly analogous to the following:
[blockquote]
Ann’s Omelet Recipe
1. Gather every egg in your kitchen. Throw them all down the garbage disposal. (This omelet is going to be so good. Trust me.)
2. Go out to your breaker box and turn off the electricity to your entire home. (No, really. It’s going to cook up better than anything you’ve ever had before.)
3. Burn your house down. (This omelet is going to be delicious. You’ll see.)
4. Find a handgun. Load it, cock it, put it in your mouth, pull the trigger and blow your brainstem to kingdom come. (Can’t you almost smell how delicious this omelet is going to be?)[/blockquote]
Roberts is not a “Machiavellian genius.” Roberts is a moral degenerate lifetime Washington D.C. politico, who is well known in the beltway to be borderline obsessed with his image. In other words, Chief Justice John Roberts emotionally operates on the same level as the average twelve year old girl, and just sold out not just the Republic, the Constitution and the entire American populace, but really the entire planet, because now that the United States is no more, the forces of evil will run absolutely rampant over the rest of the planet. And Roberts did it so that a bunch of coke-snorting sodomites and psychopaths in Georgetown will pretend to like him – for about five minutes.
Roberts just ratified the “right” for the government to tax people on their existence. Either you purchase a service commodity, thus paying a tax which is collected by the insurance company itself, or you will pay a tax to the IRS directly. Insurance is, for all intents and purposes, an innovation of the last fifty years, meaning that almost no one carried any insurance of any kind, and insurance was itself in some places ILLEGAL (and now we know why, because if allowed to cover anything other than large disasters, insurance will, by mathematical definition, destroy any market that it comes into contract with and end in fascism.)
All of this ObamaCare mandate is a pure function of being a living human being. My required car insurance is a corollary to my totally optional decision to own and drive a car. The requirement that I carry “full coverage” insurance instead of the minimum liability-only insurance is a corollary to the fact that I freely choose to lease my car, and thus there are additional conditions that I must meet. Income tax was tied to the fact that I chose to work and generate income – not on my existence itself. Property tax is a corollary to my decision to buy real estate. The gasoline tax is a corollary to my free decision to drive a car, and a car that runs on gasoline. Yes, I think that income and property taxes in particular are intrinsically morally dubious, but that is not the debate before us. The debate before us is whether the Federal government, or ANY government can ever, ever licitly tax human beings on the very fact that they EXIST.
The obvious answer is NO. We do not choose to bring ourselves into existence. Human life is the property of God Almighty, who has of His own goodness, charity and perfect will deigned to gift us with free will so that we might exist in His image – sovereign, reasoning and thus capable of authentic love, the freely chosen gift of self to some “other”. And even at this, God only asks that in return we worship Him at His Mass on Sunday, and that we *voluntarily* tithe ten percent of our income, or whatever we can manage. But the tithe is *voluntary*, not coerced.
The state, fully ratified by the emotional schoolgirl John Roberts, has now elevated itself above God, and has done nothing less than declare itself god. The state now sees itself as the source and arbiter of human life, demanding and coercing tribute in exchange for permitting human life to continue. Fail to pay tribute to Moloch for your very existence, and your property, your liberty and eventually your life will be forcibly confiscated.
Oh, but all of the dumbasses out there swear up and down that this step in the battle for the Republic had to be lost so that we could later, in some grand strategy, win the war.
Listen dumbasses, the war is already lost. YOU JUST LOST IT. You didn’t just sac your queen in order to set up a checkmate. Your ass just got checkmated and Barry Obama is sitting on the couch lighting up a joint, and texting Reggie Love to come over for a little celebratory sodomy.
Which brings us to Barry Obama. One of the big arguments I see is that Roberts’ decision “catches Obama in a lie, so we’ve got him now!”
I don’t even know what to say to this. It is so stupid it just makes me want to give up on the entire deal.
Listen Jackasses, everything Obama has said and done for his entire adult life, his entire political career, his entire campaign, and in his entire regime is a lie. For the love of God, EVEN HIS NAME IS A LIE. He passed an obviously forged birth certificate last April. Every single thing he has said, promised and done has been total, complete, objectively proven lie after lie. And you think you’re going to checkmate him with THIS? You think that a point of semantics between “penalty” and “tax” is going to bring him down in this nation of Snooki-watching imbeciles? Are you on drugs, or just merely stupid?
