| Author | Message | ||
     Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6090 Registered: 06-2009  |
Any comments so far regarding the Supreme Court hearing the Health Care case? It seems to be that Kennedy is the deciding judge here and from what I've read, he seems very skeptical of the mandage to buy insurance. However, it might be just that he's trying to people to state with what he thinks, so it's hard to tell. I think it's going to be 5-4 to strike down the mandate. Dunno about other parts. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1928 Registered: 10-2010 |
I think they are going to cause some ripples in the healthcare field when they announce the individual mandate severable and force regulation (without the invidiual mandate) on the health insurance companies. I think it might actually be a win for the rest of us* *I should note every time it looks like the average American is going to win we lose. | ||
| 22man Message Board Member Username: 22man Post Number: 481 Registered: 10-2011 |
I heard that even liberals are saying the solicitor general lost badly today. Apparently he said that he wasn't prepared to answer some questions about the mandate. He got laughed at. The mandate is unconstitutional and should fall. I heard some clips of Scalia that were interesting. Questions arose like....what's to stop the federal government from mandating that everyone buy a burial plot, or cell phone.... I had a flashback to something Obama said,,,,don't remember when or exact words,,,,,but something like "the Constitution tells the government what it can't do but not what it Can do"; he was complaining about wanting to update our Constitution. Sickening IMO. | ||
| 22man Message Board Member Username: 22man Post Number: 482 Registered: 10-2011 |
If you want a laugh,,,,,watch this video of Obama debating Obama about Obamacare: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/barack-vs-barack-group-uses-presidents-words-against-him-in-viral-obamacare-video/ | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6095 Registered: 06-2009 |
I haven't heard some of that, 22man. Thanks for the update. I can't read the transcript or listen to the audio until work is over.  Yah, pretty ironic view of the constitution our President has, huh? Sounds like the kids who burned down their house while their parents were away and when they got back, they said, "But, you didn't say we couldn't burn down the house!" President Obama is now burning down the house and we're gonna call him on it. | ||
| 22man Message Board Member Username: 22man Post Number: 483 Registered: 10-2011 |
The federal government Forcing Americans to buy something under threat of punishment or monetary penalty/tax is such an unprecedented concept to any American that knows The US Constitution and history, I'm Vexed that this might even be a close (5-4) vote,,,,,,but then with kagan, sotomayer, ext..it highlights why we don't want a Dem in the prez office....Judicial appointments and elections have consequences. Some of the audio I heard on talk radio was hopeful that a majority of supreme justices understand what's at stake here with a fed government overstepping it's authority. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6097 Registered: 06-2009 |
Well let's hope so. Wouldn't it be interesting to see a 9-0 ruling? LOL. | ||
| 22man Message Board Member Username: 22man Post Number: 484 Registered: 10-2011 |
9-0 Only if they announce their decision on April 1, 2012 ;) I think we won't hear the ruling until this summer or early fall. An unconstitutional forced mandate would be a very difficult pill to swallow for 1776-minded citizens. | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 2817 Registered: 12-2010 |
You really are a bit of dreamer, aren't you Dar? (yes, I know the LOL means it was a joke) BEST to hope for is a 5/4 | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1931 Registered: 10-2010 |
The Supreme court ends its role in American politics if it decides that this is Constitutional. All the influence each invidual justice gets to wield and all their personal power goes away if there are no limits. There is hope that a large majority call this what it is to keep their institution (and their jobs) pertinent. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6099 Registered: 06-2009 |
We writers are dreamers!  A federal strike down of the mandate would be a boon for Romney, because they have been arguing today that states have a right to force this sort of mandate, but the federal government does not--which is what Romney has been saying (although I'm not sure that I agree with states doing that either). But, this would effectively strip Santorum of his biggest argument against Romney. This does have HUGE ramifications if the government can tell us we MUST purchase and eat broccoli. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6101 Registered: 06-2009 |
Harry Reid says it will be good for Obama if the Supreme Court strikes down the Health Care Law: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/03/27/reid-suggests-obama-could-weather-obamacare-ruling-either-way Sounds like the Demoncrats are preparing for damage control. | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2092 Registered: 10-2009 |
The Dems. will turn it into a victory for them regardless of the outcome. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6116 Registered: 06-2009 |
I find the subject titles for this morning's hearing on the health care law quite interesing. from MSNBC: Court signals entire health care law might need to be struck down http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10901255-court-signals-entire-health-care-law-might-need-to-be-struck-down CNN: Courts may let most of health care law stand http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/28/politics/scotus-health-care/index.html?hpt=hp_t1 FoxNews: Justices struggle over whether ObamaCare should stand if mandate struck down http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/28/justices-struggle-over-whether-obamacare-should-stand-if-mandate-struck-down/#ixzz1qR7Rdn8P MSNBC says that the whole health care law may be struck down, CNN says it might not be, and FoxNews's title is neutral, saying it might might not be. So I wonder which of these has the slogan "Fair and Balanced" ? LOL. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6120 Registered: 06-2009 |
The LA Times says: Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1946 Registered: 10-2010 |
Don't read too much into the questions asked by the justices. They will ask questions like they are going to totally destroy one side of the argument and then turn and do the same thing to the other side. There goal is not to build strong arguments but to identify them through trial by fire. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6123 Registered: 06-2009 |
Very good point, Lohman. But the mere fact that today's discussion is about what to do if the Supreme Court strikes down the mandate is very telling. Do you think they'd waste a whole day on it if they were not seriously planning to do such? Sure, OK, maybe they just want to cover all of their bases IN CASE they plan to do that. But the questions and comments are more revealing than the street walkers we have downtown (or so I've heard ). | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1950 Registered: 10-2010 |
Do I think part of the federal government may waste an entire day? Yes, yes I do. | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 2697 Registered: 02-2009  |
Lohman is correct. the supreme court typically does just that. they often pursue multiple "what if" avenues of inquiry that may or may not ultimately factor into their legal research, deliberations and final decision. They also try to force the lawyers who are presenting their arguments on both sides of an issue to flesh them out to their logical conclusions. In my legal experiences, which never involved the supreme court, i never was sure a judge would make a particular judgement or decision until they made it. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6124 Registered: 06-2009 |
LOL. When they hear so few cases, when there are so many, so waste ANY time is utterly stupid. So, this is on par for the government? (or maybe a bogey...) | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6130 Registered: 06-2009 |
Justice Scalia invokes the 8th Amendment ("Cruel and Unusual Punishment") when suggesting that the Supreme Court do a line-by-line strike down of the health care law. Funny. http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/ | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6134 Registered: 06-2009 |
Curious, isn't it, how the liberal news stations are spending ALL OF THEIR TIME on Zimmerman tonight, while Fox news is talking about Obamacare. I guess the liberal media has had enough of the crash and burn of Obamacare and wants to fill up their on-screen time with something else (anything else?) as the arguments close on one of the most important Supreme Court cases of all time. Oh, right, Zimmerman/Martin was a month ago. Surely it's more important. Got it. My bad. | ||
| Pogo Message Board Member Username: Pogo Post Number: 194 Registered: 11-2011  |
