Posted on 04/04/2012 10:51:02 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
NO. But they're hoping that the "brain dead" and the "dim bulbs" among us believe and swallow every word.
Anyone with an actual functioning brain WILL see the difference.
Having those donations on your "permanent record" should be grounds enough to get you involuntary committed to your local crazy hospital.
If the Supreme Court finds Obama commie-care unconstitutional, they will want to "deem" the decision irrelevant and non-binding. The current administration will declare they will "support the will of the people" and Holder / Doug Shulman will send out enforcement letters, open investigations and indictments to all that object.
The way I see this undercurrent of a trial narrative, it will lead to a VERY ugly result.
This is an actual openly declared coup against the Judicial Branch by the Executive Branch via their introducing the narrative "Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men." to the public and their lackeys, the Media.
He knows damn well that narrative will be picked up by his cult as well as the media and professed to be "the will of the people."
Right here is nothing less than the birth of a fascist Third World style dictatorship.
The other point that they seems to miss is that only LIABILITY insurance is required. This protects the OTHER GUY in case you damage him. The state does NOT require you to purchase COMPREHENSIVE, which would protect you. THAT would be equivalent to Obabma-care, and no state requires that.
I think probably a child. A college sophomore, by the level of argument.
He is mimicking his master, the trottel-in-chief, who thinks that justices must be elected to be legitimate.
And that is why , David Dow, that they are Supreme Court Justices and you are not.
They have constitutionally been nominated and approved by the Senate, so they are constitutional in being there. You have not, David, so your "opinion" is worth nothing in this decision process.
It is thier job to analuyze the law when it is brought forward to them (also by constitutional process) and then decide if it is or is not constitutional. As long as they do their job then what they decide is perfectly constitutional as the founders intended, whether you agree with it or not...whether this President agrees with it or not.
His efforts to abjectly influence the courts decision or one of the most galringly wrong things about this process...not the judges making a decision.
The one example you cited, which was acquitted in any case, was of a Judge trying to take power...in this case you have judges trying to prevent the usurpation of power through a potentially unconstitutional law.
Another very glaring inequity about this decision is that you have one justice on the bench, selected by this sitting President whose Health Care Program is being decided, who sat with that President before becoming a Justice and helped craft the law. Clearly she has a bias and yet has refuses to recruse herself from the proceedings as she should do by every legal and moral standard...and yet she does not.
Why do you ignore these glaring issues, David? It's because you yourself have a clear bias and constitutionality has nothing to do with it.
I see you don't follow the Dems mischief closely. Didn't you see Obama attack the court in the SOTU address over Citizen's United? They are absolutely vivid over that case and talk like they really believe it's treason.
And they are dregging up Bush vs Gore from 12 years ago too. That decision was problematic but 4 justices have been replaced since then so it's irrelevant.
This is the first time since Roosevelt that dems are scared of the SCOTUS.
Hear, hear!
His own "vacuous" argument - the state of being alive automatically incurs financial damages which the government must regulate...
It’s not just the SC, it’s all the circuit courts, appeals courts, and state courts.
For the benefit of the stupid sheep of the herd that follow him, he is laying the groundword so if SCOTUS shoots down Obamacare, he can then blame it on the Republican judges as the source that denied them medical coverage.
Thoughts please.
In other news on healthcare:
"Fathom the hypocrisy of a Government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured.......
But not everyone must prove they are a citizen."
-- Ben Stein
And this boys and girls explains why you really can’t, talk to a liberal.
My prediction as well, at most they will carve out the mandate, but I doubt if they will.
Hundreds of millions have already been spent implementing this monstrosity. They could have reached down and took this case before all the money was spent but they didn't, that should tell us something.
If by some wild fluke Romney gets elected president there will probably be Dem super majorities after 2014 and almost certainly after 2016 along with a rerun of the kenyan, either himself or another Soros nominee.
Here is where it all falls apart. Nobody has right to health care. The liability argument: I can't damage somebody when I get sick, unless I were to spread a communicable disease, which is crime anyway.
With all the public pressure you can bet the private Chicago pressure is also intense. How close to direct threats against Roberts et al’s families are they getting? Are they doing it with anonymous callers? That would be ineffective and the Chicago mob would know that. Conservatives get those all the time. So I am guessing known administration people are making direct threats, on the q.t, but direct. Along with the threats would necessarily be promises of benefits in Cayman banks or similar; offers they can’t refuse as it were.
I wouldn't go there. Govt run anything is never a good idea. You are conceding that Obamacare is a good idea? Are you nuts?
My listener understood what I meant.
“even if it is/was a good idea, the government doesn’t have the legal authority to do it”
If it was clearly constitutional, it wouldn't be before the Supreme Court. Is this author a lawyer? Or a constitutional professor? Even lawyers and constitutional educators cannot agree.
But it is clearly UNconstitutional, to me.
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.