Well since I have pinged you and the others about a dozen times mentioning it I probably remember.
RE : : They will see the Roberts ruling as the green light for more big government lawlessness. “
Obama-care is lawlessness??? AS I recall it was passed by both Houses (after much trouble for Dems) and signed by Obama. Lets get a grip. It is Republicans who were counting on the big shortcut to repeal it by bypassing the same process because they know the GOP won't have the guts to.
Back to the planet Earth. If our sole hope is Romney and Co vs Dems then things look pretty grim because few believe that they are up to the task; and so more and more Dreams of that Genie in a bottle fantasies will be thrown forward to us.
Here’s a crazy idea.
Why don’t Republicans convince voters that Obama-care is bad for them and then repeal it?
If voters really hate it like they say then that should be easy.
before that W said of the AWB renewel, 'get it to my desk, and I'll sign it'...forunately the CONgress came up a couple votes short on that one, ONLY due to rat fear...
its 'law' now indeed...seal of approval by the roberts court makes walking it back politically harder than ever, if you thought the demagougery was bad before, wait till the smears come in the next session during a halfhearted attempt to repeal...thats why we'll only get 'tweaking' of it to suit the masses...all the while 1000s of pages of regulation [fiat law] are being pumped out and cemented in place...
I think it is, but it depends on how you look at it. Since the law is whatever Roberts says it is, you can argue it is the the law of the land. But Roberts had to resort to preposterous "reasoning" to "justify" the ruling.
Maybe I should have stated more clearly that I view Obama's lawlessness as a larger phenomenon than just obamacare.
AS I recall it was passed by both Houses (after much trouble for Dems) and signed by Obama
After Franken stole a senate seat (with the help of rogue judges) to make 60 votes. But I was not claiming that the the manner in which it went through the votes in both houses and was signed (although sleazy) was illegal. I won't keep beating the dead horse about how Roberts rewrote the law to do what he wanted, but also I think the law was unconstitutional in handing over so much of the actual mechanism to HHS etc. But maybe today the idea of putting limits on what congress can do to us is anachronistic. As Obama said, is the Constitution a "charter of negative liberties," just some old moldy pages to be ignored?
I believe that the plan to have half the states refuse to participate will not succeed unless congress and the POTUS are on their side, because the states which would not participate still would have to pay for the states that do.
If our sole hope is Romney and Co vs Dems then things look pretty grim because few believe that they are up to the task; and so more and more Dreams of that Genie in a bottle fantasies will be thrown forward to us.
I think you and I are both horrified, but not really surprised, by the lack of concern among the voters about the growth of government and the loss of individual liberty. And I agree with you that, among his other problems, Romney is so far unable or unwilling to convince them to oppose obamacare's huge tax hike.