"as the arguments close on one of the most important Supreme Court cases of all time." Oh, really? Maybe, mo'chum, you need to refresh your memory of some of the really important and life altering decisions made, even in your lifetime... taking into account your relative youthfulness. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6137 Registered: 06-2009 |
Those aren't my words. I just copied that sentiment from many of the news stories I read from earlier this week--before the liberals got clued in that Obamacare was going down. The very news stations that reported it as being one of the most important cases in a long time are not even covering it tonight as the arguments finish up. That was my point. | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 2829 Registered: 12-2010 |
Pogo: An interesting statement. What do you consider the important decisions in the last 50 years or so? I am not saying you are wrong or anything I am just curious as to what you consider important. Louie | ||
| Pogo Message Board Member Username: Pogo Post Number: 195 Registered: 11-2011 |
Well Louie, I guess we could start off with the most recent one (IMNSHO), with the decision that corporations are people, and should be allowed to make unlimited political contributions. Resulting in The Best Government Money Can Buy. Which isn't really a recent innovation, just WAY more blatant. How is that working, in your opinion? | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 2831 Registered: 12-2010 |
Personally I think it is working great. This was facilitated by the McCain/Feingold bill that in itself should have kept McCain from being nominated. Unfortunately the myth of the "moderate" allowed it to happen. How is that working in your opinion? I don't think there should be ANY restriction on who pays for campaigns, but with TOTAL disclosure as to where the money came from. I think we should let the voters, like we should let jurors decide legal cases, how much stock they put in the ads, knowing who paid for them. Is that the most earth shattering ruling in your mind? Not Roe Vs Wade? Not the ruling that allowed McCain/Feingold to stand even thought it is blantantly unconstitutional via the first amendment? | ||
| Pogo Message Board Member Username: Pogo Post Number: 197 Registered: 11-2011 |
"Most recent one" | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6143 Registered: 06-2009 |
USA Today thinks the Supreme Court will ultimately decide that forcing us to buy health insurance is OK, but not broccoli, cars, or burial insurance--because these are fundamentially different types of products. Interesting how people got out of the arguments what they wanted to get. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-03-27/individual-mandate-supreme-court/53814680/1 | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3084 Registered: 02-2009  |
May be it's just me and may be just what you hear reported, but a lot of the comments coming out from the court itself seem to be far more politically charged than objective. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6146 Registered: 06-2009 |
Yeah, you're right. There's more spin out there than an army of clothes washers and dryers. Some of the most-telling reports have come from CNN and MSNBC, which aren't too positive about the prospects of the health care law surviving. And what have we heard from the White House? EIther not much or talk distancing them from the health care law. I think they are expecting a crushing blow. I'm curious why the White House lawyer wasn't better prepared. Why? Did they think this was going to be easier than it ended up being? Nobody says the counsel for the government did a good job. Could it be that the White House has been planning to blame the downfall of the health care law on the Republicans and then move toward the fall election unencumbered by something the majority of the people do not want? Is our President so smart and so egotistical that he's willing to sabotage his own health care law? (Which was pretty much the only product of Obama's first two years.) Curious. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6149 Registered: 06-2009 |
White House: National Health Care was the Republicans' idea http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/03/28/white-house-defends-health-care-it-was-republican-idea-first | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3087 Registered: 02-2009 |
Wow, I find it amazing that the Dems cannot defend or justify anything they "stand for". As soon as they hit a bump in the road, instead of coming up with a convincing argument to support their actions, they immediately point at the Republicans and say "don't blame us they did it" If they keep this up the Republicans will win a land slide in the election, when they pick up all the extreme left wing vote, as they really are the party of hope and change with a left wing agenda too | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2431 Registered: 09-2010  |
Redhawk ~ I agree this is ridiculous but in fairness lets not forget that the Republicans blame the dems every chance they get for any failure they have as well. This is the problem with our political system today. It is so divided that nothing can get done. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6570 Registered: 09-2009  |
...we have heard from our "Token Centrist"! | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2434 Registered: 09-2010 |
Do you have any evidence to refute that claim Chops? If not then what difference does it make who made it? Facts are facts and you know that is a fact. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6571 Registered: 09-2009 |
....LOL, actually it is just the simple fact that no matter what anybody says you always argue to the other side. You say you want to vote Obama out but you bash the Republicans with the same old, same old that everyone is bad and they all do bad things. The FACT is that OBAMA IS A DEMOCRAT!!! If you want him to go then you should be supporting the opposition not bashing them, which you continually do and then simply say the same thing, that they are all bad.....it really makes no sense until one realizes that you live in california. then it suddenly all makes sense.....LOL! | ||
| Pogo Message Board Member Username: Pogo Post Number: 199 Registered: 11-2011 |
Nice generalization there, Chopprs. Paint all the Dems with the same brush of evil. Vote for ANY bozo as long as they are Republican. That's the way to improve a bad situation... I can't believe that there are actually people who think working together toward a common solution for the good of all is a bad thing. You continue to amaze me. | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2099 Registered: 10-2009 |
I blame the Dems for increasing the national debt 3 times more in less than 4 years over what Bush did in eight years. I blame the Dems for paying unemployment for doing nothing for two years, while they could have actually got a associate degree in that length of time. I blame the Dems for bailing out Chrysler and General motors. I blame the Dems for excusing the unions of Obamacare. I blame the Dems for cutting white color workers benefits and retirement in half while the blue color union people got 100% of theirs. I blame the Dems. for pushing Obamacare through by offering the Congressman and Senators unbelievable perks and benefits for their states. I blame the Dems for lying to woman voters about birth control freebees. I actually have more! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6155 Registered: 06-2009 |
I'm with you, Bud. How about Blaming President Obama and his Demoncrats for wasting his entire first two years of his first and only term on just ONE law that is probably going to be struck down by the US Supreme Court anyway. TWO WHOLE YEARS FOR NOTHING! When they COULD have been doing something useful! | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2435 Registered: 09-2010 |
And I blame Bush for wasting the last two years of his second term on doing ABSOLUTELY Nothing because he was so busy trying to piss off the democrats that he didn't sign a single bill oh wait except for the FIRST BANK AND AUTO BAILOUT. You make valid points Bud those are problems you are right. But the Dems are not the only ones who have extended Unemployment again the Reps are there voting for it to. I don't like Obamacare anymore than you do. And that one I place 100% squarely on the dems that one is entirely their fault and it is likely going to cost them the whitehouse as well as the senate. It doesn't change the fact that they are not the only ones to blame. I know they are the only ones you guys like to blame but the fact is that both parties got us where we are. Chops ~ You are such an idiot that you couldn't reason your way out of a paper bag. I get it you hate the LEFT that doesn't make you right all the time. The fact is that it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to have gotten where we are today without BOTH PARTIES making mistakes while they drive the bus. I will vote Obama out in November because it is the BEST THING FOR THE COUNTRY. Not because I believe everything the left does is evil just as I don't believe everything the right does is evil. To put it simply you are the definition of a simple minded right wing nut. YOU are trapped by dogma. Your brain does not reason outside of your reality period. If you want to point fingers point them where they belong! I bash Republicans because they have EARNED IT! Same way I bash Obama because he has EARNED IT! Get a logical argument and a damn fact to bring to the table or go back to kiddy pool where you belong . | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6572 Registered: 09-2009 |
