Freedom died today. Our overlords can now tell us what we have to buy.

Mafioso wrote:

lboru wrote:

i wonder how much stimulus money was used to buy roberts' vote?

The question to be addressed by the Supreme Court is the legality of the Obamacare reform. You wonder why a Justice COURT member may dismiss a claim based on the legality of a matter? It just shows that this member does not use his political opinion to judge, which is a sign of independence. Whether he agree or not with the reform is not the point. And this is sound for a Supreme Court.

that doesn't answer my question. how much was he paid? 4 very sound judges completely disagree with your opinion. Roberts decision goes way beyond obamacare. he has licensed the govt to mandate you spend your entire paycheck on whatever the govt wants you to. entirely unconstitutional.

VAVD wrote:

PistolPierre wrote:

VAVD, the government doesn't force you to buy car insurance because you can choose not to buy a car thus avoiding the cost.

Let's say tomorrow that the government imposes a $10 a can tax on soft drinks in the name of "fighting obesity". Or requires a license, with a hefty fee, to walk on the streets. You can simply choose not to drink Coke or talk a daily walk for exercise, right?

A few minutes and you can think of dozens of examples of the principle you espoused that range from the silly to the entirely possible.

By what philosophical principle does the government, any government, have to dictate your possession and use of an automobile(or anything else) that does not infringe on the rights of others? Similarly, by what right does the government dictate, in any way, what is "good for you?"

There is a little bit of difference on the car thingy because of driving is a privilege of sharing the road (who are government's, hence built by our tax dollars, it's ours, but in the end it's a privilege).

But I can see how it is another Medicare, Social Security scam from the government to collect money. Medicare and SS are in big shit and they know it, but they don't care. Honestly, this is so infuriating, I wish all the scumbags civil servants of DC and the rest of the country were FORCED to given out their privileged medical coverage and be FORCED to live on social security and Obamacare, that's when you would see a change.

Motherfuckers, civil servants including senators need to pack their bags after two years of service. This royalty class who installed themselves in the throne for a lifetime need to be fired. There is so much to be done.

Tattooed_Hoodlum wrote:

Freedom died today. Our overlords can now tell us what we have to buy.

Just wait and see what happens when this crew wins a second term at the helm. Sorry folks, it will happen. Too big of a criminal enterprise to be stopped. The pillaging of America by the progressives. They've been waiting a long time to do this and they have been patient.

Oh well, family has some 50+ acres somewhere and I guess I can just go build a cabin and wait it out. Become the crazy old guy in the woods. Yup, that is sounding better day by day.

I am still puzzled, after reading the opinion, as to why Roberts side stepped the Commerce Clause issue and focused on taxation? If I recall correctly, and I am too lazy to look it up, the main crux of the argument was the Commerce Clause!?

Fuck I am confused! The dissenting Justices all presented valid, concise, and pointed arguments citing law and the Constitution throughout! Kennedy, surprisingly, was very critical, to me at least.

I honestly think that IF this law goes into effect in 14 I think the first person to get hit with the "tax" for not buying insurance may have solid grounds to litigate the case. I still see nothing in the law, or Constitution, that stipulates where the Federal government, let alone local government, can FORCE a citizen to buy something through he government! even the Commerce Clause does not state that.

I think it will start out civil, (I am not well versed in civil litigation), then work it's way through Federal court, getting the varied decisions we saw with BAMCARE, the onto the Supremes. That is if it does not get repealed. Just saw a headline saying Romney raise 1 million in lieu of the Supremes decision.

lboru wrote:

Mafioso wrote:

lboru wrote:

i wonder how much stimulus money was used to buy roberts' vote?

The question to be addressed by the Supreme Court is the legality of the Obamacare reform. You wonder why a Justice COURT member may dismiss a claim based on the legality of a matter? It just shows that this member does not use his political opinion to judge, which is a sign of independence. Whether he agree or not with the reform is not the point. And this is sound for a Supreme Court.

that doesn't answer my question. how much was he paid? 4 very sound judges completely disagree with your opinion. Roberts decision goes way beyond obamacare. he has licensed the govt to mandate you spend your entire paycheck on whatever the govt wants you to. entirely unconstitutional.

