You can't possibly really know what his actual personal motivations were unless he says them. He didn't actually say them. This is hilarious. Now are right wingers going to be screaming for CONSERVATION Roberts to be kicked off the court because they weren't pleased with this ruling. Cry me a river.

You can't possibly really know what his actual personal motivations were unless he says them. He didn't actually say them. This is hilarious. Now are right wingers going to be screaming for CONSERVATION Roberts to be kicked off the court because they weren't pleased with this ruling. Cry me a river.

Look, you liberals are the ones who want your judges to legislate from their hearts, the law be damned. Conservatives want judges who follow the constitution, not make rulings based on what makes them feel good and popular at Hollywood cocktail parties.

I have a favorable view of Roberts (especially after that quote I posted) and have no problem with his decision if he made it based on the Constitution. If he did it for the reasons stated in your link (which of course is how a liberal would imagine the thinking process of a justice) then he doesn't deserve to be on the court. This goes not only for the Supreme Court, but every court in the country.

^{Good Daily Show videos today.}

You can't possibly really know what his actual personal motivations were unless he says them. He didn't actually say them. This is hilarious. Now are right wingers going to be screaming for CONSERVATION Roberts to be kicked off the court because they weren't pleased with this ruling. Cry me a river.

Look, you liberals are the ones who want your judges to legislate from their hearts, the law be damned. Conservatives want judges who follow the constitution, not make rulings based on what makes them feel good and popular at Hollywood cocktail parties.

I have a favorable view of Roberts (especially after that quote I posted) and have no problem with his decision if he made it based on the Constitution. If he did it for the reasons stated in your link (which of course is how a liberal would imagine the thinking process of a justice) then he doesn't deserve to be on the court. This goes not only for the Supreme Court, but every court in the country.

You're very naive and your views are very simplistic. Judges are people. All kinds of judges are people. It sounds like you want robots on the court. Judgments at the supreme court level are extremely sophisticated and nuanced. There is no other way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/robertss-health-care-decision-stuns-many-but-in-line-with-his-outlook/2012/06/28/gJQAFdv19V_story.html

OK, the right wing repeal and replacers who actually have NOTHING to replace Obamacare are threatening to use reconciliation to cram their repeal bill down the throats of the American public! (Simple majority, not 60 votes.) They probably can do this if they win a majority in the senate and Romney wins. Possible. Not likely. Politically, I believe this is a wash. They have a base that will get worked up over repeal and replace with nothing (so foolish) but there is ALSO a strong pro-Obama based that realizes their threat is real. IF the right wing reactionary anti-health care reform crowd can't pull this off after 2012, once it all kicks in 2014, it's over. Obamacare, which will be called Obamacare forever just like Social Security is called Social Security, will be set in stone. Of course Obamacare is just a start. It requires many enhancements and improvements, and most critically around cost controls. Single payer is the ideal, but polish the Obamacare turd is the best show going in health care progress these days. The right wingers offer nothing, worse than nothing, back to a failed status quo.

Assuming Obama dodges the Romney/Senate bullet, which I think is likely as the right wingers need to win BOTH, Obama really will go down in history along with FDR as the architect of a critically important DEMOCRATIC PARTY social program.

I have another outlandish prediction. I predict in the wake of the Obama supreme court triumph, his victory speech which clearly spelled out the benefits of Obamacare (the beginning of a new chance to explain and sell the program), the stealing of the very term OBAMACARE from the snarky right wing who use(d) it as a slur and Obama has now OWNED that word with PRIDE, the public opinion momentum is going to radically shift to move more in favor of keeping Obamacare. I predict by election time 60 percent of Americans will NOT want to repeal Obamacare.

You can't possibly really know what his actual personal motivations were unless he says them. He didn't actually say them. This is hilarious. Now are right wingers going to be screaming for CONSERVATION Roberts to be kicked off the court because they weren't pleased with this ruling. Cry me a river.

Look, you liberals are the ones who want your judges to legislate from their hearts, the law be damned. Conservatives want judges who follow the constitution, not make rulings based on what makes them feel good and popular at Hollywood cocktail parties.

I have a favorable view of Roberts (especially after that quote I posted) and have no problem with his decision if he made it based on the Constitution. If he did it for the reasons stated in your link (which of course is how a liberal would imagine the thinking process of a justice) then he doesn't deserve to be on the court. This goes not only for the Supreme Court, but every court in the country.

You're very naive and your views are very simplistic. Judges are people. All kinds of judges are people. It sounds like you want robots on the court. Judgments at the supreme court level are extremely sophisticated and nuanced. There is no other way.

http://www.washingto...v19V_story.html

You're calling someone else naive with simplistic views? That's a good one.

Here comes the spin from Mr. One-and-Done...

White House stands by position that health law mandate isn't a tax

The White House is standing by its position that individual mandate in President Obama's healthcare law is a penalty despite the Supreme Court's decision to uphold it as a tax.

White House spokesman Jay Carney told reporters traveling with Obama on Friday that the mandate enforces a penalty, not a tax, because people have a choice whether to obtain health insurance.

"You can call it what you will, but if affects 1 percent" of the population, Carney said, according to a White House pool report.

http://thehill.com/b...e-scotus-ruling

Hey, does this sound like anyone we know?

In any case, brace yourself for the admiring profiles of Chief Justice John Roberts. Last week's wisdom: right-wing nut in black robe. This week's wisdom: rigorous mind, independent nature, unswayed by partisan considerations, he's grown in the role since being appointed by George W. Bush.

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:vRyJ9rRDnsUJ:online.wsj.com/article/declarations.html+noonan&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

Well, the Supreme Court upheld today parts of the Arizona immigration law and the Obama Admin will ignore it all the same. Now, I AM NOT TRYING TO START A DISCUSSION ON IMMIGRATION so please don't use this thread to argue that issue. I'm posting this link to illustrate how the Obama Admin deals with Supreme Court rulings it disagrees with.

The Obama administration said Monday it is suspending existing agreements with Arizona police over enforcement of federal immigration laws, and said it has issued a directive telling federal authorities to decline many of the calls reporting illegal immigrants that the Homeland Security Department may get from Arizona police.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that Arizona may not impose its own penalties for immigration violations, but it said state and local police could check the legal status of those they have reasonable suspicion to believe are in the country illegally. That means police statewide can immediately begin calling to check immigration status — but federal officials are likely to reject most of those calls.

http://www.washingto...on-agreements-/

So IF the SCOTUS rules parts of Obamacare unconstitutional, will the Admin accept it? Or will they figure another way to ignore the Court?

So, last week Obama didn't care what the Supreme Court decided he was still going to do things his way, and this week his opinion of the court has apparently evolved...

" He [Obama] said the politics surrounding the program don't matter, that the program itself is a matter of trying to make life better for all Americans. "The highest court in the land has now spoken. We will continue to implement this law.""

http://webcache.goog...lient=firefox-a

You're calling someone else naive with simplistic views? That's a good one.

It certainly is.

OK, the right wing repeal and replacers who actually have NOTHING to replace Obamacare are threatening to use reconciliation to cram their repeal bill down the throats of the American public! (Simple majority, not 60 votes.)

The Democrats used reconciliation to pass the bill and turn it into law.

Reconciliation is the only way Obamacare got passed in the first place.

The Democrats used reconciliation to pass the bill and turn it into law.

Reconciliation is the only way Obamacare got passed in the first place.

I'm not that familiar with the lingo of Congress. Does "Reconciliation" mean to pass in the middle of the night during Christmas holiday through bribery, favors, and exemptions given to politicians, states and political friends such as labor unions not even with enough shame to hide it?

The Democrats used reconciliation to pass the bill and turn it into law.

Reconciliation is the only way Obamacare got passed in the first place.

I'm not that familiar with the lingo of Congress. Does "Reconciliation" mean to pass in the middle of the night during Christmas holiday through bribery, favors, and exemptions given to politicians, states and political friends such as labor unions not even with enough shame to hide it?

That's the way the Democrats do it. The Republicans use a little more daylight in their method.

I'm not that familiar with the lingo of Congress. Does "Reconciliation" mean to pass in the middle of the night during Christmas holiday through bribery, favors, and exemptions given to politicians, states and political friends such as labor unions not even with enough shame to hide it?

It is not a new tactic....Many do not realize that the FED Reserve came into existence using that very tactic

December 23rd 1913

I received this link from a friend of mine and it hit a nerve with me on Justice Roberts' decision. I noticed in reading some of the earlier material that Roberts had said the Commerce Clause was not a viable excuse for Congress to use in legislation such as this. Now it seems he has placed an effective stop on the use of the Commerce Clause in nearly all future Congressional actions, thereby limiting Congress' ability to do so much harm.

Let me preface the link by saying this is a conservative site and the author is a conservative lawyer. Reading it might be harmful to Liberals.

It is lengthy but well worth the entire read.

_____________________________________________________

June 29, 2012

The Chief Justice Done Good

By Dov Fischer

Chief Justice John Roberts has handed a remarkable victory to American conservatives by threading the judicial needle with perfect precision. The initial disappointment collectively felt by Americans who had hoped for a Supreme Court ruling that would overturn Obamacare soon will be replaced, upon further reflection, by the excitement that will come with a fuller appreciation of what the Chief Justice has wrought.

First, almost completely unnoticed, the Chief Justice voted with his four conservative colleagues in drawing an unprecedented red line against Washington wielding the Constitution's Commerce Clause in the future to justify federal intrusion into the personal lives of Americans. This decision will restrict American Presidents and future Congresses for a generation and more.

Read more: http://www.americant...l#ixzz1zGL3fzfq

Save for the pre-existing conditions language, there is little for me to cheer about in this legislation. I will continue to subsidize the benefits of an ever growing proportion of the poulation and will continue to pay well over the norm for my own family's health care. I suppose I can form a corporation and get "group care" for my family naming them officers and so forth, therby claiming various meagre tax credits, but then I'll be paying the accoutants in addition to the doctors.

It would have been better if it was thrown out and people of all political stripes come together to forge something for the benefit of all. It's like a misbuilt house. You can remodel it and throw an infinite amount of money at it, but at it's core it's still misbuilt. Sometimes it's better to tear something down and start over.

I suppose I can form a corporation and get "group care" for my family naming them officers and so forth, therby claiming various meagre tax credits, but then I'll be paying the accoutants in addition to the doctors.

Maybe not...

Obamacare law contains 20 new or higher taxes on American families and small businesses

2. Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” (Tax hike of $4.5 billion). This provision allows the IRS to disallow completely-legal tax deductions and other legal tax-minimizing plans just because the IRS deems that the action lacks “substance” and is merely intended to reduce taxes owed. Bill: Reconciliation Act; Page: 108-113

http://www.atr.org/tax-hikes-obamacare-scotus-rule-a6996#ixzz1z8qs8gJK

It would have been better if it was thrown out and people of all political stripes come together to forge something for the benefit of all. It's like a misbuilt house. You can remodel it and throw an infinite amount of money at it, but at it's core it's still misbuilt. Sometimes it's better to tear something down and start over.

That is a core truth

It would have been better if it was thrown out and people of all political stripes come together to forge something for the benefit of all. It's like a misbuilt house. You can remodel it and throw an infinite amount of money at it, but at it's core it's still misbuilt. Sometimes it's better to tear something down and start over.

That is a core truth

So naive. Right wing people are very happy to see poor people just die. The right wing idiotically wants to status quo, which was horrible. They will never cooperative on real health reform. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't realize the evil that they're dealing with. No I don't love Obamacare. But its a start and the right wing wants to kill even a start.

As far as wealthier people subsidizing poorer people's health care. DUH! That's what single payer does more fairly, efficiently, and elegantly. That is the proven solution for the more civilized, advanced nations. That is the only way really. Of course that doesn't mean programs shouldn't work very hard to reduce overall costs and increase overall public health. For example larger investment in prevention and early detection rather than passively waiting until people get very sick.

It would have been better if it was thrown out and people of all political stripes come together to forge something for the benefit of all. It's like a misbuilt house. You can remodel it and throw an infinite amount of money at it, but at it's core it's still misbuilt. Sometimes it's better to tear something down and start over.

That is a core truth

So naive. Right wing people are very happy to see poor people just die. The right wing idiotically wants to status quo, which was horrible. They will never cooperative on real health reform. Anyone who thinks differently doesn't realize the evil that they're dealing with. No I don't love Obamacare. But its a start and the right wing wants to kill even a start.