......aaaaaaand Westerley will chime in right about ......NOW! .....the Republicans are just as bad. They are all bad and they all need to go. We should have NOBODY in the White House or Congress and all politicians should be FIRED, I have it all fingered out.....LOLOL. The problem is that does not work. you HAVE to pick a side. Bouncing back and forth makes you a mamby-pamby puppet for either side to make use of any whay they want. ......and the Liberal Left SUCKS!!!!!!! They are the originators of everything bad that is in our government now! They are the DESIGNERS of double talk, lying and deciept in our government. Sure some guys on the right are turds but many of those guys have already been chucked and the rest are on their way! Gys like Alan West and Marco Rubio are seeing to that. | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2437 Registered: 09-2010 |
Did somebody take down the sign to the kiddy pool? Chops can't seem to find it and as usual has taken to proving his juvenile ignorance here on the forum. If someone could point him towards the swim diaper station and the swim instructors the rest of us adults would sure appreciate it.... | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6573 Registered: 09-2009 |
...nice try, well not really, at a diversion but you know I am right! HAH!!!  | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6158 Registered: 06-2009 |
I think there's plenty blame to go all around Washington--and even enough left over to disperse around the country. Still, I'd rather be here than other places around the world. | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2439 Registered: 09-2010 |
Really you think that was a diversion tactic? Sheesh you really are dumb aren't you? At least Louie brings some intelligence and some facts to the party when he stops by to bash on me... | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6575 Registered: 09-2009 |
 | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3089 Registered: 02-2009 |
I think there's a big difference between what I'd call "general blame" i.e. it's the Democrats/Republicans fault the economy is bad or such like and trying to blame someone else over a specific policy like Helathcare that was just the best thing ever and Obama and the Dems greatest achievement, but now they come under fire instead of being able to justify why the criticism is wrong, they irrationally blame someone else. That to me shows their policies were either ill thought out, they didn't know what was in there and/or they don't really believe in what they are doing themselves. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6577 Registered: 09-2009 |
Seriously, we have to come to a conclusion that the old saying is true. "Those that can do and those that can not teach.......everyone else becomes a politician! These people are IDIOTS!!! All together they are nothing but corrupt and show pretty much a lack of intelligence and only skills in hiding what they are really doing! What has become BLATANTLY obvious is that the Right has become sick and tired of it and has began cleaning house while the Liberal Left purveys these actions and looks for ways to continue and expand it! | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2440 Registered: 09-2010 |
I will agree with you Chops on them being idiots all kidding aside. We rib eachother here because our views differ but I believe that we could certainly do a better job than those in office and that is and has been my point all along. However, I have not seen much "house cleaning" happening on either side of the fence so I am not sure I can agree with that point. If by "house cleaning" you mean that a few of the Tea Party candidates were elected last election I don't really think that counts as the GOP doesn't really back tea partiers. Don't misunderstand that statement I know that some members of the party have and do back them but I mean the establishment itself has not effectively done anything to help them. Mostly because the establishment doesn't want change they want a working poor class and a ruling class. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6578 Registered: 09-2009 |
I don't see any inkling of the smallest amount on the Liberal Left to clean house save one guy, Joe Manchin. I can not think of one other demcrat that has not publically shown support for literally sucking is dry to the bone while the Right wants to end spending and waste and find ways to pay the debt instead of ways to spend more wildly unabashed with no concern whatsoever for the consequences. That is why I get on your case when you flop around like a fish outta water! | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2442 Registered: 09-2010 |
Fair Enough but that type of jumping on folks doesn't work. Rather than try and convince people otherwise you call them names and tell them it's their fault. That won't get you far. The Republicans will likely have the Senate as well as maintaining the house come November then we will see who does any cleaning of the house. They sure weren't worried about it when Bush was Prez and they were spending like drunken sailors. Obama and the left have definitely outspent them BUT that is not the point. What is to say they won't do it again?.. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6579 Registered: 09-2009 |
.....and there we go again! Point proven! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6161 Registered: 06-2009 |
Here's a curious argument I just read: A ruling striking down the mandate or the whole law might cause a backlash among Democrats comparable to that caused by the 2000 Bush v. Gore decision. Chris Jennings, a health care policy advisor to President Bill Clinton, said a ruling striking down the mandate or the law might cause the Democratic base voters to work even harder to elect Democrats on November. Until now, he said, many Democrats “haven’t been engaged in a meaningful way” in making the case for the ACA. Many Democrats, especially on left side of the party, were dissatisfied with the law, preferring a single-payer system or “Medicare for All.” But the court might light a fire under them. (http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/29/10925737-tense-lull-and-legislative-limbo-as-nation-waits-for-high-court-to-rule-on-obamacare) I don't buy it. The health care law cannot be compared to Bush v Gore. It's not that simple. Many of the Demoncrats do not like their health care law, and I think some Republicans do (I'm talking people here, not politicians). I just don't think that's a valid argument. It's not against Demoncrats, but rather against the law they passed. (By the way, wasn't it Gore v. Bush? Gore was trying to invalidate the Bush win, right?) So what do you think? Will there be Demoncratic backlash because they lose their healthcare law? I don't see it. I think it's just another lame justification by the Demoncrats to attempt to explain how losing their precious health care law is good thing for them. | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2443 Registered: 09-2010 |
I could just as easily say and there we go again you have proven my point! See that's the problem chops you like to make cliche statements and sound like a smart guy but in reality you are just another drone with no mind of your own. Ironic that that is the very thing you complain about! | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6582 Registered: 09-2009 |
Wes... PICK A SIDE BUDDY!!!!!!! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6164 Registered: 06-2009 |
I pick... potatoes and gravy... no, no, no, wait, how about coleslaw? On the other hand, you can rarely go wrong with fries. Oh, wait, maybe you were talking to me.... | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2446 Registered: 09-2010 |
LOL when lack of a logical argument develops scream at me. Are you sure your not a liberal? | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6584 Registered: 09-2009 |
Wes, I am really not thinking that Dar is a Liberal. ....if you are talking to me I will assume that is a joke as one thing is for sure. There is no one here that has mistaken my party affiliation! Now you on the other hand......... | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2447 Registered: 09-2010 |
Chops ~ I was talking to you it was a joke you know the things you say you are so good at taking? Strangely neither of Dars posts had showed up on my computer but I see them now on my phone. Once again an apple product delivers where a pc has failed. Dar ~ I don't thInk that is the case. I think the left is positioning to run damage control when the supreme court shoots down their bullshit law. Same reason they have been pointing their fingers at the Reps for weeks now and trying to make it sound like this mandate was their (the rights) idea when we all know that's bs. Just political positioning that is all they do anymore you know. Both parties are either running for office or positioning for the next election. | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2448 Registered: 09-2010 |