Stupid, Stupid Jackasses. Part 2
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - June 30, AD 2012 3:29 PM MST
And now the argument that if we just get a few more “republicans” into Washington D.C., we can stop him!
This plane of stupidity makes me the most irate. What in the hell is wrong with you people? Do you not have any recollection of anything that has happened? How did those 2010 elections work out for you? Boy, that really put the brakes on the Obama regime, huh? Wake the hell up. Obama has not been slowed down in any way. His tyranny and destruction has not been held up or checked in any way. It has only accelerated since the day he usurped the White House.
Remember the Debt Ceiling fiasco? Remember how Obama utterly rolled everyone, and I had to explain that we didn't win, but instead got prison raped while everyone on the right was celebrating the great victory over Obama? Remember that clusterbungle? You know what the Congress managed to do with regards to the debt ceiling? Um, yeah, they gave Obama EVERYTHING he wanted, plus some. Obama said, “Raise the ceiling.” They raised it. Obama said, “Increase taxes.” January 2013 will mark massive tax hikes kicking in. Obama said, “Increase spending.” Done. Obama said, “Give me carte blanche spending authority with no Congressional oversight so I can loot the Treasury and embezzle and write billion-dollar checks to my oligarch cronies.” Done. Automatic spending cuts, called “sequestration” were written into the debt ceiling negotiations. Obama has just said, “Blow the sequestration cuts off.” Done. In September, Obama will say, “Just eliminate the ceiling altogether.” Nancy Pelosi has already said that is what is coming. Guess what will happen?
Obama just declared by executive fiat de facto amnesty. What have your precious little Tea Party freshmen done to counter that? Nothing.
Obama has by executive fiat declared same-sex marriage the “law of the land.” What have your precious little pants-pissing Tea Party congressmen done to counter that? Nothing.
Obama has started wars and entered the United States military into new combat theaters with ZERO congressional approval, and has told the congress through Leon Panetta that congress will no longer even be CONSULTED OR INFORMED of new wars. No. Obama MIGHT notify them, after he has consulted the U.N., if he has the time and feels like it. What have your mighty, mighty Tea Party freshmen done to counter that? Exactly nothing.
Obama has intentionally armed narco-terror armies in Mexico with the expressly stated intention of using firearms found at scenes of mass murder in Mexico to engage in sedition against the Second Amendment and thus disarm the American people. I count at least THREE capital offenses in that: mass murder, shadow war against a sovereign nation, and sedition against the United States. What have your precious little Tea Partiers done? Written a few letters with some mildly strong language? Sat and watched while the Attorney General LAUGHS at them? Take a purely symbolic vote to “shame” people who are murderous psychopaths and have no shame?
Arrest Holder, Hillary Clinton, and Obama, try them for mass murder, making war against Mexico and sedition against the United States, convict them with due process, put them against a wall and shoot them until they are dead, and then you come back and give me your little rah-rah speech about how “everything’s gonna be fine.” But not one second before.
And for the last time, spare me any of your truly, truly demented and psychotic fantasy-weaving about Mitt Romney, the father of ObamaCare and vociferous defender of the mandate, riding to the rescue and repealing his own precious, beloved demonspawn.
Watch the video below. I recorded it back in January and almost forgot about it. I listened to it this morning, and hearing Patrick Henry’s words again now in the context of Roberts’ decision, the escalated and unfathomable lawlessness of the Obama regime just since January, and the complete state of insane denial of reality from the right makes Henry’s speech positively SPOOKY.
BarnhardtPatrickHenrySpeech.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cup9CgSjr9g#ws)
Bottom line, if you continue to argue that Roberts’ decision was anything less than the end of the Republic, then you are either a total jackass, or you are despicable liar looking to keep some stream of revenue or power concentration flowing. And may God forgive you for whichever sin you choose to wallow in; unrepentant cowardice, unrepentant willful stupidity or unrepentant greed; because, knowing what’s coming, I’m not sure I can.[/blockquote]
-
Rush was tipped off by someone in the know that Roberts is a preening, vain, consummate-insider type, who is obsessed with reputation and legacy. I think he knew Roberts was going to cave, because in the few days prior to the announcement I distinctly got the impression that Rush was trying to prepare his audience for grave disappointment.