You are making a confusion: four judges ruled over the legality of the reform, not its content. Five judges did the same and came to the conclusion that there was no legality issue. In the end, this reform is a political and society choice adopted by your democratic system, which has NOTHING to do with the legality.

You believe the 4 who found a legal issue are sound because they judged in the way you wished. This is not the definition of "sound" for a judge.

I honestly think that IF this law goes into effect in 14 I think the first person to get hit with the "tax" for not buying insurance may have solid grounds to litigate the case.

That's the way I read it also...little confusing on the part of the anti-injunction not applying, yet he states it is a tax, but just not in wording, because it seems like they are just going to be reviewing it again after someone disputes the refund for the 'illegal' tax.

You are making a confusion: four judges ruled over the legality of the reform, not its content

what the hell are you talking about? if the reform is illegal, so is the content of the reform. As for the 5 that supported this judicial activism one should have recused herself. leaving it 4 to 4. the only reason you support roberts decision is because he voted the way you wanted. where does the constitution say the govt can force you to buy a product? now they can mandate you buy a GM car or you will be forced to pay the $20,000.00 car tax. even if obamacare is repealed this mandate is legal according to Roberts.

I have not read the decision yet but essentially the majority of justices have no problem with the FEDERAL government mandating everyone to "eat their broccoli" or they'll face a penalty (tax, whatever) of 1% income. The 9th and 10th Amendments reserve clauses are supposed to give the states the power to act wherever the federal government does not have power to do so--that's why a state can force it's residents to buy car insurance, etc. But to say the Constitution gives the Federal Gov't the power to tell us to buy a certain product is/should be/but now it not ridiculous.

BTW, all the big insurance companies love Obama-Care. Don't think otherwise, they fuckin' love this shit.

usmc4ever wrote:

I am still puzzled, after reading the opinion, as to why Roberts side stepped the Commerce Clause issue and focused on taxation? If I recall correctly, and I am too lazy to look it up, the main crux of the argument was the Commerce Clause!?

Fuck I am confused! The dissenting Justices all presented valid, concise, and pointed arguments citing law and the Constitution throughout! Kennedy, surprisingly, was very critical, to me at least.

I honestly think that IF this law goes into effect in 14 I think the first person to get hit with the "tax" for not buying insurance may have solid grounds to litigate the case. I still see nothing in the law, or Constitution, that stipulates where the Federal government, let alone local government, can FORCE a citizen to buy something through he government! even the Commerce Clause does not state that.

I think it will start out civil, (I am not well versed in civil litigation), then work it's way through Federal court, getting the varied decisions we saw with BAMCARE, the onto the Supremes. That is if it does not get repealed. Just saw a headline saying Romney raise 1 million in lieu of the Supremes decision.

I'm pretty sure Judge Judas got a nice wad of stimulus money to make those silly objections go away.

Buy weapons and ammunition. FUCK Barry the dope smoking community organizer, FUCK the Dhimmicrats, and FUCK Roberts the TRAITOR. They should all be deported to surrendering islamic cock loving france!

FUCK france!

While Roberts ultimately voted to uphold the Act, he did so on a ground that, for Obama, plays terribly: that it's a tax.

Obama is boxed in. What is he to do? He can't criticize the Court for judicial activism, as it upheld the law (putting aside the way the Court limited the Medicaid provisions, which are not particularly salient to voters). The decision undercuts a potential theme of his campaign -- that a conservative Court is out of control. And yet Obama can't trumpet the decision either, since it states that Democrats overreached in trying to justify the law under the Commerce Clause. Worse yet, it calls the mandate something that Democrats didn't want it to be: a tax.

Conversely, the decision may be the optimal result for Mitt Romney. If the Court had struck down the mandate, it would have taken off the table an issue that Republican base voters care tremendously about. But in upholding the law, the Court didn't just leave that issue on the table; it gave Romney tremendous ammunition he can use to criticize Obama as a tax raiser.

There was much contrarian wisdom floating around prior to the decision about how a defeat might be helpful to Obama, as he could run against the Court. We'll never know if Obama could have potentially won by losing the health care case. But the coming months will tell whether he might have lost by winning.



Roberts said it quacked like a duck, so it's a duck.

For the long game, this is a better outcome.


