Posted on 11/30/2011 5:43:25 AM PST by IbJensen
Why would you say that.
Who wrote this letter?
Hope its valid....
To me, that is the MOST critical reason. Supremes can continue to do damage years longer than the Presidents who appoint them.
Outside of ruling Obambicare unconstitutional,these are empty,meaningless threats and amount to absolutely zero.
Is he going to be removed from office as he should be? Nope.Nothing significant will happen to these poseurs who occupy the White House in the next year and while a concise summary, without actions this article is a waste of cyberspace.
How is the mandate different from forcing SS and Medicare on us? You asked...
I say they are different, even though I question the constitutionality of all three...
SS and Medicare is a tax, in return for which you become eligible for retirement and medical benefits.
The mandate is forced purchase of an insurance product, for which you receive punishment if you refuse to purchase the mandated product. The IRS is empowered against you for your refusal to purchase.
There is no known limit on what the government could force you to purchase under a similar scheme. No limit on their power to punish you if you refuse, through the IRS.
I would add, SS and Medicare do have congressional involvement and oversight, whereas in the Obamacare bill the Secretary of HHS is virtually given carte blanche to do as they please.
Finally, the Court will hear arguments re: the bill forcing states to greatly expand Medicaid onto which the “newly insured” will be forced.
Does a state have no standing against doing whatever the feds order them to do? That would be a total reversal of the Founders intent. The feds were to be a creation by the states for the states purposes, not the other way around.
So, take note...more than the mandate will be ruled on.
You no doubt missed this:
http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010-07-06/news/27069208_1_elena-kagan-conservative-bloc-swing-vote
Read, damnit!
“Personal feelings have no place on the court. I have enough faith in Chief Justice Roberts and in Justice Alito and Scalia and Thomas and most of the rests to believe that any decisions striking down any of Obama’s policies will be made based on firm Constitutional grounds and not because Obama doesn’t like them.”
But who would enforce decisions that go against Hussein? It’s not likely that holder would do it—and that’s why hussein keeps him there.
Sounds familiar. I believe it was posted here months ago.
Not convinced of this until we see action.
The earliest posting of this ‘email’ that I could find with a quick Google was October 30, 2010. So the Supreme Court isn’t all that pissed.
I would be utterly delighted if the Supremes would just READ THE DAMN CONSTITUTION and start from there.
Instead, the Supremes rely on the doctrine of “stare decisis” and their rulings are based almost exclusively on EARLIER decisions that were reached. Whether those decisions were idiotic (Wickard v. Filburn) or not makes no difference. The actual words on parchment are unimportant. All that matters is how the Court ruled in the past. Precedent is now law.
For example, READ the actual words of the Fourth Amendment then explain to me how TSA can legally grope your privates. Or how “natural born citizen” is the same as “citizen.”
“—that is, if the Justices have the guts to draw a line in the sand at the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.”
This last line nullified the article’s entire purpose.
So nothing really has been done or communicated by the SC as the article title states.
I see Dan Hennesey...I dont recognize him...
To whom did he email this to?
Is this in a legit publication?
“Why would you say that.”
I second the question. Do you think that it is beyond possibility that Obama isn’t eligible to hold the office, especially since he’s done more to hide every aspect of his past than any other President in history? I could understand the point of view that says, “This is a much less effective way to get rid of him” or “this is a distraction vs. winning the next election” or thoughts along the same lines, but I simply cannot understand a blanket dismissal of the issue.
Picking up a pattern here?
Here is why I am giving a blanket dismissal of the issue.
I don’t believe that pursuing this issue in the middle of a Presidential election helps the Republican party. It makes them look petty and gives the impression that they are trying to dig something up when there are more important things going on.
If they haven’t found out about this yet, then either there is a massive coverup going on,one which is far beyond anything in the history of this country, it was planted by the libs to make Republicans look like idiots or it just isn’t true.
SCOTUS will not hear this issue before the election. If they did, they would probably kick it back to the lower courts.
If anything, when they Republicans take back the White House, hold congress and win the Senate, then they should go after the media for covering the scandal up(if it is a coverup)and break the thing wide open. In this way, we will own all three branches of government and the libs will never be trusted again to run for dog catcher.
For purely political reasons. If an eo allowed unionization of fed workers then a similar one could disallow it.
Is it not true what an eo creates another eo can uncreate?
That is one matter that Roberts needs to clearly explain to the people. Why wasn’t the swearing done the 2nd time in public? What was the oath? I keep having visions of the photo where Obama was holding court/buddy buddy like in the office of Roberts. Obama was clearly in charge of the meeting. I believe that the election of Obama was enhanced if not supported by compromised people in our government in Congress and the courts all the way up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.