Roberts' character flaws are apparently well known in the DC political circles, because he was specifically the target of all the statements (and veiled threats) from Democrat senators, the White House, and the media. They knew exactly which buttons to push, and it worked. It's absolutely disgusting. The Supreme Court is there to defend the Constitution. Any consideration coming before that is grounds for impeachment. Our Republic had been on life support for quite a long time before this ruling, but the ruling effectively pulled the plug. Now we're just waiting for clinical death, with the very small chance that the patient could resume breathing on its own in November.
-
Ann rocks once again. That part of rounding up the key proglodytes perpetrating this effrontery to founding principles absolutely rocks! ::thumbsup:: ::cool:: ::whoohoo::
-
My daughter and I were talking about this the other night. We used to call it backbone.
I don't understand caving. But I guess I've spent most of my life being the odd one out. The doctors want to do something I ask why and then if it doesn't sound reasonable I say no. I don't do well-baby care doctor visits. Everytime my kid is sick I don't run to the doctor( forever aggravating my mother-in-law). I insist on being in the examination room. I homeschool. We go to church. I don't buy things for my kids because everyone else is buying it for their kids. My kids do chores. I have refused to do things because of my religious beliefs. I say no we don't have the money. I won't let my high schoolers ride in a car driven by another high school driver (boy, am I really out there on that one!). I review the movies my kids are allowed to go see. ETC ETC
None of these things by themselves is really a big deal but I get push back on everything because I operate from a certain level of expectation and principles for myself. And so often my POV is inconvenient or annoying or challenges someone else's POV. So I've gotten used to being accused of dogmatic, stubborn, etc.
Plus I hate the feeling of having sold out.
-
Short Version
Rep. Allen West: Obama Wants Americans To "Be His Slave"
Rep. Allen West: Obama Wants Americans To "Be His Slave" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3A9tX4G5nI4#)
Long Version
Allen West - Obama Wants Americans To "Be His Slave" - (7/1/12) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcvQdChNaII
-
"Toldya. Repub Sen. McConnell has Already Folded
Posted by Ann Barnhardt - July 2, AD 2012 5:33 PM MST
ObamaCare is not being repealed. The only way to get rid of it is either a junta or a civil war and establishing a Second American Republic.
Period.
If you give any money to any of these First Republic scumbag politicians instead of preparing for the war, you are an idiot. A complete and total idiot.
Senate Republican leader McConnell stated today that it isn't going to be repealed. It comes fairly quickly in this local news segment out of Louisville, KY today:
Even with repeal, ’Obamacare’ will be hard to unwind, McConnell says
"If you thought it was a good idea for the federal government to go in this direction, I’d say the odds are still on your side," McConnell told workers at Hardin Memorial Hospital."
Meh. Go listen for yourselves -- http://barnhardt.biz/ (http://barnhardt.biz/)
-
Why am I not surprised that a man that wears the face of a fool is in fact a fool!!We have an election to win and he tells the world that even if we have majorities in both houses and a GOP w.h. we caan't do shyt!!
So somebody tell me why were going to vote? ::gaah::
-
So somebody tell me why were going to vote? ::gaah::
I can guarantee the Founders would be shooting by now.
-
(http://www.thelookingspoon.com/images/general/2012/sowell_on_universal_healthcare.jpg)
In the end Reality is going to repeal this, and Social security, and Medicare. The only real question is are we going to be in any state to enjoy the victory, or will we be pushing up daises?
-
(http://www.thelookingspoon.com/images/general/2012/sowell_on_universal_healthcare.jpg)
In the end Reality is going to repeal this, and Social security, and Medicare. The only real question is are we going to be in any state to enjoy the victory, or will we be pushing up daises?
I don't know where we'll be when reality requires the piper be remunerated, however, thanks to Roberts, Congress' ability to tax has been permanently severed from the Constitutional requirements that a tax be levied in support of one of the Feds' 18 duties and responsibilities. See: the Good and Plenty clause.
So, who knows what the hell they'll decide to tax next.
-
Exactly. What thing or not-thing? What activity or not-activity? This is some Queen of Hearts sh*t right here. Straight out of Alice in Wonderland.
-
Donate to the DNC - or pay a "penalty" that SCOTUS has ruled is a tax.
-
(http://www.thelookingspoon.com/images/general/2012/sowell_on_universal_healthcare.jpg)
In the end Reality is going to repeal this, and Social security, and Medicare. The only real question is are we going to be in any state to enjoy the victory, or will we be pushing up daises?
