Last Updated:October 22 @ 07:58 am

Supreme Court rules Obamacare constitutional

By AP Staff

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul.

The decision means the huge overhaul, still only partly in effect, will proceed and pick up momentum over the next several years, affecting the way that countless Americans receive and pay for their personal medical care. The ruling also hands Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court's judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

The justices rejected two of the administration's three arguments in support of the insurance requirement. But the court said the mandate can be construed as a tax. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness," Roberts said.

The court found problems with the law's expansion of Medicaid, but even there said the expansion could proceed as long as the federal government does not threaten to withhold states' entire Medicaid allotment if they don't take part in the law's extension.

The court's four liberal justices, Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor, joined Roberts in the outcome.

Justices Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas dissented.

"The act before us here exceeds federal power both in mandating the purchase of health insurance and in denying non-consenting states all Medicaid funding," the dissenters said in a joint statement.

VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
Rate this post:
Rating: 5.3/10 (11 votes cast)
Supreme Court rules Obamacare constitutional, 5.3 out of 10 based on 11 ratings





Don't leave yet! Add a comment below or check out these other great stories:

55 Comments

  1. cxComment by genesal
    June 28, 2012 @ 9:26 am

    Obama lied again. This isn’t a tax, he said. Then they argued in SCOTUS that it should be upheld as a tax. How insidious.

    Time to repeal! Hopefully we’ll have enough Congressional support come November. Time to fight them.

    SCOTUS definitely dropped the ball on this one.

    Roberts, swing vote.

    Sad day for America.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (22 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 28, 2012 @ 10:03 am

      The Court’s decision is an overreach and is fatally flawed!
      Article 1, Section 8, Clause 1, granted Congress the power to collect taxes to provide for the general welfare of the United States NOT PERSONS.
      The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to lay and collect taxes based “ON INCOME”. It did not grant Congress the power to tax people based on what a person does with their income.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.0/5 (21 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 28, 2012 @ 11:00 am

      Consider this, the Healthcare Act guarantees almost everyone health care and if they do not purchase it you will be fined. In 2015 this fine will be set at 2.5% of your income. If a family of 4 with a median income in the US (roughly $50,000) pays a minimum of $500 a month for health care most will probably opt to not get the insurance as the fine would only be around $105 a month. Just what do you think is going to happen to everyone else’s health care costs? Further, the health care must be paid for somehow so it would fall upon the taxpayers with even higher taxes.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.6/5 (15 votes cast)
    • capricorn1Comment by capricorn1
      June 28, 2012 @ 11:53 am

      WELCOME to the soviet socialist states of america.
      where you are just a number and property of premeire obama and his minions.truely a sad day for whats left of our america.war is inevitable.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (19 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 28, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

      What next? Joining the European Union and changing to the Euro?

      It’s a good thing, for Obama, that the Supreme Court protected the first amendment rights for LIARS and LYING (Stolen Valor case) I’m not sure how much more angry I can get. Now lying is protected and legal.

      I guess our laws are based on 1 or 2 Commandments, not 10.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (18 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 28, 2012 @ 5:28 pm

      Obama’s self chosen poverty pimps will of course get a special sanction and not pay anything. Id just one more case of wealth redistribution of our kids futures.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (10 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      June 28, 2012 @ 8:25 pm

      Blu Owen writes:

      “The 16th Amendment granted Congress the power to lay and collect taxes based “ON INCOME”. It did not grant Congress the power to tax people based on what a person does with their income.”

      Yet Congress DOES tax people based on what a person does with their income. If they spend it on interest payments for a house they are taxed less then people that don’t have such. There are lots of other “deductions” in the tax code.

      Think of it this way. You are being given a “deduction” on your tax if you go out and buy health insurance.

      I am not saying that it is right. Just that the argument would be the same.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (7 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 28, 2012 @ 9:05 pm

      Vicki, the subtle difference is in your example all the deductions are voluntary and there is no fine if you don’t use them, in contrast, in the Healthcare Act the deduction is mandatory and if you do not take it you will be fined.
      The majority opinion just turned our tax system upside down and mocks our capitalistic system.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 4.1/5 (13 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      June 29, 2012 @ 3:33 am

      Comment by Blu Owen
      “Vicki, the subtle difference is in your example all the deductions are voluntary and there is no fine if you don’t use them, in contrast, in the Healthcare Act the deduction is mandatory and if you do not take it you will be fined.
      The majority opinion just turned our tax system upside down and mocks our capitalistic system.”

      You are missing the point that Chief Justice Roberts pointed out.

      You are NOT being fined or penalized for not buying health insurance.

      You are taxed for being. I.E. existing. If you voluntarily buy health insurance you get to apply a 100% deduction to your “existence” tax. If you voluntarily choose to NOT buy the insurance then you do not have a deduction to apply to your “existence” tax.

      This is EXACTLY the same as the home interest rate deduction.
      You are taxed on your income. If you voluntarily take a mortgage on a house you get to apply a deduction to your “income” tax based on the interest paid. If you buy the house cash then you do not have a deduction to apply to your “income” tax.

      There are subtle differences but they’re the tax not the deductions.

      This new tax is a tax on the act of being not on income.

