"... Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional... "
As much as I've hated seeing 0bama, the Senate, and the House beat the Constitution like a whipped dog, I hate it even more seeing the Supreme Court treating it this way. Despite 0bama's appointments to the SC and Judge Ginsburg, I have always previously had great respect for the SC.
Now I have very little respect for any of them.
Supreme Court INVALIDATES health care law? Say what?
Temlakos~POTL~PWCM~JLA~☆
2012/06/30 18:24:16
|
|
|||||
|
58 votes
|
|
57% | |||
|
16 votes
|
|
16% | |||
|
13 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
15 votes
|
|
15% | |||
Nick Purpura, the author of the linked article, filed the most comprehensive anti-Obamacare lawsuit that anyone ever filed, in any court (Purpura v Sibelius, 11-7275). In this piece, he of course excoriates John Roberts, as did the conservative dissenters (Kennedy, Scalia, Alito, and Thomas JJ, jointly!), for rewriting the law to save it. (And in the process giving the Congress an unlimited taxing power that sets at naught every protection against the arbitrary deprivation of property without due process of law. The only thing the government cannot arbitrarily do to you is execute you or confine you.)
Have a look at the Purpura case. It lists nineteen separate violations of the Constitution and monumental inconsistencies with existing law.
The big point that Purpura makes in this piece is: John Roberts said that this is a tax. OK. But this tax originated in the Senate. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
So what really happened here? Well: after Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy, the House simply took an unrelated bill, stripped it of its contents and short title, put in the Senate language (even the "In the Senate of the United States" heading), and then "deemed it passed" in the vote on the House Rule. Classic bait-and-switch.
But Judge Roger Vinson of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida has already said that the bill originated in the Senate. What about that?
That finding stands and is not controverted. So Mr. Purpura says, and I agree with him, that his case deserves a reargument. And more broadly speaking, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional.
Have a look at the Purpura case. It lists nineteen separate violations of the Constitution and monumental inconsistencies with existing law.
The big point that Purpura makes in this piece is: John Roberts said that this is a tax. OK. But this tax originated in the Senate. Article I, Section 7, Clause 1 of the Constitution reads:
All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.
So what really happened here? Well: after Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy, the House simply took an unrelated bill, stripped it of its contents and short title, put in the Senate language (even the "In the Senate of the United States" heading), and then "deemed it passed" in the vote on the House Rule. Classic bait-and-switch.
But Judge Roger Vinson of the US District Court for the Northern District of Florida has already said that the bill originated in the Senate. What about that?
That finding stands and is not controverted. So Mr. Purpura says, and I agree with him, that his case deserves a reargument. And more broadly speaking, Mr. Chief Justice Roberts just invalidated ObamaCare when he sought to save it. Otherwise he just declared the Constitution unconstitutional.
Read More: http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/06/30...
Don't feed the trolls.
The HealthCare Industry should now institute a New Question on the Patient Information Forms. That question would read like this .... ' Are you a Government Employee or do you have family member who works for the Government ? '
At that juncture, anyone who works in the HealthCare Industry should notify the patient who is a government employee or related to a government employee that they will not be treated at this facility because the Government screwed me and my employer, so I'm simply returning the favor ...
........now just lay down + die or would you really like someone who you screwed to operate on you ?.
Also, people can look at and rationalize what Roberts did all they want, but regardless Roberts should have judged the law without allowing political agendas, threats, or whatever caused him to vote that way to influence the ruling. These political games just do not belong in court.
Some 20 taxes are involved in 0bamacare. Help me here. Is it true that you may not challenge the constitutionality of a tax until it has been paid?
How does the compromise process that went on behind closed doors affect this case?
A "bill" can originate in either house. If passed it goes to the other house. Who often will want to tweak it. Then the Senate and House of Representives work out some compromise bill. If that happens, it goes to the president. If he agrees, he signs the bill at which time it becomes law. If he vetos the bill it goes back to Congress who if they have a super majority in both houses can override the veto and the bill can become law that way.
