Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Affordable Care Act SCOTUS Decision--Live Thread
SCOTUSblog ^ | June 28, 2012 | SCOTUSblog

Posted on 06/28/2012 4:56:21 AM PDT by John W

Today is the day. SCOTUSblog live at 8:45 AM.

(Excerpt) Read more at scotusblog.wpengine.com ...


TOPICS: Breaking News; Constitution/Conservatism; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; backstabberromney; benedictromney; bho44; bhohealthcare; bhoscotus; deathpanels; doomandgloomers; etchasketch; fumr; mitt4romney; natteringnabobs; natterynaybobs; obama4romney; obamacare; obamaoneanddone; obamawhite; obamneycare; promisethemanything; romney4nytimes; romney4romney; romneyantigop; romneycare; ruling; saynotomitt; verminromney; zerocare
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 841-848 next last
To: hummingbird
“6-3 overall, but he saved the mandate.” Pelosi said it would be 6-3....did someone leak?

I've suspected that for awhile.

561 posted on 06/28/2012 8:21:53 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 535 | View Replies]

To: Windcatcher

Jesuit = Marxist, I think you just made daisy mae’s argument for her.


562 posted on 06/28/2012 8:22:14 AM PDT by OldGoatCPO
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 530 | View Replies]

To: fedupjohn
Since it is now considered a tax

That's where Roberts screwed us. The mandate is not going to be considered or implemented as a tax by the government.

Roberts ruling just said that the government has the power to implement the mandate under it's taxation powers.

563 posted on 06/28/2012 8:22:14 AM PDT by JeffAtlanta
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 533 | View Replies]

To: RummyChick

Right, the whole maj decision is a cheat to avoid addressing the Severability Clause. It smacks of Warren/Burger-era paralogisms...


564 posted on 06/28/2012 8:22:31 AM PDT by StAnDeliver (=)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 419 | View Replies]

To: Proudcongal

IMHO, if the HC decision comes down on June 28th and goes against the Constitution, it will have been done by the jihadis.

1389 ? Battle of Kosovo takes place between Serbian and Ottoman army.

1519 ? Charles V is elected Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_28

1914 - Archduke Francis Ferdinand and the Mrs. Archduke were assassinated by Serb nationalist in (what is now known as) Sarajevo, Bosnia. WW I begins.

1919 - The Treaty of Versailles was signed ending World War I exactly five years after it began. The treaty also established the League of Nations.

1942 - German troops launched an offensive to seize Soviet oil fields in the Caucasus and the city of Stalingrad.

1949 - The last U.S. combat troops were called home from Korea, leaving only 500 advisers.

1950 - North Korean forces captured Seoul, South Korea.

1954 - French troops began to pull out of Vietnam?s Tonkin Province.

1960 - In Cuba, Fidel Castro confiscated American-owned oil refineries without compensation.

1964 - Malcolm X founded the Organization for Afro American Unity to seek independence for blacks in the Western Hemisphere.

http://www.on-this-day.com/onthisday/thedays/alldays/jun28.htm

The Night of the Long Knives started on June 29th...as in the day following.

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/night_of_the_long


565 posted on 06/28/2012 8:22:37 AM PDT by combat_boots (The Lion of Judah cometh. Hallelujah. Gloria Patri, Filio et Spiritui Sancto.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 554 | View Replies]

To: Norm Lenhart
When people get over the innitial shock and clear heads start thinking, we may find we have just been handed the election AND the end of Obamacare/Dem rule on a golden platter. A $2000 TAX FOR EVERY BLACK/HISPANIC/ET alll is not going to stand people!!!!!

And that is the way Romney must play it...a $2,000 tax enforce by a slew of new IRS agents is coming. 'Cause it's true. And if states can refuse to expand Medicaid to cover those who can't afford it, then won't the penalty still apply? Hello, bankruptcy.
566 posted on 06/28/2012 8:23:19 AM PDT by LostInBayport (When there are more people riding in the cart than there are pulling it, the cart stops moving...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 483 | View Replies]

To: pgyanke

Yep, you’re right. Thanks for the correction. I guess we should all be brushing up on our Arabic.


567 posted on 06/28/2012 8:23:30 AM PDT by reegs
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 495 | View Replies]

To: Leep

your= you’re

2+2+5 was suppose to be 2+2=5.


568 posted on 06/28/2012 8:23:35 AM PDT by Leep (Enemy of the StatistI)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 558 | View Replies]

To: over3Owithabrain

Does anyone here know exactly how much of a tax must be paid by those who refuse to buy health insurance?


569 posted on 06/28/2012 8:23:54 AM PDT by scram2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 549 | View Replies]

To: Stat Man
Don’t you see that UNTIL THIS RULING IS REVERSED by a future Supreme Court, it means that any conservative government simply represents a government that’s more benevolent, and the same unlimited power will still remain for the next leftist that’s elected?

We're not that helpless. Simply start a movement for a constitutional amendment that will outlaw this kind of broad taxing power. I find it hard to believe that we can't get enough of the public behind an anti-tax amendment to make it viable. It's time to turn lemons into lemonade and turn this crisis into an opportunity. This overreach of taxing authority could be the argument we need to get a good anti-tax amendment passed.

All 27 Amendments have been ratified after two-thirds of the House and Senate approve of the proposal and send it to the states for a vote. Then, three-fourths of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment.

570 posted on 06/28/2012 8:24:24 AM PDT by JediJones (From the makers of Romney, Bloomberg/Schwarzenegger 2016. Because the GOP can never go too far left.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 543 | View Replies]

To: Windflier

So how many millions do you think you need to kill?