Oh btw pass the potatoes..... | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6586 Registered: 09-2009 |
........soooooo......iPhones don't like Dar?????? | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2449 Registered: 09-2010 |
Actually his posts appeared on my iPhone and not on the pc so maybe pc's don't like Dar? I dunno it was just weird lol | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6171 Registered: 06-2009 |
West, it's easy to see that the current batch of Demoncrats are historical revisionists. Whatever floats their boat, I guess... speaking of which, pass the gravy! Let's see, those above posts were posted on my iPad--still an Apple product. Right now I'm on my iMac--yet another Apple. Hmm, now I'm craving a sugar-and-cinnamon baked apple. Doesn't that sound good? (No, not a cooked computer--that sounds bad.) Geesh, I think I've been up too long. Today was NOT a particularly good day: lots of pain, nausea, and heartburn. On the good side, I have gall bladder surgery schedule for April 6. Wait, is that a good side? I'm not so sure.... | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2104 Registered: 10-2009 |
Oh yah, I forgot. I also blame the Dems. for not passing a budget in over 1000 days. The "Democrat majority in the Senate has failed to submit [a] budget in the past 1,000 days." | ||
| Tranquilo Message Board Member Username: Tranquilo Post Number: 1095 Registered: 06-2009 |
The Supreme Court votes today on whether bho's socialist "healthcare" bill is Constitutional or not. The leftist media and politicians are in panic mode thinking (with good reason) that the bill will be struck down. We will know the decision - probably in June. Why did the bho regime allow it to come before the Court at this time instead of after November? Before the hearings started this week I was reading articles from liberal commentators that one or more of the four or five conservative justices were going to vote in favor of the bill. Now these same libs seem to be in mourning. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6177 Registered: 06-2009 |
Bud, I think you're wrong on that last one. We all know it's the Republicans fault that the Demoncrats didn't pass a budget for over 3 years. It was ESPECIALLY the Republicans fault when the Demoncrats had a super majority in the Senate and a significant majority in the house. Bad, bad Republicans. Slap slap, slap. Sheesh, how many times do the Demoncrats have to keep telling us these things before we FINALLY get it. Man, what are we, thick skulled, or what? BTW, I apologize for being a Republican and preventing the Demoncrats from passing a budget. My bad. Your turn! | ||
| Bleak_widow Message Board Member Username: Bleak_widow Post Number: 437 Registered: 11-2010  |
Pick a side! Both sides are liars owned by special interests and both are quite willing to sell the public down the river for a little money and power. Now pick which gang of crooks you want to bet your children's freedom on! No fair not liking any of them, these crooks are all we've got! | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6599 Registered: 09-2009 |
Well that sure makes a lot of sense since you have no clue which side you are on! | ||
| Therevjay Message Board Member Username: Therevjay Post Number: 503 Registered: 02-2009 |
Like it or not "Bleak widow" is pretty much right. I'll take the "Republicrats" they're not quite as bad as the "Demo-cans". At least they want to interfere in my life less. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6603 Registered: 09-2009 |
.....I missed that particular box on the last election ballot..... | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 2852 Registered: 12-2010 |
Tranquillo: can you elaborate on this a little? "Why did the bho regime allow it to come before the Court at this time instead of after November?" How would the BHO regieme have had any say over when this is heard? He has no control over the Supreme Court. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6605 Registered: 09-2009 |
....although he would like to! | ||
| Doc_stadig Message Board Member Username: Doc_stadig Post Number: 319 Registered: 02-2009  |
I've been following this section with interest. Our focus seems to be that the only solution is to let our Supreme Court make a decision that the entire population will follow like the biblical lamb to the slaughter. This forum has always been supportive of the Second Amendment, however, the best solution may actually lie in the document that led to the Bill Of Rights. The Declaration Of Inedependence, particularly, the part where it says when that government fails to serve those governed that that government needs to BE REMOVED by those that are being agrieved. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6617 Registered: 09-2009 |
NOW THERE ARE SOME TRUE WORDS OF WISDOM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | ||
| Tranquilo Message Board Member Username: Tranquilo Post Number: 1096 Registered: 06-2009 |
Louie, I read some time ago that the bho regime could have delayed the Supreme Court from hearing this case by going through more lower court appeals. What I don't understand is why they were so confident about bypassing these lower courts - particularly before the Nov. elections. It worries me some because, although the hearings seemed to favor declaring the bill unconstitutional, you never know for sure how a court is going to rule until a final decision is announced. | ||
| Louiethelump Message Board Member Username: Louiethelump Post Number: 2862 Registered: 12-2010 |
OK. I got you now. I was thinking by direct control. I guess they could have indirectly. I am guessing they were confident that anything King Obama passed would sail right through. Especially with his Friend Kagan on the panel, as she helped create it. | ||
| Tranquilo Message Board Member Username: Tranquilo Post Number: 1097 Registered: 06-2009 |
This is pure speculation, but I wonder if one or more of the conservative justices baited one or more of the liberal ones into thinking they were in favor of the bill and that info was passed on to bho. Whatever way it happens, I hope the bill goes down in flames!! | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2458 Registered: 09-2010 |
"This is pure speculation, but I wonder if one or more of the conservative justices baited one or more of the liberal ones into thinking they were in favor of the bill and that info was passed on to bho" If that is the case it will be a truly laugh out loud moment when said conservative judge votes! I can just imagine the big ol' smile on that judges face as they vote down this pos bill lol! | ||
| Whitehorse Message Board Member Username: Whitehorse Post Number: 982 Registered: 09-2011  |
Voting Obama out of office is the fastest way to get rid of Obama, the Liberal Progressive policies and Obama's string pulling czars. The ending of this version of ObamaCARE must not allow the "Single Payer" version to kick in. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1962 Registered: 10-2010 |
Universal healthcare is a position that sits well with the liberal voters and even some conservative. The individual mandate though does not. If it is struck down BHO can promise to get meaningful legislation passed and argue that it must be done through the progressive tax structure (if he wants to be legal it must IMO). He will use healthcare as an issue to try to garner support in the elections if it is struck down and if it is upheld he will show it as a great victory. Why would he not want it heard? He will spin it in his favor regardless of the outcome. For the record arguing that it must be done through the tax structure is not necessarily supporting it. I am not certain that we agree that universal healtchare must be offered. For the record what they are offering now is well short of universal healthcare. The individual mandate is only one problem with the bill but without it it becomes meaningful regulation of an industry that got out of hand and can be made into a positive bill over time. | ||
| Whitehorse Message Board Member Username: Whitehorse Post Number: 994 Registered: 09-2011 |
Lohman446, isn't it a fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose ObamaCARE because it is unConstitutional ? Isn't your "Universal healthcare is a position that sits well with liberal voters and even some conservative." sentence denying the truth ? America's founders based America upon free enterprise and Capitalism. We have become the best nation the world has ever known under this system. Utopianism/Communism/Progressivism always fails, everyone becomes poor and the poor suffer. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1963 Registered: 10-2010 |
So Mitts individual mandate that ignored the basic principles of capitalism was ok because? | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1964 Registered: 10-2010 |