We will be better off when a new Congress ditches this monstrosity. A Court decision would always be second guessed.




www.theatlantic.com . . .

what the hell are you talking about? if the reform is illegal, so is the content of the reform.

Basically the way Roberts and co twisted this thing is this: Goobermint imposed a tax. But you can avoid paying it if you buy health insurance. And they call it legal.

Republicans should force everybody to buy guns come January

A letter from DrewM

Dear GOP,

This is your last chance. If you blow this, I'm out and you need to be destroyed.

What is it? Repeal ObamaCare on Day 1. Don't worry about replace, don't worry about anything else. We will do everything we have to drag your sorry asses over the line this fall, including electing Mitt Fucking Romney.

In return this is what you will do:

Instead of adjourning for pictures and tea and cake to celebrate getting your pathetic asses elected to 2 or 6 years on the government teet, you will immediately pass a one line bill that says, "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (and whatever statute number has to be included) is hereby repealed."

That's it. Nothing more, nothing less.

Since Congress meets before Inauguration Day, Obama will still be President. Simply hold the legislation at the desk so the 10 day pocket veto clock doesn't start. If other parliamentary BS is needed, just do it.

Then as soon as Mitt takes the oath of office, before his speech no one will care or remember, walk the bill up to him at the podium to sign.

If this does not happen, the GOP must be destroyed and a new party built to replace it. We've tried the carrot approach (votes, money, volunteers) to change your behavior. Now it's time to show you the stick.

No more, "oh the other guys are worse" scare tactics. That might be true but it doesn't mean you are any good.

This is your one job, do it or join the Whig Party in the dustbin of history.

Makes it nicer for your follamiga.

It's a massive behavior-modification program. Either behave as directed or suffer the loss of private property.

If you don't buy what the government tells you to buy, you're going to be taxed, you're going to fined, your going to jail for not paying the IRS.

The federal government can virtually dictate what we do with our so-called private property.

retreat_retreat wrote:

It's a massive behavior-modification program. Either behave as directed or suffer the loss of private property.

If you don't buy what the government tells you to buy, you're going to be taxed, you're going to fined, your going to jail for not paying the IRS.

The federal government can virtually dictate what we do with our so-called private property.

But now it's exposed as a "tax" not a mandate under the commerce clause. Commerce clause expansion checked by five justices, four from the left. Major victory.

Elections in November.

VAVD wrote:

This was to be expected, based on precedent.

The government has forced you to contribute to Social Security and Medicare for decades. They force employers to contribute to unemployment insurance. Most states require you to purchase automotive liability insurance. These are individual mandates as well. If these are considered constitutional, there's little reason to think that a court operating under common law would consider the Obamacare mandate to be any different, in principle, and it isn't.

This isn't to say I agree with Obamacare. In fact, my objections to the act are probably far stronger than those of the Republicans here. I'm just saying it was a reasonable ruling to expect, given the precedents involved and the drift of the country's prevailing philosophy over the last several decades.

Of more concern is what will be done now. The Secretary of Health and Human services has ENORMOUS discretionary power, unchecked by anyone, to make rules regarding insurance and health. THIS is the real thing we should worry about. The free contraception bit of a few months ago was just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Free viagra and free sex-change operations are coming, you just wait and see. There's probably even some whack jobs who are arguing for free boob jobs, since having bigger tits will boost the self-esteem and thus the psychological health of the recipients.

The end result of the plethora of new requirements that are and will be imposed on the insurance companies, such as forcing payment for pre-existing conditions, free birth control and the like, and allowing "children" up to age 26 to remain on the policy, will be the destruction of the private insurance industry. At this point, the government will be "forced" to become the single-payer. And this was the goal all along. Leftists aren't stupid. The goals of liberals might be insane, but they know how to achieve them by stealth, right under your nose.

At least you are more reasonable than the retards, including some conservative politicians. Indeed, the US already has different mandates and no one is crying: is illegal to force me to buy car insurance!!

