Obamacare going down in Flames?

24 replies [Last post]
S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008

It must be. How do I know this? The White house and Democratic operatives are out in force saying the bill was a bi-partisan bill
and the Individual Mandate was a Republican idea not President Obama's not the Progressives.

First we all know that the Bill was passed without Republicans. It was rammed through using procedural tactics by the Democrats. So why is the Whitehouse
saying it was bi-partisan if Obamacare wasn't going down? Additionally the Individual Mandate was Obama's signature piece in this legislation. He wanted
Single-Payer but opted for this instead.
So in typical Obama style.... It's somebody else's fault.

Yes I know, a lot of this was proposed by a few Progressive Republicans years ago. It was shot down as it should have been. So because it was proposed
by the John McCains's AKA RINOs of the party it was bi-partisan? I don't think so.

Obama's keystone piece of Legislation, the one he had to pass to fundamentally transform America, the one he has spent Billions and promised Trillions on,
look like it is going into the scrap heap of history.

Oh but's it's not over with yet. The Justices can still surprise those that think it's going down 5 to 4 and if you think this is gone for good... Like a good Zombie show
it's not going to be so easy to kill.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
The President is upset at the...

Supremes.

He warned that overturning the law (Obama Care) would hurt millions of Americans and amount to overreach by the “unelected” court.

It seems to me that Eric "the gun runner" Holder as an unelected federal official has acted the same against some states.

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
Cy-I saw his little outdoor

presser confab today. Using words like, "I EXPECT" the Supreme Court to pass this healthcare.....

Excuse me, but where did I miss the history lesson that said any POTUS has a right to question or influence our highest court? The lessons I learned were when the Supremes have a decision to make, the POTUS and Congress are to back off and let them do their job. Where is the respect that is due any Supreme Court? Checks and balances?

Seems Barack has been hanging out with those zealots that run the corrupt socialist countries for just a little too long now. Seven months and counting....cannot be soon enough.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
moe,

As we all know, he's a esteemed legal scholar. (eyes rolling) PTCO, in his post below, is spot on.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
CY to my knowledge no President

has ever gone after the Supreme Court like this. He is supposed to be a Constitutional "Scholar" he of all people should know it is not unprecedented to overturn a bad law on Constitutional grounds.

This was just another shot across their bow. He thinks they will bend to HIS will.

Not the first time he has forgotten that there is supposed to be a separation of powers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=deGg41IiWwU

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obama Was Right in State of Union Speech

.

Quote:

. Spend without limits in our elections

Isn't this happening now with the PACS?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Separation of Powers DM

The President may not like it. He may want to control it...BUT.... our system of Government holds that the Judicial branch is separate from the Executive branch and that's a fact he can't change.

Rather the Supreme Court was right or wrong is irrelevant. They are called the "Supreme" Court for a reason and President Obama must recognize that fact.

The problem is he can't...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Obama and separation of power

Not only can he - he has Lindsey

Quote:

Even Obama appears conflicted
on the court’s role. On
Tuesday he backtracked from
his earlier comment and admitted
that the court has “the final say on our
Constitution and our laws and all of us have to
respect it.” But he did ask that it recognize its
extraordinary power by deferring to Congress.
Elected or not, the nine justices have a
higher calling to show they can rise above
political whims and ideologies – even presidential
intimidations – and act as the conscience
of the country, helping to define the common good.

lion
lion's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/16/2005
Supreme Court

This seems to be the constitutional reasoning by the conservative majority on the Supreme Court of the U.S.:

Health insurance for all Americans--serious constitutional problem leading to required broccoli.

Strip searches of Americans--Not a problem!!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
The Supremes and Arizona SB 1070

Perhaps another bad day for the administration.

I love some of the comments made by the Justices:

Cheif Justice Roberts: "It seems to me the federal government just doesn't want to know who is here illegally."

Cheif Justice Roberts: No part of your argument has to do with racial or ethnic profiling, does it?"

"That's correct," Verrilli replied. (Verrilli is the solicitor general defending the federal gov's position)

When Verrilli said the law could lead to "mass incarceration," Justice Anthony M. Kennedy snapped, "So you're saying the government has a legitimate interest in not enforcing its laws?"