There is a difference between universal healthcare and the individual mandate. I thought my wording was clear on that | ||
| Whitehorse Message Board Member Username: Whitehorse Post Number: 996 Registered: 09-2011 |
why are you spreading misinformation and half truths ? MassCARE is based upon Capitalism at the state level and it is Constitutional if you do not understand the difference please do not just repeat Obama's lies. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1965 Registered: 10-2010 |
How is an individual mandate based on capitalism? Capitalism requires buyers be free to exit the market | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1966 Registered: 10-2010 |
Constitutional and capitalistic are not the same. U know regurgitating others arguments does not require you to know that | ||
| Whitehorse Message Board Member Username: Whitehorse Post Number: 997 Registered: 09-2011 |
Those that had private insurance based on capitalism in Massachusetts remained the same before and after Massachusetts voted for MassCARE. The 8% that were uninsured now are also insured as well as most of the state's children. MassCARE is Constitutional. ObamaCARE is unConstitutional. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6641 Registered: 09-2009 |
.......and their costs have skyrocketed as ours have already begun to! Because, after all it is simply another project for Liberals to skim money and funnel it to their Lobbyists! | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1967 Registered: 10-2010 |
I asked how the individual mandate was capitalistic not how it was Constitutional. You are trying to avoid the question | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6192 Registered: 06-2009 |
President Obama questions how an "unelected group of people" can overturn a law enacted by congress. "Unelected group of people" huh? I wonder where he's going with this? Two of these "unelected people" were appointed by himself. Does he not approve of the appointing process? Does he not (again) understand how the separate of powers work? http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/02/obama-confident-supreme-court-will-uphold-health-care-law/?intcmp=trending | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1969 Registered: 10-2010 |
Obama is willfully ignorant of any limitation of his power | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6198 Registered: 06-2009 |
Matt Druge (from the DrudgeReport.com) thinks Obama might have gotten tipped off regarding the Supreme Courts initial decision on Friday on the Unaffordable Health Care Act. Before today, Obama been mostly upbeat about his chances with the court and hasn't said too much about it. Today he lashed out at the Surpreme Court, basically saying they better not throw out his precious health care law. "DID HE GET A LEAK? Obama takes a shot at the Supreme Court over healthcare law" | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6677 Registered: 09-2009 |
That is interesting Dar. It could not make me happier than to see his main link to all of the crap that he has planned ripped out from under him. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6199 Registered: 06-2009 |
Wouldn't that be fun to watch? Who's gonna bring the popcorn? | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6678 Registered: 09-2009 |
I hope we would instantly see a major drop in Health Care Insurance prices..... | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6201 Registered: 06-2009 |
Can we do that before Friday? I have gall bladder surgery coming up.... :-/ | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6203 Registered: 06-2009 |
This looks like nothing more than the President attempting to bully the Supreme Court into doing what he wants. He will no doubt accuse the court of wrong doing if they strike down his health care crap. He sounds worried. http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6684 Registered: 09-2009 |
It is historically common for a President to get verbally combative with the Supreme Court so that is nothing new. What is new is that as long as I have lived no bigger piece of legislation stood to be struck down... and it sure looks like it may be! I believe that it is in the mid seventy percentile of Americans that want this to go. SCOTUS knows that and believe me, this has effect on their decision! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6206 Registered: 06-2009 |
It is? Who else did that? | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6207 Registered: 06-2009 |
Obama says health care law is constitutional. Well then, I guess that settles that! I'm glad that issue was taken care of quickly. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6687 Registered: 09-2009 |
Just abut every POTUS I can remember scolded SCOTUS at least once.... | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6208 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hmm. I don't recall that. Maybe so. I'd like to see the video clips of some of those to compare. Might be interesting. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6214 Registered: 06-2009 |
Rush Limbaugh says that somebody tipped off President Obama that the court voted down his healthcare law--possibly Kagan herself. I bet that was Obama's original intention--to plant an "executive branch mole" on the Supreme Court. And she can't save the law she helped craft. Now Obama's lashing out at the Supreme Court makes more sense. http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/04/03/obama_puts_out_bounty_on_supreme_court Love him or hate him, it doesn't matter--this is a pretty good argument against Obama's "staged question" regarding the health care law at the news conference yesterday. So, read it all. It's worth it. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6216 Registered: 06-2009 |
Wow, Obama jabs at the Supreme Court again today. He must know something that the rest of us don't! And he seems MAD about it. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/obama-reminds-supreme-court-on-showing-deference-to-congress/ | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6217 Registered: 06-2009 |
Ever get that feeling that you're having a discussion with yourself? LOL. This is really heating up. An appeals court has apparently ordered Obama's Justic Department to reply on whether the department thinks the Supreme Court has the right to strike down a law from the U.S. Congress that they deem unconstitutional. Take that slap, Mr. President. I wanna see his face when he see this! http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/ | ||
| Whitehorse Message Board Member Username: Whitehorse Post Number: 1021 Registered: 09-2011 |
NAA collector, nice catches thanks It now deserves a new thread. IMO | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2468 Registered: 09-2010 |
Oh they can, they have before and they will again. At the very least they will likely strike the required mandate from the healthcare bill. Ideally they will just strike the whole bill and send it back down to congress where it will immediately die on the floor. I think the bill is just to big for them to deal with it in pieces so I have a feeling they are going to say "if part of it is unconstitutional we want the rest of it gone through before we look at it any further" I have no idea that is just opinion. I also think you might be on to something when you say the Big O got tipped off that they had voted and shot it down. The right still has control of the bench as it stands right now and with that being the case it is an ideal opportunity for them to make a statement. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6218 Registered: 06-2009 |
Agreed on all of that, West. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6708 Registered: 09-2009 |
I saw that on the news. Mr. Big ears has overstepped a bit I would say. Jay carney was doing some SERIOUS backpaddling. He was trying to say that the Prez was only insinuating...blah-blah-blah is about all he said. The fact is that Obama said what he said and it was what looked to me like a THREAT to SCOTUS that if they did not comply they would feel his wrath! My view is that everyone has seen the show and it is now in reruns. Obama is an inexperienced third year politician. His cluelessnes has cost us all enough and just about everyone has had enough and is about to change the channel. The Budget story is a perfect example. Jay Carney would not answer the question why Obama has not called up Harry Ried and told him to have the Senate vote on his budget. The answer is that there is no way it would pass and they do not want the embarrassment. When asked why Harry Ried would not vote on the budget that was passed in the House he would not answer either and the obvious answer is because it just may pass and they do not want the embarrassment. This Clown show has got to go....... | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6222 Registered: 06-2009 |
Agreed on that, too. The thing is, what does the Supreme Court have to fear from an ex-President? LOL. Not much. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1983 Registered: 10-2010 |
