Skip to comments.High court upholds key part of Obama health law
Posted on 06/28/2012 7:29:46 AM PDT by Lazlo in PA
The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
The doomsayers will probably not like those points - but it seems to me that they would rather curse the darkness than light a candle.
Elections are in November.
As disgusted as I was by the decision in Kelo vs New London, that government shall not take private property except for public use was somehow the power to take private property for private use if there were some public benefit to be derived thereby - it DID prompt some legislation preventing such from occurring again.
“According to the Institute for Justice, which represented Susette Kelo, 43 states have since passed laws that place limits and safeguards on eminent domain, giving property owners greater security in their homes.”
As I’m sitting here trying to digest this, shock and outrage giving away to fatigue from getting up way too early...I’m beginning to agree that maybe this will galvanize people and help the “get out the vote” effort to boot Obama.
It’s a huge victory for him, no doubt - but enough Americans are going to be pissed off about this, especially now that’s it’s officially a tax... that maybe this will give Romney some additional momentum.
Who do we vote for in voting against Obama, considering Romney is little different?
Obamacare is unpopular and the only thing that makes ACA ‘constitutional’ is the fact that its a massive tax on all Americans.
Yup, let’s hope Obama runs on it until November.
“I will not vote ever again for the GOP rather I will vote for the most liberal/socialists/leftists etc candidate from now on.
Voting any other way will not matter as it will be a waste of time and a vote.....”
That was tried in 2008 by lots of people, and look where it got us.
Don’t worry. The “right people” will get waivers. They’ll still get health care but will be exempt from the “tax”.
What would Harriet Myers do?
Essentially, did the SC kick this back to Congress?
John Roberts determines that the entire cram down “law” is a TAX which the congress has a right to do, and on that determination alone makes it constitutional?
I think that is key. It is a TAX.
Republicans are saying if the law had been sold as a tax, it would never have passed. That isn’t true. While the Pelosi congress avoided the term “tax”, it would certainly have passed with a Democrat majority anyway.
They didn’t know or care what was in the dang thing, remember?
“It’s for your own good.”
It’s a man-date, bend over and enjoy the screwing the gub’ment’s gonna give us all.
Courtesy of Obama and his bribed Democrats.
Thanks, I have been following the Insider, too.
Thanks, I have been following the Insider, too.
I PRAY you are right....we will see how many people are left in this country that care about it...
Ah Gentlemen,before you start calling for a revolution....I will point out that time and time again we’ve seen the Judiciary with the backing of the media do everything to undermine American democracy.
What happens to Mr.Holder will be critically important if the Judicial system is to be put in its. place.
Maybe not. I think he replaced O'Connor. Therefore, Roberts was not GW Bush's first choice. He was forced to turn to Roberts.
Harriett Miers would have gone along with the conservatives. She was a fairly solid pro-life vote, iirc. One of the arguments against her was that she wasn't very creative, and would have been a follower, not a leader.
What we can say about Roberts is that he is devious. He gets it both ways: gets to say the mandate is not viable under the commerce clause, which is what courts and conservatives were saying. So, he says that if the administration says the funding mechanism is a tax, then, despite the democrat's arguments in Congress, it is a tax.
Does this means we'll have a new line item on our paychecks: FICA, MED, and now Federal Health Care?
Is that what this means?
Also, everyone with any sense knows big business was dying to get out from under health care requirements. Big business also wanted cheap labor in America (Arizona ruling).
Could Roberts simply be a corporate interests vote?
What I find amazing is that Kennedy would have STRUCK THE WHOLE LAW DOWN.
I understand some of Robert’s reasoning based upon reading parts of the opinion. He basically believed it was his role to defer to Congress on this rather than rule against it since he found it reasonable that it was a tax. He said in one part the people are responsible for whom they elect.
I disagree with him completely that the law is a tax, obviously, but let’s not forget this law was uphold on A VERY WEAK, SMALL LINK.
That makes it ripe for Republicans to still claim victory even with this ruling and work to repeal the law.
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.