I disagree regarding their "insane" goals, Americans have to learn that allowing everyone to have access to health care is good for public safety and more civilized, you don't want sick people dying in the streets just because they're not rich enough, unless you are a psychopath that is.

lboru wrote:

You are making a confusion: four judges ruled over the legality of the reform, not its content

what the hell are you talking about? if the reform is illegal, so is the content of the reform. As for the 5 that supported this judicial activism one should have recused herself. leaving it 4 to 4. the only reason you support roberts decision is because he voted the way you wanted. where does the constitution say the govt can force you to buy a product? now they can mandate you buy a GM car or you will be forced to pay the $20,000.00 car tax. even if obamacare is repealed this mandate is legal according to Roberts.

LOL!!

If the reform is illegal is precisely the matter to be judged. And it seems it is not. Sorry for you.
So, because the constitution "does not say a government can force you to buy a product", then a government cannot decide to do so? Are you sure every political decision taken by US governments have been done because the Constitution authorized it? The Coran does not say the Earth is round, hence I suppose for its believers the Earth cannot be round. This is exactly the kind of argument you are defending.

And I don't care about what your government decides or not, I'm not concerned. You are, and you are basically asking the Supreme Court to judge according to the political opinion of its members, which is ludicrous.

Michelus wrote:

VAVD wrote:

This was to be expected, based on precedent.

The government has forced you to contribute to Social Security and Medicare for decades. They force employers to contribute to unemployment insurance. Most states require you to purchase automotive liability insurance. These are individual mandates as well. If these are considered constitutional, there's little reason to think that a court operating under common law would consider the Obamacare mandate to be any different, in principle, and it isn't.

This isn't to say I agree with Obamacare. In fact, my objections to the act are probably far stronger than those of the Republicans here. I'm just saying it was a reasonable ruling to expect, given the precedents involved and the drift of the country's prevailing philosophy over the last several decades.

Of more concern is what will be done now. The Secretary of Health and Human services has ENORMOUS discretionary power, unchecked by anyone, to make rules regarding insurance and health. THIS is the real thing we should worry about. The free contraception bit of a few months ago was just the tiniest tip of the iceberg. Free viagra and free sex-change operations are coming, you just wait and see. There's probably even some whack jobs who are arguing for free boob jobs, since having bigger tits will boost the self-esteem and thus the psychological health of the recipients.

The end result of the plethora of new requirements that are and will be imposed on the insurance companies, such as forcing payment for pre-existing conditions, free birth control and the like, and allowing "children" up to age 26 to remain on the policy, will be the destruction of the private insurance industry. At this point, the government will be "forced" to become the single-payer. And this was the goal all along. Leftists aren't stupid. The goals of liberals might be insane, but they know how to achieve them by stealth, right under your nose.

At least you are more reasonable than the retards, including some conservative politicians. Indeed, the US already has different mandates and no one is crying: is illegal to force me to buy car insurance!!

I disagree regarding their "insane" goals, Americans have to learn that allowing everyone to have access to health care is good for public safety and more civilized, you don't want sick people dying in the streets just because they're not rich enough, unless you are a psychopath that is.

You should have your head bashed in with a sledge hammer, you liberal fuck stick. Is Greece civilized? They have TONS of social programs, yet their people riot in the streets daily now that there is no money to pay for that any more. Stupid fuck, hang yourself.

"you don't want sick people dying in the streets just because they're not rich enough, unless you are a psychopath that is."

Just how many sick people have you seen dying in the streets?
Has anyone even seen one? Two?

sick people don't die on the steets here, unless by choice. they can go to an ER and get treated. if they can't pay their bill, then it gets passed on to people who do. that's why we pay $40 for an asprin and other such bullshit.

it doesn't do any good to say everyone will have insurance now if we don't have enough staff in the healthcare field to take care of everyone. insurance doesn't equal care, especially quality care. in canada, people end up on waiting lists for life saving surgery. those that have the money end up going out of the country for help. for americans, it will be worse, especially with the illegal aliens clogging up the lines.

many doctors are leaving the field because of the rising costs of education, malpractice insurance, and less money coming in from insurance companies. the private practice sector in paticular is hurting.

this bill is a mess.

Cuntoso, you are fucking idiot. Go read the dissent opinion.

Roberts and others puts a meaning into the law which was expressly NOT INTENDED. Obama: this is absolutely not a tax. Basically, they REWROTE THE LAW. And did it against the spirit and intention of the law.