Something about all of this makes me nervous. I remind myself of an ancient saying: Don't count your chickens before they hatch | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6718 Registered: 09-2009 |
If Obama gets re-elected SCOTUS will be gone or at least castrated! If he does not, they will be there for a long time after he is gone! I am just waiting for the biggest ego on the Planet, Eric Holder to say that SCOTUS has no right to shoot the law down. I will not be surprised one bit if he does! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6225 Registered: 06-2009 |
I think there's a fairly high chance for some sort of social revolt if Obama gets re-elected. There are just too many people who won't put up with that. I'm just saying.... Re-election obviously implies that enough people WILL put up with him, and I don't think that's going to happen--but this country is SO polarized right now that if Obama thinks he's had resistence during his first term, he should just wait for a possible second. In such, he weill get absolutely NOTHING done, except it be by executive order. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6721 Registered: 09-2009 |
You have use your imagination more Dar....he absolutely WILL NOT follow the rules. He will make up new ones as he goes. If you think he is a big dikhed now you have no idea what he would be like unleashed, and that is exactly what he would be! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6228 Registered: 06-2009 |
I've played board games with people who play like Obama. It's not fun. The rules can change at anytime and you never know when you're gonna get screwed. Yah, I believe that could happen--WILL happen, if our coutnry is stupid enough to give him another chance. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6229 Registered: 06-2009 |
FoxNews has picked up the story about the federal judges ordering the Justic Department to submit a brief on their opinion of whether or not the Supreme Court can strike down a federal law. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/ My prediction? The Justice Department will ignore the order. Really. They think they are not only above petty federal judges, but as part of the executive branch, they also have authority over the judicial branch--just like Obama believes. Then let's see how they deal with a contempt-of-court rules. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6722 Registered: 09-2009 |
FOX had it on yesterday. I was unaware that one branch has more power than another. Please tell me more. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6232 Registered: 06-2009 |
That story was out yesterday? About the judges ordering the Justice Department to submit it's brief to the court? I thot that was today. Hmm...?? Ask Obama about his branch having more power than the others. I personally don't see it that way. I thought they were all equal, but apparently Obama does not believe that. It's certainly not my view. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6724 Registered: 09-2009 |
....yeah, when I was in third Grade they told us the were all equal and that is what makes it work......Eric Holder is a DOUCHE and I think he will not take the time to answer. I wonder if the Judge will hold him in contempt. It is about time that somebody pulled his VIP card! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6237 Registered: 06-2009 |
I hope Obama gets held in comtempt (well, by a court, I mean--we already find him that way). So, let's see, what we got, 7 months to impeach him? We should do that. | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2125 Registered: 10-2009 |
Obama will figure out a way to show the court who's boss. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6239 Registered: 06-2009 |
Hope so. Then we got him! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6241 Registered: 06-2009 |
Okay, Chopprs, this is not the thing that was on Fox yesterday. This was in a federal court in Texas TODAY and gave Eric Holder 48 hours to explain the point of view of the Department of Justice regarding Obama's comments that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to strike down a federal law passed by Congress. The attorney general has 48 hours and the judge said that was noon on Thursday, so that means it was today, presumably around noon. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/ | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6734 Registered: 09-2009 |
Got our wires crossed Dar. You are correct. FOX had Obama saying that the Courts did not have the power. The Circuit Court Judge "was" yesterday"........ | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1985 Registered: 10-2010 |
Guys. Chickens not hatched. The right is swinging into "well if the Supreme Court says it thats that" mode. Ever get the feeling you might be being played? The more we support the court the harder it is to extract ourselves if they rule it is within the power of Congress. If this is found to be Constitutional we must challenge those who support it on moral principles (ie the autonomy principle) and fight to reverse it regardless. Do not put us in a position where we have said that whatever the court says is what is right. | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2473 Registered: 09-2010 |
Lohman ~ Good Point... | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6244 Registered: 06-2009 |
Yeah, Lohman, that's a good point--but in the end, I don't think it matters. Health Care is dead. If the Republicans get control of EITHER the Whitehouse or the house and senate, this version of healthcare will be killed or severely limited. (And when I say "this version" I'm implying that the Republicans DON'T HATE healthcare--just this terrible verson, and the requirement for ALL to participate). But Obama clearly looked angry over the past couple of days. He KNOWS what he said as the definition of "activist judges" isn't accurate--he said that for the "less educated" people on the subject. He's going for the voters. He also full well knows, as a Constituion lawyer, that the Supreme Court has authority, and precedent, to do EXACTLY what he was suggesting they "should understand" that they shouldn't do. He knows. He's doing the same thing as when he planted the seeds for "The War on Women." He ain't stupid. What he DID DO, however (in my opinion), is undestimate the response he would get from doing this. I think he screwed himself. So, it's my opinion that either this healthcare thing is BAD for him now (or when the court issues thier ruling) or this fall, when people still see it as a threat and want Romney to get rid of it. He keeps clinging to it, yet trying to distance himself from it, and ends up looking like a child attached to a toy that a parent is trying to ween hin off. And, it's making him look stupid. 65% - 75% of the people don't want it. And the remaining 25% - 35% are probably those who benefit from it the most. So, it shall be interesting to watch, for sure. | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2127 Registered: 10-2009 |
What concerns me is what Obama will do if the Supreme Court decision does not go his way. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6247 Registered: 06-2009 |
That COULD be interesting, Bud. It might push him over the top. But, that could be good for Republicans, if he doesn't handle himself well. Romney has had a great couple of weeks. Obama has had a TERRIBLE couple of weeks. Romney is looking more capable and Presidential, while Obama is looking like a spoiled child who's charge of a secret club that's becoming exposed to those who don't belong to the club. We have a LONG time before November, so many things could change, but if Obama keeps making massive gaffes that dwarf anything Romney has done, Obama's reaction to losing his health care law might not matter in the end for the country--it could seal his fate as a one-time President. In the meantime, however--and I think this is your point--he still has massive power as President of the United states. He can still do much harm. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6737 Registered: 09-2009 |
I agree that Obama is a very intelligent man. What perplexes me is that if he is that smart....WHY IS HE A LIB?!?!?!? | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6252 Registered: 06-2009 |
Intelligence and wisdom do not always go hand in hand. So, aparently Eric Holder WILL respond to the federal appeals court by filing a brief, as demanded by the court, that says that the courts DO have the authority to strike down federal laws. This is a back-peddling from Obama's statements over the past two days--but what choice does Holder have? His other options are to say that Obama beleives he has more authority than the courts (which he probably does believe, but Holder can't say that) or Holder risks a contempt of court charge. So, holder is doing his dog-and-pony show for the President before the court. I don't think this changes anybody's position, but it does tone done the rhetoriic--and nixes Obama's path of riling up the country against the court, at least for now. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/04/justice-department-under-deadline-to-answer-court-over-obamas-health-law/ | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2478 Registered: 09-2010 |