I don't know where we'll be when reality requires the piper be remunerated, however, thanks to Roberts, Congress' ability to tax has been permanently severed from the Constitutional requirements that a tax be levied in support of one of the Feds' 18 duties and responsibilities. See: the Good and Plenty clause.
So, who knows what the hell they'll decide to tax next.
What ever the hell they want!!And if you don't produce enough to pay for the ones deemed not to be able to produce you will be punnished.
-
I don't know where we'll be when reality requires the piper be remunerated, however, thanks to Roberts, Congress' ability to tax has been permanently severed from the Constitutional requirements that a tax be levied in support of one of the Feds' 18 duties and responsibilities. See: the Good and Plenty clause.
So, who knows what the hell they'll decide to tax next.
It won't do them any good. Raise taxes, actual real production goes down, more deficit spending, inflation goes up. They don't call it a debt death spiral for nothing. Look at the IRS stats (http://www.irs.gov/taxstats/indtaxstats/article/0,,id=96981,00.html) and assume somehow they nullify Hauser's law so that they can exceed 20% of GDP...
In 2009, if you collected 100% of every dollar made over $100,000 from the 29 million or so households earning that much ( many of them double incomes) as reported in AGI, you would get: 1,865,054,370 Trillion from that. That is every F'ing dollar over $100K.
Add that to the money you collect under $100K and total income tax revenue would be 2.2 Trillion. In reality 2009 give the government 865 Billion. That is right, with a "B". Its a huge difference from 2006, when it was about a Trillion. If you collected every AGI taxable dollar you would get just 5 trillion.
Hey but lets go after those corporations too! We will take every dime of profit.. oh that is 984 Billion. Another one of those "B's-
So if we confiscate every bit of profit, and every individual income, we have 6 Trillion dollars and have given the people 0 reason to work, so there will be no more money coming in next year. Okay, so that will run the current National Fascist Socialist government for 1.5 years. (http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/total) Oh, but we have State and local governments too. Okay that means we can run everything for one year if we take EVERY DOLLAR OF AGI. And that is without attempting to pay for Obamacare or increasing Medicare and SS costs. We do it now by borrowing. We will continue to borrow, and raise taxes. Say they manage to collect an extra trillion by raising taxes on the "rich" - or more accurately on the "middle class" - because that is where the majority of the money to be had is.. - the additional outlay required by Obamacare/Medicare/Social Security will wipe it out- especially as people emigrate, or Galt out as the tax rate increases. And don't forget the leeches who will pay the ta-penalty rather than buy insurance - because that is what they are being encouraged to do - causing Medical Insurance to become unavailable except on the "exchanges" - paid for by State Taxes... 1/7th of the economy will just tank as no one can find insurance, or what is paid is paid at a loss from the State Govt coffers. (Your State didn't create an exchange? No Private insurance to buy? Oh Nos! we need Single Payer! The "Free Market" private insurers failed us! And all the leeches demand the state create an exchange ) Of course, with 1/7th of GDP suddenly removed from the "individuals earning tax revenue" column into the put into the Government "we don't produce anything, we just spend money" column, this just goes further downhill.
I think the chances for an Obamacare repeal with Mittens and the current GOP are nill- its too hard!
We have certainly passed the event horizon now. Nothing left to do but pop some popcorn, set up a lawn chair and watch the Liberals spread poverty equally until the Civil war starts, WWIII starts or the dollar collapses, or some combination.
-
I agree Weisshaupt, no way will the weakling Pubbies be able to do what it takes to repeal ObamaCare and all the other crap put on us over the past 80 years.
I'm just waiting for my "Paint Your Wagon" moment ala Lee Marvin's "Welcome to hell!" line.
;)
-
It won't do them any good.
Lol. And when did that ever matter?
-
What ever the hell they want!!And if you don't produce enough to pay for the ones deemed not to be able to produce you will be punnished.
Just be unable to produce, then they will pay your penalty for you. $44K is the magic number for a family of 4 to not have to pay for their insurance. You will get a "Tax Credit" to pay for it then. Think about it - its hard to earn more money. Its relatively easy to earn less. When the time comes, I will probably tell my company I am leaving, but I am willing to work as a contractor 3 days a week. If they take it, cool. If not, I find someone else willing to take that deal. Or I start a small part-time business- and refuse to take appointments after I make my quota. Sorry pal, too busy. Booked till August.... Or I get a minimum wage job, or no job at all, and go on food stamps and get my EBT. After all, why work when I could go fishing or hiking or help home school my kids? $44K is plenty when you have no debt and produce some percentage of your own food and power.
