Posted on 06/29/2011 11:05:59 AM PDT by Recovering_Democrat
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati on Wednesday upheld the health-care law passed by Congress last year, saying the law's requirement for most Americans to carry insurance or pay a penalty is constitutional.
The vote was 2-1 on the three-judge panel on the key question of whether the insurance requirement exceeded Congress's powers under the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The majority concluded that it did not.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Which is why I disagree with your mindless hyperbole.
When you can prove that Bush is an America-hating, abortion-loving, pathologically lying, integrity-less, Marxist, narcissistic, lazy punk who laughs in derision at all we hold dear as conservatives, then we can talk about how 'similar' he is to the vile pretender totalitarian creep in the Oval Office now.
Since that will never happen, I'm sure you'll continue with your hyperbolic BDS nonsense, and I will keep conversing with the vast majority of freepers who engage in rational thought.
Fan is short for fanatic....You fit the bill well.
See ya~
It is all showmanship. Next it will go to the Ohio
Supreme Court and be sumarily overridden. Then it will go to the Supreme Court (unless it rules ahead of this on another) and declare the whole thing constitutional. Obama is trying to play out the clock to make it defacto law. He is the most corrupt President ever.
Meant to say Unconstitutional above.
Meant to say Unconstitutional above.
Thanks for the information.
I fully agree that “...there are a lot of stupid judges out there...” and continuing to grant these unelected black robed politicians lifetime tenure, especially in New Jersey and states that do, is the height of self destructive stupidity.
You make a statement in total agreement with leftist academia, and I'm the one who's 'scary.'
Odd priorities you have there.
As for the ad hominem about 'worship'....I worship God, through Jesus Christ, and Him alone. Your ad hominem only makes you look desperate.
As does your agreement with leftist academia.
You can't win the argument, no matter how much you escalate the insults, because I'm conservative, I'm rational, and I'm right. You agree with the 'history' profs who rate President Bush as 'one of the worst.' And that's a factually and historically ludicrous position to hold.
This matter is (eventually) headed for the SCOTUS; although the Obama administration is (obviously) in no hurry for it to arrive there.
Which may be instructive, as regarding the Obama administration's belief as to how that decision will finally come down...
Yes, but a Republican appointed judge went along with the majority. Not just “any” Republican judge, but one that clerked for Scalia. That’s not good.
People must speak loud and clear....in the streets, with Tea or Whisky...parties.
You still have the right to speak and demonstrate , i guess !
“Ummm hummm.
You are the one talking about overthrowing a government. I am not into civil war, sorry that prospect daunts me. As it should you.
I prefer change from within.”
I too would prefer such change when and where it is possible. Indeed much of what i propose is indeed internal changes to bring about the collapse of the imperial Federal Government.
I do not beleive we can win a head on confrontation, but I do beleive we have enough influence to help push that goverment into a situation in which it will not survive, while also preserving ourselfs.
“Keep your illusions of superiority to yourself. I am not impressed, nor am I moved by your arguments of delusion to take up your point of view. Not even close.
Note: Insulting someone will not encourage them to listen to your position. You invalidate yourself and your point of view (worthy or not) with your hostility.”
If noting that your Strategy has been tried and tried again without overall success more then 50 times for more then a 100 years is insulting, then you got pretty serous ego problems.
Sooner or later people who actually want their rights are going to have to recognize that banging their head against the wall in an apparently useless enterprise has never really accomplished anything and never will.
It is the very nature of Government to grow, always has been. It is also the very nature of politicians to desire power and jealously hang on to that power, again always has been. A revolution is required, because nothing short of a revolution effecting the destruction of the existing Federal Government will restore to us our rights.
This is not a fact I like, this is a fact that has been proven by the trials of history, as much as it is part of the definition of revolution. How we accomplish that revolution is anther question. But if it were accomplishable by means of mere repetitive election it would have been accomplished in the last 100 years ago.
PS: I’m sorry you don’t think yourself worthy of a reply. You may be insane but your still worthy of words.
BTW, one of the George W. Bush appointees in the 6th Circuit (Helene White) was a former Clinton nominee that he appointed as part of a deal to get other conservatives confirmed. So I’m afraid that our side would start off no better than 8-7 in an en banc rehearing (I’m assuming that the judge that Obama nominated last December won’t get confirmed until an en banc rehearing, if any).
No, they happen to agree with me ohioWfan.
Or is it ohioWfanatic?
BTW, I never trust anyone who considers themselves to be "fans" of government politicians.
That's down right weird.
No, there were 2 GOP and 1 Democrat.
I wish the GWB appointee had not upheld the law, but the analysis I heard this morning is not that the Bush appointee really believes the law is Constitutional, but he knows this has to be handled by the SCOTUS, so he is pushing it up the line to SCOTUS.
I can believe that, but you still end up with an appelate court ruling that the law is constitutional. I see his strategy but I don’t like it. I would much rather he just killed the law on appeal and let the losers push the law up to SCOTUS.
Bush was a terrible conservative, but not a terrible president. There is a long list of presidents who were worst. The thing that makes me so furious with Baby Bush is that he could be so solid in some areas, but sell us out so completely to Big Business (open borders), the AARP (Medicare D), and take away so much of our freedom (Homeland Security and the TSA).
This is a joke right?
You missed Scalia in your prediction and Stevens retired - replaced by Kagan.
Sorry, shouldn’t post when so tired. Kagan will vote the same as Stevens, who wrote the majority opinion in Raich.
Scalia is a bit hard to guess. His former clerk, Sutton, just voted to uphold the law. Scalia concurred separately in the Raich case, and much of Sutton’s reasoning relied on Raich and Wickard. For example, he pointed out that “inactivity” on the part of a hypothetical person who bought Angel Raich’s house would be illegal under the commerce power if she left her plants behind. I’m going to guess another separate concurrence is coming from Scalia.
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.