Think. What happens if we win? What is the plan?

What will you do with the grasshoppers?


571 posted on 06/28/2012 8:24:35 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 560 | View Replies]

To: NCC-1701

Exactly. He’s been threatened - probably with another run on the bank. Like the media, and Bush, and McCain, and Cheney, and Clinton, and Boehner, and Judge Surick, and Judge David Carter, and Judge Michael Malihi, and...

Some of those could have been bribed or threatened by other means (such as Clinton through violence/deaths of Gwatney and Tubbs), but those who truly love this country and have no past to be blackmailed with were probably subjected to the threat of the country being destroyed by another run on the bank if they didn’t do whatever Soros demanded.


572 posted on 06/28/2012 8:24:36 AM PDT by butterdezillion
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 445 | View Replies]

To: JeffAtlanta

another thing this tells us is that there’s no way Roberts will ever vote against Roe and Casey. None.

So there’s at most 3 votes against it on the Court at the moment.


573 posted on 06/28/2012 8:25:05 AM PDT by jeltz25
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 476 | View Replies]

To: untwist
He basically sent it back to the House and said, ok. If you want this monstrosity to stand, go back and get it the legal way, via Congress’ unlimited ability to tax.

So are you saying that ObamaCare now has to go back to Congress for approval as a TAX?

574 posted on 06/28/2012 8:25:09 AM PDT by PJ-Comix (You're screwy! You're spaced! You lost the recall race!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: wordsofearnest

That sure is interesting phrasing.

So I’ve been pondering this ruling and I’ve some thoughts.

The biggest thought is my suspicion that this whole thing....this and the Arizona ruling, were intentionally left vague because the Supreme Court did not want to do congress’ work.

Now lookit, I don’t know this. I speculate and I’ve only limited prognostication skills but am at least as good as Dick Morris I assert.

But in both of these cases there were “escape” clauses. In the Arizona case it was...”well sure the local cops can question someone’s citizenship if the person being questioned has been stopped for some other law breaking reason. But please feel free to bring up some actual real cases when this sort of thing goes on and we’ll rule again.”

Said ruling giving Arizona a choice to continue with their law and it damn did expose this admin’s plan to only enforce laws they like.

With this health care mandate....it’s ...”we’re not going to do congress’ job. That mandate thing is a tax and that’s our way of ruling for or against this thing. Everyone knows congress can pass all the taxes it wants. BUT we’re going to disallow the feds to punish states choosing to opt out of this thing. This way we figure congress will HAVE to deal with this thing cause...well, we’re leaving it up in the air. Even the Democrats will have to revisit this thing because what to do if all 50 states opt out?”

That’s how I interpret it all. I have no justification for it, I don’t think it’s right. On the other hand, why the hell shouldn’t congress do its job? They’re going to have to deal with this issue again, they’ll just have to.

Republicans are notorious for kicking stuff to the Supremes....could be the lack of testicles. Remember few of them would take a stand on McCain’s silly Campaign Finance Reform....a law we all prayed for daily and now feel so much better that it’s the law of the land. I know I sleep better every night knowing that my candidate last election spent all his political capital on such a stupid thing while the Communists were taking over.

I summarize....I think this is all an attempt to force congress to do its job. Why the Supremes felt such a thing was needed....I’m not sure why but it’s a good concept...congress doing its job.

The mind boggles.


575 posted on 06/28/2012 8:25:09 AM PDT by Fishtalk (http://patfish.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 388 | View Replies]

To: untwist
He took away the Democrats’ ability to force this through under the illegal use of the Commerce Clause.

And that's the upshot of this matter. The Commerce Clause has been eviscerated by this ruling. Now, the discussion is about a tax... on potentially anyone... in a recession..

IN AN ELECTION YEAR!!


576 posted on 06/28/2012 8:25:29 AM PDT by ScottinVA (Buying Drain-O requires photo I.D... yet voting doesn't???)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]

To: daisy mae for the usa; BlackElk

My comments on today’s events:

http://www.tomhoefling.com/8/post/2012/06/tom-hoefling-to-hell-with-the-supreme-court.html


577 posted on 06/28/2012 8:25:50 AM PDT by EternalVigilance (Liberty. What a concept. TomHoefling.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 500 | View Replies]

To: Leep

“Otherwise, Ibama still has to get congress to fund this monstrosity.”

If I recall correctly, a significant portion of the funding (the new funding, over and above funds in the existing appropriations) will come from the individual mandate “penalties”, and other hidden taxes/penalties contained in the 2,000 pages of ACA. The level of taxation and setting of minimum/maximum penalties will be left up to the Director of HHS.

In other words, unless Congress actually repeals the whole thing it appears to me that Obamacare will have its own funding mechanism built in.

What a mess!


578 posted on 06/28/2012 8:26:04 AM PDT by Let_It_Be_So (Once you see the Truth, you cannot "unsee" it, no matter how hard you may try.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 403 | View Replies]

To: combat_boots
What on earth are you talking about ????

Leni

579 posted on 06/28/2012 8:26:15 AM PDT by MinuteGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 565 | View Replies]

To: untwist
He basically sent it back to the House and said, ok. If you want this monstrosity to stand, go back and get it the legal way, via Congress’ unlimited ability to tax.

They did not say that. The law is not going back to the House to be rewritten as a tax. The Court said that the current law was within Congress' taxing power and so it is Constitutional.
580 posted on 06/28/2012 8:26:19 AM PDT by DaveInDallas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 559 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 541-560561-580581-600 ... 841-848 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson