The White House is calling this ruling "Judicial Activism". I look forward to reading the missives about Emmanuel Goldstein from the Ministry of Truth.
Was there a point you were trying to make with your post about Mexico getting universal healthcare or was it just an FYI?
What point would that be? The silly one in this thread, or the sum of all the "points" you've made to date? ;-)
Smoke screen. I think they knew all along the compelling people to buy health care was not going to fly and that they could make changes on the fly as they anticipated a democrat controlled congress.
Hey barfo, SCOTUS doesn't always vote 5-4. Sometimes it's 6-3 or 7-2 or even 9-0. Anyhow, the democrats simply blew their chance to foist something/anything on the people for the sake of it (and political "points"). They focused on health insurance for everyone instead of health care for everyone, and at a cost of $trillions. All along I suggested, and even backed, the government opening its own hospitals and clinics and hiring doctors and nurses and buying the machinery and medicines to provide what people actually need. Health CARE. There could be no legal challenge to using taxes to pay for it. There could be no legal challenge to charging people at these hospitals and clinics for the CARE provided. At least they would have provided people with the choice of paying the cheap govt. fees or the expensive insurance backed ones. Not only did they fight a battle not worth fighting, they lost.
Is there any question Elena Kagan should recuse herself? http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=130205734 http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704288204575363112109060620.html http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/senators-finally-press-kagan-about-obamacare/
There are a few points here: 1. As SG, she was the constitutional expert @ DOJ. I would find it hard to believe that she didn't analyze the constitutional position of this bill on behalf of the Administration. 2. She is a close friend of this President, back to their U of C days lunching at the Quad Club. She worked on his campaign as an advisor. The idea she had no input on the design of this bill strains credulity. 3. Look at the cases from which she has recused herself: ANYTHING that could even be viewed as a conflict, she has backed away from. Yet on this one, she has remained mute on the issue of recusal.
She was officially attached to the campaign and was promised the SG position. That's why I used the term "advisor".
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0211/48726.html Senate repeals part of health care law The Senate voted Wednesday for the first time to repeal a piece of President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul, rolling back a new tax reporting requirement that’s been universally panned by business owners. The amendment to repeal the 1099 reporting requirement passed 81-17 with broad bipartisan support.
This is going to be interesting. The US Supreme court is most likely going to decide as to the constitutionality of either two controversial areas of Obamacare or in its entirety. In the meantime the Republicans in the Senate laid out a salvo to repeal the act, but were rebuffed along party lines. However, the Democrats are starting to jettison some weaker provisions- something they were unwilling to do when they had control of both houses, and keeping a nervous eye on 2012. There are things they would have been wiser to do when the bill was being debated. I'll be curious to see how much is chipped away until the Supreme court weighs in. I hope Congress is working on a Plan B.
Why not? It's passed so supporters of this plan no longer care how much the bill costs. The entire reason the unreasonable 1099 statute was in there in the first place was to try to gather as much revenue as possible so CBO scoring could be kept under $1T. We'll now see all the other unpopular parts of the bill get pulled while all the stuff that really costs us money will stay. And that's what the Democrats want. It was a plan, and the Republicans are falling for it hook, line and sinker.