It is hard to rile the voters against the SCOTUS. The Supreme Court is there for a reason and most (note I say most not all) of the voters on both sides of the fence know and understand this. Holder's hands are tied and he knows it. He can stall but he can't get away from this. It will bite him in the ass... | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 2755 Registered: 02-2009 |
Westerly you are too young to remember when Earl Warren was the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court from 1953-1969 and became one of the most hated men in America. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6253 Registered: 06-2009 |
Westerly, that is, I guess, the point of being "unelected," which is what Obama was pointing out. The justices shouldn't need to fear the people. But I think it was less about getting the people mad at the Supreme Court and MUCH MORE about getting the people's support. The idea is to hate the other guy to garnish support for yourself. Obama is playing the "Oh, poor me, look what they are doing to ME!" And, in all honestly, I still think part of it was an attempt to bully the Supreme Court. "Don't make me angry and don't get in my way," he said. He's trying to tell them to "stay in their place," just like he did when he attempted to humiliate them sitting right in front of him during last year's State of the Union address. But, unlike the President, they already have their "flexibility" while serving life terms as justices. They don't fear being voted out so they will not fear doing the job they were appointed to do (and two of them by Obama himself). That was before my time, Joe. Why did people hate Justic Warren? | ||
| Westerly1965 Message Board Member Username: Westerly1965 Post Number: 2480 Registered: 09-2010 |
Heyjoe ~ Fair enough that was definitely at the the beginning of my time and certainly before I cared to follow politics lol. Thank you for pointing it out though. I just learned a bunch of cool stuff! | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 2757 Registered: 02-2009 |
i just wrote a long response and lost it. Earl Warren was the justice who the term activist judge was coined for. He was appointed chief justice of the supreme court (1953-1969) by Eisenhower, a republican but turned out to be a very liberal judge. His court ruled to ban compulsory religious activities in public school, diminished states rights and expanded federal power, applied most of the bill of right to states, ruled against school segregation and made many rulings against racial discrimination, allowed federal prisoners to sue the prison, expanded the rights of welfare recipients. he was considered by conservatives to be soft on crime at a time when crime had begun to climb. He also ruled for one man one vote in states reapportionment of congressional districts which diminished the power of rural districts and increased the power of suburban and urban districts. At the time of these rulings they were very controversial and caused great social upheaval. They helped Nixon get elected president in 1968 by using a southern strategy for the first time by republicans. There were calls to diminish the power of the supreme court at the time. He was a hated man in many households in america at the time. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6258 Registered: 06-2009 |
Wow, sounds like fun times. So, can a Supreme Court justice be removed? I'm guessing not? (I suppose committing serious crimes could be cause for removal, tho.) Intersting. Thanks, Joe. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1992 Registered: 10-2010 |
They can be impeached I think. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6260 Registered: 06-2009 |
Well, apparently you CAN impeach a Supreme Court justice. In fact, from an article yesterday (see below), some "journalist" wrote that the Supreme Court justices should be impeached if they strike down the national health care law. Ironic, don't you think? Apparently he's blinded by his liberalness. And, he says that CLEARLY the law is constitutional. Wow, he's smarter than Supreme Court justices. We should have just asked him instead. He could have ruled on the matter! http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/04/03/impeach-the-supreme-court-justices-if-they-overturn-health-care-law.html What would all of these people think if conservatives talked about Roe v. Wade as they are about the health care law? | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6263 Registered: 06-2009 |
Check out the enlarged text section from the above link, which is this: "A decision striking down the health care law would be a statement that the only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it." Um, yah. That's how I see it. He's finally understanding capitalism and the Republican point of view. He apparently finds this point of view shocking. The only people who can have a nice car are those who can afford it. Buying a house, a big screen TV, season tickets to their favorite professional sports team, etc. So, because it's about their bodies, and not a tangible object they can buy, the rules change? I guess then he wants to provide free health care to the masses of Africa, who certainly cannot afford it, right? They are entitled to it, right? So let's give it to them. So, is health care different from other services? Are people entitled to education, legal counsel, marriage counselling, job training, etc., just because they are alive? "ENTITLED" was his word he used, not mine. Intersting, huh? For the Demoncrats, it's all about entitlements. If somebody else has it because they worked for it, all others should have it, too. So, apparently the health care law MUST be constitutional, is because if it's not, everybody isn't entitled to free stuff. What an injustice! I guess he's not concerned about the law, but rather about his view of "what's right." | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1997 Registered: 10-2010 |
I'm not certain how he thinks the people who cannot afford it now are going to get it with the current healthcare bill and this is where I question how it is Constitutional. What difference does the individual mandate make? It requires you to buy it? Anyone who understands Adam Smith's concept of a perfectly competetive marketplace regulating its own costs (making things affordable) understands that it requires the buyer and seller both be free to exit the marketplace. An individual mandate takes this away and destroys the concept of the market regulating itself in regards to cost. Noone has been able to show me yet where a government mandate requiring individuals to purchase things from a private company has ever lowered costs. I'm not sure how this bill provides health coverage to those who cannot afford it. The only way to do that and make an argument is to fund it through the current progressive tax structure (which we could). This is far different than an individual mandate though. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6264 Registered: 06-2009 |
And, if people are required to buy a product from a private company, why is that company not going to raise it's prices for extra profit? Why not? The customer can't choose to walk way. Who sets the price? The government? If so, how is that NOT price fixing? There's just so much of this that doesn't work. Oh, and here's some more news. Apparently Nancy Pelosi wasn't included in the "tip off" that Obama got. She thinks the Abominable Health Care Law will be upheld by a 6-3 majority: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/04/pelosis-specific-supreme-court-health-care-prediction/ I think she must also have cancer, because clearly she is smoking marajuana. | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 2765 Registered: 02-2009 |
haha | ||
| Heyjoe Message Board Member Username: Heyjoe Post Number: 2766 Registered: 02-2009 |
having to buy automobile insurance sure hasnt lowered those rates. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6267 Registered: 06-2009 |
Because of competition with car insurance, supposed rates are kept somewhat lower. Presumably, health care insurance would work the same way. Presumably. Who knows, tho, once the federal government is given authority to regulate it? Apparently, the insurance companies would have to send a portion of the premiums to the federal government to pay for people who couldn't afford it. BTW, car insurance is regulated by the states. Federal car insurance would be unconstituional. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1998 Registered: 10-2010 |
Maybe federal car insurance would be unconstitutional. The difference between car and health insurance and car insurance is they are proposing I be required to have health insurance as a condition of being alive - a pretty inalienable right. Car insurance is only needed as a condition of operating a motor vehicle - this is not a given right. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6268 Registered: 06-2009 |