When the solicitor general said the "aggressive enforcement" of immigration laws could offend Mexico, Justice Antony Scalia objected. "Look, free them from the jails and send them back to the countries that are objecting. What's the problem with that?"

Verrilli replied that U.S. officials needed to work cooperatively with Mexico.

"So we have to enforce our laws in a manner that will please Mexico? Is that what you are saying?" Scalia asked.

Scalia went further than some of the other conservatives, saying a sovereign state had the authority to "defend its borders" and arrest people "who do not belong in the country."

Several of us on these board expressed the same opinions only to be called racists and other off the wall things. BTW, remember the solicitor general said that this is not about racial profiling.

Perhaps the administration might lose twice.

meanoldconservatives
meanoldconservatives's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/09/2008
Cyclist

"Perhaps the administration might lose twice."

Ahhh my friend, me thinks you aim too low. Three losses this year for this administration sounds like a plan.....

kcchiefandy
kcchiefandy's picture
Offline
Joined: 09/18/2009
'pleasing', Cyclist...

...sounds an awful lot like 'appeasing', doesn't it? Hmmm, sounds like the Administration's foreign policy on just about everything...and we know where the last bit of 'appeasing' got the world...!

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Obama - Harvard Law School

Well it seems that Mr. Obama is ignoring the separate but equal clause of the Constitution. He has history on his side, both Lincoln and FDR did the same thing. Maybe Mr. Obama will attempt to pack the court like FDR?

Mr. Obama says that the law should be upheld because he thinks it should. So much for the in-depth Constitutional analysis from one that graduated Harvard Law School. Not surprising that the most arguably liberal law school in the USA should have graduated such foolery.

That "rag" Constitution seems to just get in the way of elitist "vision" and dictatorship. Sure hope the SCOTUS doesn't change hands during Mr. Obama's regime or we're all in trouble.

And the ruling is?????

moelarrycurly
moelarrycurly's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/17/2010
PTCO-Cy is right

you hit the nail on the head. I bet Presidente Calderon and Canadian PM Harper walked back inside the White House shoulder to shoulder and one asked the other, "Excuse me, but what country are we in and just who does he think he is?"

Another humiliating display by the so-called leader of the best democracy ever created on this planet.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
5th Circuit Court of Appeals slaps Obama's hand...

Fed Appeals to DOJ:"YOU HAVE UNTIL THURSDAY TO EXPLAIN WHAT THE PRESIDENT MEANT BY ‘UNPRECEDENTED’ & ‘UNELECTED GROUP’"

The 5th Circuit court of Appeals has said the Department of Justice has until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.

It seems that they took umbrage at the Presidents remarks that seem to imply that the Supreme Court couldn't overturn a Congressional Law rather it is deemed Constitutional or not.

“That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority,” Judge Smith said. “And that’s not a small matter.”

He then told the attorneys that the DOJ must address this issue in “no less than three pages, single spaced” by noon on Thursday, according to Fox.

“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday — that’s about 48 hours from now — a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president,” Smith said.

It looks like the President is being put in to a timeout.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
We should hear today from the Supreme Court on Obamacare

My prediction?

The individual mandate goes down in flames. Now the Dems will spin it as a win that the rest of Obamacare stands... However without the mandate to fund it, it all goes down unless they digitize some more monopoly money to pay for it and with QE3 right around the corner uncontrolled inflation is the next logical step.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Robert's saved Obamacare.. Welcome to Obamaland

I was wrong. There I said it. The Government apparently DOES have the authority to force you into Commerce well they can't call it Commerce they have to call it a tax.

But wait... didn't Obama and everyone else tell us this wasn't a tax?

"Federal judges who have ruled on the constitutionality of healthcare reform have split along but party lines, but they all agree on one thing: The law’s fine for failing to obtain health coverage is a penalty, not a tax."