Right wing people, Left wing people; so naive. You've bought into an ideology that diminishes people by painting these lesser class labels on them There is a certain amount of the population that finds their identity through this perpetual conflict. It seems to give them sustenance while they don't seem to notice that at the same time someone is feeding on you.

Again, so naive. Who do you think has effectively blocked any real movement towards universal health access for so many decades now? FDR was for universal health care. He was a great democrat. Again, politics is real. Which side is the enemy of progress on this? I think you really haven't been closely following American politics in recent years. It has grown extremely toxic. The republican party now is extremely far right wing. Their current policies would have rejected even Reagan, even though they bizarrely worship him.

Right wing people, Left wing people; so naive. You've bought into an ideology that diminishes people by painting these lesser class labels on them There is a certain amount of the population that finds their identity through this perpetual conflict. It seems to give them sustenance while they don't seem to notice that at the same time someone is feeding on you.

True but at times I cannot decide if it is that or if they are just inherently sensationalizing drama queens....Maybe a bit of both

Right wingers call Obama a communist when objectively he is a pro business moderate. Which side are the drama queens?

Remember, Obamacare's mandate with penalties was directly modeled on ROMNEYcare. If Romney had played his cards differently, he could have gone down in history as the American pioneer of health care reform, not Obama.

Which side are the drama queens?

The ones that say things like this.........

So naive. Right wing people are very happy to see poor people just die.

Or this for that matter...

Not going to let the right wing bury the truth of what Reagan didn't do about Aids.

Which side are the drama queens?

The ones that say things like this.........

So naive. Right wing people are very happy to see poor people just die.

Or this for that matter...

Not going to let the right wing bury the truth of what Reagan didn't do about Aids.

You don't like Obamacare. Fine. What do you propose that would provide health care access for ALL Americans?

Again, so naive. Who do you think has effectively blocked any real movement towards universal health access for so many decades now? FDR was for universal health care. He was a great democrat. Again, politics is real. Which side is the enemy of progress on this? I think you really haven't been closely following American politics in recent years. It has grown extremely toxic. The republican party now is extremely far right wing. Their current policies would have rejected even Reagan, even though they bizarrely worship him.

Trial lawyers for one. The AMA for another. If America is a "market based" economy, how come the population keeps increasing but the "supply" of medical schools remains constant. Why not let global market forces bring down the cost of healthcare in America?

I am not a consumer of much media. Consequently I don't buy into the toxicity that you've embraced. That's what they're selling and that's what you've bought into. I remain an independent thinking human being who doesn't have to subscribe to any idea, just because it's what "my team" is pushing this week or month or year. People are pretty much all the same. Don't you ever wonder why the team leaders (yeah, yours too) so passionately focus on the 1% of where people may hold differing views and never focus on the 99% that we share in common? Answer that and then you'll know if your someone elses patsy.

Oh so you think the perfect free market can provide health care access for all Americans. More naive than I even first thought! Yes that is a radically right wing/libertarian point of view, whether you reject the label or not. Hasn't worked for any advanced country and can't possibly work in the US either.

Right wingers call Obama a communist when objectively he is a pro business moderate. Which side are the drama queens?

Remember, Obamacare's mandate with penalties was directly modeled on ROMNEYcare. If Romney had played his cards differently, he could have gone down in history as the American pioneer of health care reform, not Obama.

That's what I said yesterday and you said you couldn't hold my political views seriously anymore. Are you getting enough sleep?

Actually, I didn't mean NOW. I meant before when Romney was running for president BEFORE, which he had. Again, there is no way Romney could have been nominated NOW running for national Romneycare. No contradiction at all.

Oh so you think the perfect free market can provide health care access for all Americans. More naive than I even first thought! Yes that is a radically right wing/libertarian point of view, whether you reject the label or not. Hasn't worked for any advanced country and can't possibly work in the US either.

No, I don't. I'm just pointing out that this status quo is brought to you not by the Democrats or the Republicans but by very narrow specific special interests. The REAL problem is campaig finance reform. Take away the money and all this manufactured toxicity you see will be diminished greatly.