If they decide that I have to pay out of my own pocket? Well they can try to collect, but I will be paying them in lead.
-
I wonder when they're going to drop all the remaining pretenses and just bring out "wrecking" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_%28Soviet_crime%29) as a crime, a la Stalin. At that point they will have made Going Galt a crime, and can continue to hold out "wrecking" as a general purpose catch-all for anyone not doing their part for the glory of socialist labor.
-
I wonder when they're going to drop all the remaining pretenses and just bring out "wrecking" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_%28Soviet_crime%29) as a crime, a la Stalin. At that point they will have made Going Galt a crime, and can continue to hold out "wrecking" as a general purpose catch-all for anyone not doing their part for the glory of socialist labor.
Right. Another penalty for "not doing".
-
I wonder when they're going to drop all the remaining pretenses and just bring out "wrecking" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wrecking_%28Soviet_crime%29) as a crime, a la Stalin. At that point they will have made Going Galt a crime, and can continue to hold out "wrecking" as a general purpose catch-all for anyone not doing their part for the glory of socialist labor.
Yeah, well that will be another "I will pay my debt to society with lead" moment.
I just hope I am around for the moment when these libtards get their first taste of slavery when the EBTs don't get changed and someone shows up at their door to form a "work party"
-
Exactly. The Western liberal has to be the most clueless creature on Earth. Full of bravado they agitate for Marxism here, without even the slightest idea of what it is really like when put into practice. I guess that comes from the arrogance of assuming they will of course be part of the elite who get to manage others' lives, rather than being one of those others and having their own lives managed. I've heard it said before that a smart man learns from his mistakes and a wise man learns from others' mistakes. These idiots are certainly not wise. The Western liberal is too lazy for what he claims to desire. In the USSR if your ass didn't work, your ass didn't eat. And "work" might mean digging a railroad bed through a thousand miles of wilderness with nothing but hand tools.
I can't believe we have allowed a bunch of infantile malcontents to bring our country to the point of destruction, all because they're banging their spoon against their highchair in a temper tantrum.
-
It all started with control of education systems. Our side vacated and they filled the vacuum with their mindless drivel. ::rockets:: ::rockets::
-
One might make a case to get them before they get us. ;)
-
We need to come up with our own counterpart to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. There are certain axioms about Leftists that can be used to our advantage. One of my personal ones is this -- "Leftists are incapable of resisting any opportunity to lord their perceived intellectual superiority over others. Use this to your advantage."
-
Like trapping dumb animals...set the bait in the trap, spring the trap, kill the dumb animal.
-
Speaking of trapping dumb animals, look what the Dem's got cooking for the American people -
“There’s already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they’re not even done yet,”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/)
Motherf**ker Roberts!
I'm gonna need a round for every reg!
::gaah:: ::cussing:: ::angry:: ::cussing:: ::gaah::
-
Speaking of trapping dumb animals, look what the Dem's got cooking for the American people -
“There’s already 13,000 pages of regulations, and they’re not even done yet,”
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/ (http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/07/lawyers-have-already-drafted-13000-pages-of-regulations-for-new-obamatax-law/)
Motherf**ker Roberts!
I'm gonna need a round for every reg!
::gaah:: ::cussing:: ::angry:: ::cussing:: ::gaah::
I can't bear the thought. It fills me with despair ...
-
What he did goes beyond mistake. It is straight up treasonous. His obligation was to "call balls and strikes" -- as he himself promised at his confirmation hearing -- but to do so using the Constitution as home plate. Instead he used the editorial pages of the New York Times and Washington Post. He just needs to be the chief lamppost bender.
-
http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/rules-committee-to-hold-emerge.php
Rules Committee to Hold 'Emergency' Meeting Monday on Health Care Repeal
I'd feel more comfortable if weren't that whining Cantor.
-
http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/rules-committee-to-hold-emerge.php
Rules Committee to Hold 'Emergency' Meeting Monday on Health Care Repeal
I'd feel more comfortable if weren't that whining Cantor.
As would I. He -- they -- have had months to stick this on every friggin bill we were told HAD to be passed. Did they?
The big clue here is they ARE highly susceptible to pressure from we hoi polloi, so we need to POUR IT ON and don't stop until it's repealed.
-
No is the answer to your question Pan. As I stated previously the only way other than as Weisshaupt puts it storming DC with 2 million armed men and women is a concerted effort to put 2 million protesters consistently for two months before these assholes will get the message.
