Obamacare Upheld

Eliot Rosewater

I haven't read or heard anything from the right-wing wackos. They're not the one's telling me that Obamacare is wrong. Just to clear that up.

It may end up being better than what we have, for a lot of people. But by no means will it fix health care in this country. It is a corrupt plan, from a corrupt man. Like I said...wolf in sheep's clothing.

Jeanwah

kenny olav wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

rupert murdoch, who owns fox news, had a stern warning for romney and republicans on twitter today. he said that the gop is going to lose badly if they campaign on overturning the affordable care act. and i think he is correct.

I agree. Let them go psycho over it. For once, I hope they don't listen to Murdoch!

I can't agree more. I hope they just go psycho over attempting repeal. I'll never say I agree with the likes of Murdoch because the guy's an asshole, but republicans refuse to compromise nor concede so why start now? Repeal your way to defeat.

mikepegg44

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

Jeanwah wrote:

Exactly. But taking care of each other isn't anywhere a part of capitalism - capitalism breeds greed and selfishness. And capitalism seems to be all conservatives are about. It certainly isn't about providing for friends, neighbors and the less fortunate...

Just look at the 1%. What's really troubling is that all the people that support Romney are too blind to see that he doesn't give one shit about them. He's into taking care of the 1% and that's it. I can't believe the stupidity of so many people.

people will always vote against their own interests. that is the nature of politics today. all you have to do is log on to the internets or listen to talk radio and all it does is talk about how bad the other guy is. all it does is spread misinformation, ie death panels, and that everybody's taxes are going up, which is complete bullshit. the only tax increases are on those making over $250, 000 and on those who make all of their money on capital gains, which in my extimation over 99% of us on here do not fit into either of those categories. i could take a dump in a box, put it on top of a manequin dressed in a suit and call it mitt romney and people will vote for that box of crap simply because it isn't obama. this is the product of the media in our day and age.

uh, this is a tax, and it doesn't affect only people making over 250,000.

I could care less if it is upheld or not. It is the precedent that has been set about, for lack of a better term, mandate taxes. I am surprised people aren't thinking about the further ramifications of a decision like this and what it means. Wait....no I am not, immediate gratification is the way of politics and guiding force behind legislation...more importantly the reason we have 15 trillion dollars in debt.

Jeanwah

Health Reform Quiz
http://healthreform.kff.org/quizzes/hea ... -quiz.aspx

The health reform law promises to deliver big changes in the U.S. health care system. But, as with other sweeping pieces of legislation, it can be hard to get the real facts about what it does. And it is all too easy for misinformation about the law to spread.

Take our short, 10-question quiz to test your knowledge of the law, and then find out how you compare to the rest of the country, as represented by the findings of the Kaiser Family Foundation's monthly Health Tracking Poll.

gimmesometruth27

anybody hear about this?????

Roberts wrote both Obamacare opinions

A Court source tells Salon the chief justice wrote the majority opinion and much of the dissent in the ACA case
By Paul Campos

http://www.salon.com/2012/07/03/roberts ... _opinions/

This weekend CBS News’ Jan Crawford reported that Chief Justice John Roberts switched his vote in regard to upholding the bulk of the Affordable Care Act. Crawford reports that Roberts voted with the rest of the court’s conservatives to strike down the individual mandate, but in the course of drafting his opinion changed his mind, and ended up siding with the court’s four liberals to uphold almost all of the law.

In response, according to Crawford’s story, the four conservatives then independently crafted a highly unusual joint dissent. If so, this would represent a powerful symbolic gesture: Joint Supreme Court opinions are rare. Normally a justice authors an individual opinion, which other justices may choose to join. Jointly authored opinions are reserved for momentous statements of principle, such as in Cooper v. Aaron, when all nine justices jointly authored an opinion declaring that the court’s anti-segregation decisions were binding on state governments that disagreed with the court’s constitutional interpretations.

It’s notable that Crawford’s sources insist on the claim that the joint dissent was authored specifically in response to Roberts’ majority opinion, without any participation from him at any point in the drafting process that created it. It would, after all, be fairly preposterous for the four dissenters to jointly “author” an opinion that was in large part written originally by the author of the majority opinion to which the joint dissenters were now so flamboyantly objecting.

