Good morning! Just got back from mass about an hour ago. I have some random thoughts on the SC ruling, and put them out here for consideration:
1. If the penalty is a tax, then what happens to tax-exempt entities, like the churches?
2. If the penalty is a tax, then how can the president grant waivers?
3. Ran across a liberal colunist this morning who was very concerned about the inability of the government to restrict current Medicaid funds for new requirements. She believed that this negated a big club the feds use when requiring all sorts of things in education, prisons, consumer rights, safety, etc. She read it that they can restrict NEW funds but cannot cut already existing funding. This had her really upset.
4. I think somebody needs to think about the fact that Roberts’ family might have been threatened. I believe he was called to a meeting at the White House last week sometime. He has two children who were adopted from overseas. There is all sorts of opportunity for bureaucratic intimidation with this. I would like to point out that this scenario makes more sense than someone who has long been involved with conservative organizations suddenly becoming interested in cocktail party attendance. It also would explain why this ruling on the surface looks like an Obama win but has hidden minefields for the left.
On my last point, I would like everyone to think about which is more likely: Roberts is a turncoat, or Obama is a thug.
Discuss.
Roberts may be a turncoat (or simply to weak to stand up to physical threat), but we all know for a fact that Obama is a thug.
How old are Roberts’ children now? Anybody know?
I’ve heard the blackmail because of the children theory.
It seems ALMOST unbelievable but not totally for this bunch.
I’ve also heard the epileptic seizure medication theory but this wasn’t a one-minute decision made because of a reaction to medication. It was a long process.