-
LINK (http://apnews.myway.com//article/20120707/D9VS2E3O0.html)
The Supreme Court's decision to uphold most of President Barack Obama's health care law will come home to roost for most taxpayers in about 2 1/2 years, when they'll have to start providing proof on their tax returns that they have health insurance.
The penalty will be fully phased in by 2016, when it will be $695 for each uninsured adult or 2.5 percent of family income, whichever is greater, up to $12,500. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates that 4 million people will pay the penalty that year.
The law, however, severely limits the ability of the IRS to collect the penalties. There are no civil or criminal penalties for refusing to pay it and the IRS cannot seize bank accounts or dock wages to collect it. No interest accumulates for unpaid penalties.
So how can the IRS enforce the mandate? Scary letters and threats to withhold tax refunds.
Mark me down as 'non-compliant' tyvm!
-
Might as well open up some more old wounds...
Still pissed Mytch caved so easy in the Senate when this came down...not one Senator willing to fillibuster this abomination.
Yup, giving up is just so much easier to do.
::gaah::
-
Might as well open up some more old wounds...
Still pissed Mytch caved so easy in the Senate when this came down...not one Senator willing to fillibuster this abomination.
Yup, giving up is just so much easier to do.
::gaah::
"This is not the hill to die on", ad infinitum ad nauseam.
We are really starting to pay the price for Republican fecklessness of years past. One of their biggest problems is that they don't understand big government has a built-in tendency to drift leftward. You can't take the reigns of big government and expect all that apparatus to now be ours. The only, only way to have conservative government is to have less government. Full stop.
They don't get that, and that's why we never see any substantial pushback even when the political tides turn in our favor. The best they can ever do is maintain Leviathan's current hulking mass, until it inevitably starts growing again once the liberals are back in office. Rinse, repeat.
The other explanation is that actually they do understand all this, it's just that they want the apparatus of big government just as much as the libs. Take your pick. Whether it's incompetence or treachery, the outcome is pretty much the same.
-
Might as well open up some more old wounds...
Still pissed Mytch caved so easy in the Senate when this came down...not one Senator willing to fillibuster this abomination.
Yup, giving up is just so much easier to do.
::gaah::
"This is not the hill to die on", ad infinitum ad nauseam.
We are really starting to pay the price for Republican fecklessness of years past. One of their biggest problems is that they don't understand big government has a built-in tendency to drift leftward. You can't take the reigns of big government and expect all that apparatus to now be ours. The only, only way to have conservative government is to have less government. Full stop.
They don't get that, and that's why we never see any substantial pushback even when the political tides turn in our favor. The best they can ever do is maintain Leviathan's current hulking mass, until it inevitably starts growing again once the liberals are back in office. Rinse, repeat.
The other explanation is that actually they do understand all this, it's just that they want the apparatus of big government just as much as the libs. Take your pick. Whether it's incompetence or treachery, the outcome is pretty much the same.
Yup, and when someone comes along who wants to start starving the beast and reintroduce some sanity they are ignored, belittled and stabbed in the back by the RINOcrats!
And yet thusfar people seem more interested in rewarding insanity, thinking "yeah, this time" we'll fix everything and the RINOcrat plea of "trust us" always precedes the knife in the back...
There are words for people like this, and they are not flattering!
-
Some say Rome's devolution was caused by lead poisoning induced
insanity; they used lead for plumbing and utensils. What will they
say caused our insanity?
-
Some say Rome's devolution was caused by lead poisoning induced
insanity; they used lead for plumbing and utensils. What will they
say caused our insanity?
I'm sure the hysterics will blame GW Bush and they wouldn't be that far off when you look at the accomplishments.
-
Some say Rome's devolution was caused by lead poisoning induced
insanity; they used lead for plumbing and utensils. What will they
say caused our insanity?
I'm sure the hysterics will blame GW Bush and they wouldn't be that far off when you look at the accomplishments.
I'll have to go with plain ol' stupidity. Stems from the academic brainwashing.
-
Some say Rome's devolution was caused by lead poisoning induced
insanity; they used lead for plumbing and utensils. What will they
say caused our insanity?
I'm sure the hysterics will blame GW Bush and they wouldn't be that far off when you look at the accomplishments.
I'll have to go with plain ol' stupidity. Stems from the academic brainwashing.
