I want you two to defend the Constitutionality of Obamacare.
Have at it.
Or, conversely, admit it is unconstitutional for the Federal Government to do what it did in Obamacare.
I’ve done all I need to do, and all I’m going to spend my time doing, in framing the issue that way.
I will agree with the writings of Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Kennedy that it is unconstitutional.
They did the work that I now don’t need to do. I refer all Robert’s boosters to THEIR decision.
All Roberts had to do was sign on with them and the whole thing collapses.
And by “thing”, I’m refering to the Affordable Care Act, otherwise dubbed Obamacare.
Bottom line for you two, is it Constitutional?
Roberts aside, is it?
Go for it.
See post #53
I think you’re trying too hard to get a knee-jerk response to a complex problem.
Obamacare is unconstitutional.
Had Roberts voted that it was unconstitutional, he would have lost, because of the treachery of Justice Kennedy, and the Supreme Court, by a 5-4 majority, would have ruled it to be constitutional in its entirety. Even though it is unconstitutional.
Had it been ruled constitutional by a 5-4 majority, the only way we would have EVER been rid of it would be with the equivalent of a constitutional amendment. That is, a 2/3rds vote of both houses of congress, which would be next to impossible.
However, because Roberts voted in favor of it, it can now be destroyed by a simple majority of both houses of congress and a presidential signature.
So let me cut to the chase, with a direct question to you:
Do you think it is more important to try and win a battle that you will lose, than to win an entire war?
Because this is what you are demanding. To fight a fight that would have been lost, and lose the war, and be stuck with Obamacare for decades.
An expression for this is, “To cut off your nose to spite your face.”