Yet that, I am told by a source within the court with direct knowledge of the drafting process, is exactly what happened. My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.

This source insists that the claim that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford’s sources that “the fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention [sic] Roberts’ majority … was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him” as “pure propagandistic spin,” meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts’ opinion for the court (this is surely the first time in the court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.

The explanation for this, according to the source, is very simple: Roberts’ chamber did much of the drafting of the former section, and none of the latter. In short, it appears Chief Justice Roberts ended up in large part authoring both the majority opinion and the dissent in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius. This would seem to give a whole new meaning to the term “swing justice.”

Eliot Rosewater

John Roberts should be impeached. Is that even possible? What a horrible decision that we will all certainly pay for.

Health care reform is much needed. But this, I believe, will only make it worse than it already is.

Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. How in God's name did he convince ANYONE, even these right-wing nut jobs that he is a socialist? It's fucking insane. Just fucking insane.

DriftingByTheStorm

This is what the Supreme Court SHOULD have said:

It is the high duty and function of this court in cases regularly brought to its bar to decline to recognize or enforce seeming laws of Congress, dealing with subjects not entrusted to Congress but left or committed by the supreme law of the land to the control of the States. We can not avoid the duty even though it require us to refuse to give effect to legislation designed to promote the highest good. The good sought in unconstitutional legislation is an insidious feature because it leads citizens and legislators of good purpose to promote it without thought of the serious breach it will make in the ark of our covenant or the harm which will come from breaking down recognized standards. In the maintenance of local self government, on the one hand, and the national power, on the other, our country has been able to endure and prosper for near a century and a half. [...]
Out of a proper respect for the acts of a coordinate branch of the Government, this court has gone far to sustain taxing acts as such, even though there has been ground for suspecting from the weight of the tax it was intended to destroy its subject. But, in the act before us, the presumption of validity cannot prevail, because the proof of the contrary is found on the very face of its provisions. Grant the validity of this law, and all that Congress would need to do, hereafter, in seeking to take over to its control any one of the great number of subjects of public interest, jurisdiction of which the States have never parted with, and which are reserved to them by the Tenth Amendment, would be to enact a detailed measure of complete regulation of the subject and enforce it by a so-called tax upon departures from it. To give such magic to the word "tax" would be to break down all constitutional limitation of the powers of Congress and completely wipe out the sovereignty of the States.

Chief Justice William Howard Taft
Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Company , 259 U.S. 20, 42 S.Ct. 449 (1922)
[Supreme Court strikes down Child Labor Tax as unconstitutional]

DriftingByTheStorm

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

John Roberts should be impeached. Is that even possible?

YES >>>>> ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

US Constitution
Article III, Section 1:

shall hold their offices during good behaviour

YOU tell me what you think that means, and if you think failure to uphold your oath of office and the constitution equates to "bad behavior".

“… the important constitutional check which the power of instituting impeachments in … [the House] … and of determining … them in the … [Senate] … give to … [Congress] … upon the members of the judicial department. This is alone a complete security. There never can be danger that the judges, by a series of deliberate usurpations on the authority of the legislature, would hazard the united resentment of the body intrusted with it, while this body was possessed of the means of punishing their presumption, by degrading them from their stations…”

-Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper #81

kenny olav

Groups that support the Affordable Care Act:

American Medical Association
National Physicians Alliance
American Academy of Pediatrics
Association of American Medical Colleges
American Cancer Society
National Organization for Rare Diseases
American Heart Association
Consumer Reports
March of Dimes

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Health/medical-or ... _zaWRHlOGs

youngster

Eliot Rosewater wrote:

John Roberts should be impeached. Is that even possible? What a horrible decision that we will all certainly pay for.

Health care reform is much needed. But this, I believe, will only make it worse than it already is.

Obama is a wolf in sheep's clothing. How in God's name did he convince ANYONE, even these right-wing nut jobs that he is a socialist? It's fucking insane. Just fucking insane.

So since Obama voted against Bush's decision to elect John Roberts to the Supreme Court, do you agree with something Obama did? Just asking.