Liberalism and the never-ending pursuit of dimsantling everything that made us great and everything that made us individuals with rights to person and property and the envy of the world.
Look at the destruction -
Doctors starting to rebel en masse, 83% say they are considering ending their practices. Makes way for the dumbest of the dumb to provide our care and bureacrats to manage it!
::gaah::
http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/ (http://dailycaller.com/2012/07/09/report-83-percent-of-doctors-have-considered-quitting-over-obamacare/)
Nothing buut high cost, low qaulity, longer waits and people dying by the score before the Death Panels can even get to them! I can see notices of services denied mailed out to survivors months even years after the person concerned has long since shed their mortal shell!
::cussing::
If this isn't repealed pronto it spells disaster for quality healthcare and disaster for the economy and long-term viability of the nation.
House Rules Committee has debate scheduled for 5 hours, I find this interesting -
"Earlier today, the independent congressional budget office said officials would not know how the Supreme Court's ruling would affect government's spending for two more weeks. Democrats seized on the news, arguing that repeal could end up costing the government money, a point Republicans have so far failed to address in the committee meeting."
http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/rules-committee-previews-healt.php (http://influencealley.nationaljournal.com/2012/07/rules-committee-previews-healt.php)
First off, how could CBO if it were honest not reflect massive explosions in cost? Their numbers will prove once and for all the worth of that office or lack thereof.
Second, piss on your cost of repeal, not repealling is 1,000,000 times more costly, idiots!
::gaah::
-
Alan S; Well, they are after all a product of Washington and their only product is bureaucratic nonsense. ::laserkill::
-
LINK (http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-final-week-of-judicial-activism/?singlepage=true)
Last week, while upholding ObamaCare, the Supreme Court issued rulings in four other cases, overturning a total of 32 state and federal statutes. The significance of the other cases may have been lost in the glare of the ObamaCare decision. The other cases portray a Court quite ready to — in President Obama’s famous words — “somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.” Taken together, the four cases are a study in judicial activism.
...and here everyone thought that the Supreme Court would actually do some good this year...
Nope. Instead they added fuel to the fire and laughed while the constitution and country burned...
-
How about those justices appointed by Repubs (Roberts) Both Bushes seemed to have given us crap.
Kind of makes one wonder about the argument that we need to elect Willard (or McCain) for the SCOTUS.
-
We need to elect Romney to stop totalitarianism.
-
We need to elect Romney to stop totalitarianism.
::facepalm::
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdBcsdk8pEY# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdBcsdk8pEY#)
-
We all know, pretty well, how we got here (sad state of affairs that it is); however, if we don't elect Romney we shall have set Hell on earth loose.
-
We all know, pretty well, how we got here (sad state of affairs that it is); however, if we don't elect Romney we shall have set Hell on earth loose.
I hope and pray to God that I don't wake up on Nov. 7th and find this country re-elected the man who intends to preside over our decline and destruction. Waking up to the USSC ruling on Obamacare was bad enough; I don't think I'll be able to take it.
-
We all know, pretty well, how we got here (sad state of affairs that it is); however, if we don't elect Romney we shall have set Hell on earth loose.
True...and i've become quite selfish. I need a few more good years. Everything paid. Then screw everyone. Half the place deserves obama and the other half better be ready to squash the freeloaders.
-
I hear ya Charles. I guess my point is that the idea that Mitt Romney is the bulwark against hell on earth does not fill me with confidence or hope.
-
We all know, pretty well, how we got here (sad state of affairs that it is); however, if we don't elect Romney we shall have set Hell on earth loose.
I hope and pray to God that I don't wake up on Nov. 7th and find this country re-elected the man who intends to preside over our decline and destruction. Waking up to the USSC ruling on Obamacare was bad enough; I don't think I'll be able to take it.
Agree 100%, but one must prepare for the worst while we work and pray for a better result, it sucks but there it is.
-
I hear ya Charles. I guess my point is that the idea that Mitt Romney is the bulwark against hell on earth does not fill me with confidence or hope.
Does tapping Condi as Veep help or hurt that confidence? I tend toward the latter.
-
Honestly, if Rice is the choice, I feel that it would be a safe, predictable, uninspiring, calculated decision. I think he could do a hell of a lot worse, and quite a bit better.
-
(http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/West%20on%20cycle.jpg)
-
(http://weblogs.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/dcblog/West%20on%20cycle.jpg)
;D ::thumbsup::
Better!