After a bill becomes law, anyone can go to federal court and challenge it. Regardless if they win or lose the other side can go to the Appeals Court which can and often does overturn the lower court. That process can again get appealed to the Supreme Court. Unlike other courts they can just refuse to hear the case and if they do the Appeals Court's ruling is the final decission.
If the Supreme Court hears the case and declares some or all of the law unconstiitutional Congress can again start the process over writing a new bill which starts the whole process over again provided they change the wording to alter the orignial bill so it means something at least slightly different.
Oh and speaking of Solicitor General....Something I have noticed about the SCOTUS decision on obamacare is that everyone seems to have forgotten that Kagan helped write the damn thing!!! She HAD to Recuse herself by law for conflict of interest....
Yes there were many violations to the Constitution to the law as well as inconsistencies.
Chief Justice Roberts kicked it back into the House for fair play, he knows that the People's will is there since 2010.
Edit: I doubt Roberts tried to save Obamacare.
and just do THE RIGHT THING for the country. Roberts did this time. End of story.
As for the now expected bickering from the right over it was a tax not legal under the commerce clause is nothing but sour grapes. You LOST. Big time, but as always right wingers can never let go proving what crybabies they always are endlessly trying to play politics and screw doing what's right for the country. As always I just laugh at you idiots.
But before you score it as a big victory for Obama, realize that he now "owns" the biggest tax increase in US history. As an added bonus, the tax is directed almost entirely at the middle class. If that won't mobilize the center and right, nothing will.
Analogy: Lets say where you live they enact a law raising the fine for parking in front of a fire hydrant to $1,000. If some dumb ass is then stupid enough to park in front of one you can't pretend you're being "taxed', you were fined for being a mellon head.
We are FORCED to do things for the common good all the time. We are FORCED to pay a fee to get a driver's license. We are FORCED to have car insurance. If we own real estate, even if we have no kids, we are FORCED to pay property tax, most of which goes to support schools.
Right wingers should learn how to argue from reason, they just argue from anger.
Obamacare contains a lot more taxing and spending than just the individual mandate. If you read the law, you would know that. Obie now owns the biggest tax increase in US history. It was always a tax increase, but the Supreme Court decision ended the false pretenses once and for all. Until you prove you have read the bill, I will just laugh at your responses.
Your analogy is pointless -- you fail to understand the difference between someone who actively participates in an illegal act and someone who stays home and does nothing.
The rich will always have health insurance and the poor will get it for free. Therefore, the only people who pay the "penalty" are middle class. Your "mellon heads" are mostly young people who lack the funding to buy health insurance but they will not be eligible for Medicaid. If they are in college, they probably won't get employer-subsidized coverage. Sure, they can be covered under their parents' policies -- if the parents choose to pick up the tab. Let's see how many young people like this arrangement. These are exactly the same people who will deal with the collapse of Social Security. Aren't they being punished enough "for the common good"?
The driver's license and car i...
Obamacare contains a lot more taxing and spending than just the individual mandate. If you read the law, you would know that. Obie now owns the biggest tax increase in US history. It was always a tax increase, but the Supreme Court decision ended the false pretenses once and for all. Until you prove you have read the bill, I will just laugh at your responses.
Your analogy is pointless -- you fail to understand the difference between someone who actively participates in an illegal act and someone who stays home and does nothing.
The rich will always have health insurance and the poor will get it for free. Therefore, the only people who pay the "penalty" are middle class. Your "mellon heads" are mostly young people who lack the funding to buy health insurance but they will not be eligible for Medicaid. If they are in college, they probably won't get employer-subsidized coverage. Sure, they can be covered under their parents' policies -- if the parents choose to pick up the tab. Let's see how many young people like this arrangement. These are exactly the same people who will deal with the collapse of Social Security. Aren't they being punished enough "for the common good"?
The driver's license and car insurance analogies are irrelevant. If you choose to use the public roads, you have safety responsibilities to other drivers (the sole purpose of licensing and mandatory insurance). But nothing stops you from using other transportation and paying nothing.
Taxes are unavoidable in the short run, but repealable in the long run. The November election should be very interesting.