"In a 2009 interview with George Stephanopoulos, Obama attempted to refute the argument that this portion of the bill violated his promise not to raise taxes on anyone making less than $250,000.
“For us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase,” Obama said in the interview. “You just can’t make up that language and call it a tax increase. . . I absolutely reject that notion.”

"When asked by Rep. Scott Garrett whether or not the individual mandate penalty is a tax that undermines the Obama Administration’s claim that it is not raising taxes for any families under $250,000, Zients seems confused, before eventually saying that the penalty is not a tax. "

No it's not a tax not at all...

The Revolution starts today.

I will not comply!

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
S. Lindsey

You should have seen Pelosi's response to the same question. She more or less shrugged her shoulders with an attitude of "oh well".

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Cy

Today is a very sad day.

It's the day Freedom died.

If the Government can, by levying a tax, force/compel you to purchase a product then what is it they can not force you to do?

This thing will never go away and the death of America as we knew is here.

Not being dramatic just a pragmatist.

Obama: It's not a Tax

"In 1927, an American Socialist Norman Thomas, six times candidate for President of the U.S. on the Socialist Party ticket stated, “The American people would never vote for ‘Socialism,’ but under the name ‘Liberalism’ the American people will adopt every fragment of the socialist program.”"

We have reached that point....

Ronald Reagan warned us in 1961...about the gateway to Socialism was control of Healthcare.

Regan beware the Foreand Bill it's a takeover of Healthcare for Socialism

They have won... but remember Socialism is for the People not the Socialist.. Look at all who are exempt... are they the "common folk" or are they the elites?

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Steve & "Compliance"

Not a problem for you because you know it's smart to have health insurance and you can afford it. I don't believe Congress will leave it untouched!

AtHomeGym
AtHomeGym's picture
Offline
Joined: 01/18/2007
Steve & "Compliance"

Not a problem for you because you know it's smart to have health insurance and you can afford it. I don't believe Congress will leave it untouched!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
AHG this is good for the Poor won't affect the Rich

but the Middle Class is going to get the brunt of the sharp end of the stick...well them and business.

The "Poor" is going to have Healthcare given to them FREE just another entitlement... The Rich can afford it but they can't pay for it all so the Middle Class those of us that have to work for a living are the ones that are going to shoulder the most burden.

Roberts may have done us a favor in a back handed sort of way.

This Administration has a very real tendency to "interpret" the Constitution specifically the "General Welfare" or as I call it the "Good and Plenty" clause and the "Commerce" clause.

Now the GW clause is hard to justify with the American People. If this Government taxes 50% of us for the "General Welfare" of 10% of the population well let's say a crap storm starts brewing, but the Commerce clause now that's something this Government can sink it's claws into.

We live in a Capitalist Society just about everything we do has to involve some sort of Commerce.... So if the Government can control commerce, regulate every aspect of it, then they control Capitalism and by it our Country.

What Roberts did was to narrowly define the Governments ability to control Commerce. By saying this is a TAX, even though Roberts literally had to re-write the Legislation to do so, it means Government is limited to the Constitutional boundaries and the enumerated powers set forth therein.

Don't get me wrong.. this is very bad for us because even if Robert's THOUGHT he was doing the right thing he still used the wrong reason to do it.

We will never be able to get rid of this leviathan and it will only grow from here... Nothing Government does shrinks it only gets bigger.. Most pigs do when they are fed a steady diet at the public trough.

Dondol
Dondol's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/05/2006
Tiss a Very Sad Day for America!

To the United States of America, Good by old friend, it was a good run.
Long Live the United Socialist Republic of Obamica, Long Live Comrade Obama!
What a Maroon!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Final Thoughts?

Reconciliation was used to pass Healthcare right?

Reconciliation cannot be used to pass a Tax that's why they called it a penalty and not a Tax...so....since the Supreme Court has now decreed that this entire thing is one big tax... is the passage of the entire bill using reconciliation therefore void?

Seems like another tool Robert's may have given us to get this monstrosity out of here.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
bfd Obama?

Still a BFD

Wow. This 'president' is a classless tool. Enjoy it while you can, Barry! Not only will you lose in November, but your legacy will be nothing but failure.

Recent Comments