Good point. Even so, having federal car insurance would be creating an interstate market and then regulating that market. Those who don't drive wouldn't be required to purchase it, but that's not the whole issue in play here, as noted by the justice comments from last week. Maybe federal car insurance isn't AS unconstitutional, but I still contend that it is. | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 1999 Registered: 10-2010 |
I don't know. I could make a pretty good argument that requiring vehicles operated on the interstate highway system being regulated under federal laws under the interstate commerce clause would be within the confines of said clause and constitutional. It is already quasi-regulated on a federal level through federal mandates supported by our tax and grant system which effectively allows the federal government to use carrots they should not posess to get their way in things they should not. Am I glad it is not? Yeh I am because the feds tend to screw things up and the system is working ok as it is. | ||
| 22man Message Board Member Username: 22man Post Number: 525 Registered: 10-2011 |
Huge difference that you pointed out Lohman NOBODY is forced to buy car insurance,,,,, It is a requirement that a driver submits to in order to use public roads. There's probably a lot of city dwellers and some rural farmers that don't have auto insurance, and they are Not fined for it. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6271 Registered: 06-2009 |
Possibly, Lohman. We do have a system of interstate highways. I could see the arguments for it. I would argue AGAINST them, tho. LOL. | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2128 Registered: 10-2009 |
My daughter in law was in an accident in Mich. last month. The lady that hit her didn't have insurance. I sold car ins for 22 years. People would buy it just to get the plates, then drop it for the rest of the year. If they were in an accident with no insurance, they were put in high risk when they bought their next policy. Sure they were arrested, and sometimes sued, but if they didn't have a pot to piss in not much happened. Oh, this happened in Mich. which is no fault insurance state. Soooo, your paying for not just your driving record, but also the other guy's record. In obamacare, you will be paying not only for your health record, but also the other person health AND paying for those who still refuse to buy the all time famous Obamacare. Sure there is a fine if you don't but it, but nothing happens if you don't pay the fine.  | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6276 Registered: 06-2009 |
Fortunately, a number of states now prevent this fraud (dropping insurance after getting plates). In Utah, if you drop your insurance, the state will contact you and ask you why. I've parked cars because they weren't needed and they did this to me. I was glad. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6744 Registered: 09-2009 |
This guy needs a free beer on me! http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=G44NCvNDLfc | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2131 Registered: 10-2009 |
I wonder if he could drink two beers? | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6746 Registered: 09-2009 |
.....I am pretty sure you could! | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6290 Registered: 06-2009 |
I hope this 3-page homework assignment for Eric Holder is made public. I imagine it will be. I want to read what the Obama Administration has to say on the matter when they are not "speaking from the hip." Will it be merely be comments to placate the court for now, or will it have substance and court case law references? It should be interesting. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/05/obamas-supreme-court-comments-become-political-football-as-justice-preps/ | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6291 Registered: 06-2009 |
Apparently Rick Santorum is meeting with "conservative leaders" to discuss how he can beat Romney to go up against Obama. http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/05/santorum-meets-privately-with-conservative-leaders/ Sounds like a stunt to me. Which conservative leaders? Tell us more! What conservative leaders have endorsed him that really matter to this race and can help him beat Romney? I think this is just a news release by his campaign to show that he's not dead and still has a path to the Presidency. As has been said, this is really irrelevant, tho. As such, I don't even know why I'm posting it.... | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6296 Registered: 06-2009 |
Eric Holder hands in his homework: Obama administration heeds judges' health care order I wonder what grade he's going to get...? | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6299 Registered: 06-2009 |
Past law student of Professor Obama says the President should have known better than to make the comments he did on Monday. Even he learned from President Obama in class that what the President was suggesting was ludicrous. Interesting. http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/04/03/my-professor-my-judge-and-the-doctrine-of-judicial-review/ (I'm doing that "talking to myself thing" again. ) | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6307 Registered: 06-2009 |
The writer of the article at the below link said better what I tried to say above, which is basically this: With regards to his comments toward the Surpreme Court, President Obama WAS NOT STUPID, but rather was directing these comments at the voters whom HE THINKS ARE STUPID (and if they believe his comments--which many will--they ARE stupid). Votes from STUPID PEOPLE count just as much as votes from SMART PEOPLE. And Obama knows that. Obama knew EXACTLY what he was saying | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6309 Registered: 06-2009 |
Ah, not only was President Obama trying to confuse the stupid voters on Monday, now his right-hand-man Carny is TELLING the people that they ARE stupid, and that President Obama is smarter than they are, so they can't possibly understand what the President was trying to say. Nicely done. Carny says Stupid People can't understand Law Lawyer Obama. | ||
| Chopprs Message Board Member Username: Chopprs Post Number: 6767 Registered: 09-2009 |
Forest Gump could have understood what Obama said. Watch my left hand while I take your wallet with the right hand is and has been out in the open for a long time and no one is fooled by it any longer. Obama is a very smart man but he has the common sense of a box of hammers. He continues to underestimate the American people. What he does not seem to understand is that even stupid people know someone smart that has explained it and they are now in the light. Obama assumes that he is smarter than everyone. A typical and very arrogant commonplace in the Democratic party....... | ||
| Bud Message Board Member Username: Bud Post Number: 2139 Registered: 10-2009 |
He's trying to bully the Supreme Court by intimidation! He's sharp, and will use it to his advantage which every way it turns out. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6311 Registered: 06-2009 |
And President Obama wonders why people question his Christianity.... | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6769 Registered: 06-2009 |
Well, healthcare is back in the news, after being absent for a short while. Patrick Leahy is now encouraging the court ("begging the court?") to "do the right thing" and keep the healthcare law in tact. So now both the executive branch and the legislative branch have both told the Supreme Court how to do their job. Somehow I think the judicial branch isn't interested in the opinions of the other branches of government on this issue. I'm sure it will be an interesting ruling, but I think it will be of their own doing. | ||
| Naa_collector Message Board Member Username: Naa_collector Post Number: 6940 Registered: 06-2009 |
WOW. MSNBC is setting up an attack against the U. S. Supreme Court if they strike down the health care law. They are basically repeating Obama's comments about the court becoming an activist court, if they choose to strike down the law. And, they are saying that such a ruling by the court would say more about the court itself than it would of Obama. Wow. Just wow. What a lame job of yet again deflecting the blame away from the Anointed One. MSNBC must make President Obama proud. I guess nothing should amaze me any more, but yet things like this continue to do so. http://nbcpolitics.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/06/20/12320128-with-docket-filling-for-the-fall-high-court-looms-over-2012-election?lite | ||
| Lohman446 Message Board Member Username: Lohman446 Post Number: 2304 Registered: 10-2010 |
The Supreme Court is not supposed to consider outside factors or utilitarian arguments. They are supposed to consider if requiring individuals to purchase a produce from a private company is an overreach of federal authority. That there is any question amazes me | ||
| Redhawk4 Message Board Member Username: Redhawk4 Post Number: 3168 Registered: 02-2009 |
It always worries me that we get a lot of 5/4 decisions when it's supposed to be interpreting the facts and logic of the law - it seems there ought to be a better consensus of opinion on more topics. |