      The irony of this is that you are effectively being taxed for the air you breathe.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.0/5 (7 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 29, 2012 @ 8:17 am

      Blu Owen, I think your first comment said it all. I don’t see how Roberts can call this a tax. It’s only a tax on those who don’t purchase health insurance and is therefore a penalty, which is not the same thing at all. A tax applies across the board, not just to those who don’t follow the rules. It’s in no way logical to call this a tax. What is up with Roberts?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 29, 2012 @ 9:27 am

      Vicki, you said that this new tax is a tax on the act of being not on income.
      I fully realize this and the Constitution DOES NOT say that you can be taxed for just existing.
      Ironically, in Justice Robert’s opinion he may have been wrong on this particular point but, he also pointed out that it is not the judiciary’s job to correct bad law and policy created by the idiots elected to office. Rather, that is the job of the people come election time.
      I believe, this part of the opinion is now having a ripple effect across our country. Just watching Facebook I am seeing diehard Obama liberals now seriously talking about getting the idiots out of office including him.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 29, 2012 @ 9:42 am

      Another point is that in Robert’s opinion he said that they construed it to be a tax. For a Supreme Court ruling I find this odd. In doing so, I believe, Robert’s purposely did not define it as a hard precedent as they do in most cases but rather something that could be construed in a different way later.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      June 29, 2012 @ 2:45 pm

      Blue Owen writes:
      “I fully realize this and the Constitution DOES NOT say that you can be taxed for just existing.”

      Actually it does. That is a “direct” tax.
      “U.S. constitutional law sense

      In the United States, the term “direct tax” has acquired specific meaning under constitutional law: a direct tax is a tax on property “by reason of its ownership”[3] (such as an ordinary real estate property tax imposed on the person owning the property as of January 1 of each year) as well as a capitation (a “tax per head”).[4] In the late 19th century, U.S. courts also began to treat an income tax on income from property as a direct tax.[5] In U.S. constitutional law, an “indirect tax” or “excise” is an “event” tax.[6] In this sense, a transfer tax (such as gift tax and estate tax) is an indirect tax. Income taxes on income from personal services such as wages are also indirect taxes in this sense.[7] The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has stated: “Only three taxes are definitely known to be direct: (1) a capitation [ . . . ], (2) a tax upon real property, and (3) a tax upon personal property.”[8]”
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_tax#U.S._constitutional_law_sense

      Note the reference to “tax per head” A Capitation tax. Thus it would be a tax for breathing or existing since you likely can’t get the dead to pay that tax. :)

      So if it is a tax as Chief Roberts suggests then it HAS to be a direct tax.

      Direct taxes btw must be apportioned across the states according to the Constitution. Meaning EVERYONE must pay the tax. Even Children.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 29, 2012 @ 5:31 pm

      The SCOTUS majority said they construed the penalty in the Act to be a legal use of Congress’ right to tax NOT under Art. I, §8, cl. 1, but under Art. I, §9, cl. 4. of the Constitution “Limits on Congress” which is where the wording “direct tax” is found. The clause which originally stated “No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken” and was clarified by the 16th Amendment stating “the Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration”. Since the penalty is not based on income it’s constitutionality should be questioned on that basis. Although, I believe, that this argument was never made.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 30, 2012 @ 9:21 am

      Actually Roberts made the Act null and void since it did not originate in the House of Representatives, thus unconstitutional. The Constitution allows that all Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 30, 2012 @ 9:49 am

      genesal, are you sure? If that’s true it seems like a total no-brainer that the bill would be unconstitutional.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 30, 2012 @ 10:30 am

      http://www.google.com/search?q=obamacare+originated+where&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

      Yes, from what I can tell

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 30, 2012 @ 10:44 am

      This is absolutely fascinating. Someone else just pointed this out also on another forum. So what happens now, can this go back to the Supreme Court for another review? And why have none of the lawyers who have been on the cable news networks mentioned this? Like I said, it just looks like such a total no-brainer.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Jota_Comment by Jota_
      June 30, 2012 @ 10:52 am

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_Care_and_Education_Reconciliation_Act_of_2010
      “By the end of 2009, separate health care reform bills had been passed by both houses of Congress. The Senate bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, became the most viable avenue to reform following the death of Democratic Senator Ted Kennedy and his replacement by Republican
      Scott Brown. Lacking a filibuster-proof supermajority in the Senate, the Obama administration and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi began encouraging the House to pass an amended version of the Senate bill using the reconciliation process”

      ARTICLE I

      SECTION 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

      The bill DID NOT ORIGINATE in the House of Representatives, it began in the Senate

      It could NOT have passed vote if it had FOLLOWED THE LAW

      No one is under any obligation to obey anything which is illegal (against the law) in fact they have a duty to oppose it

      Since this is a tax it cannot possible be a law

      Congress has to pass it the correct way first

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • Blu OwenComment by Blu Owen
      June 30, 2012 @ 11:39 am

      Genesal is completely correct!
      Art. I, §7, cl. 1 of the Constitution states “All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.”
      When H.R. 3590 was originally presented to the Senate it was a revenue bill regarding housing tax breaks for service members.
      One must first understand the accepted legal definition of amendment which is “The modification of materials by the addition of supplemental information; the deletion of unnecessary, undesirable, or outdated information; or the correction of errors existing in the text.” Common sense should tell most people that would mean that by the Constitution the Senate could propose modifications to include ONLY the addition of supplemental information; the deletion of unnecessary, undesirable, or outdated information; or the correction of errors existing in the text. It would follow that common sense should also tell most people that one could not consider an amendment to include the striking of all text after the enactment clause which is the House of Representatives authority under Art. I, §7, cl. 1 of the Constitution.
      This IS what the Senate did with this legislation.
      http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-111hr3590as/pdf/BILLS-111hr3590as.pdf

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • holtsysComment by holtsys
      June 30, 2012 @ 11:47 am

      Now that the dust has settled here a little and some clarity has come through, it turns out the Roberts’ siding with the libs was a brilliant move. Yes, it made “look” like a victory for the left, but in reality, he sent this really BAD bill back to congress to take action. He also saved the dignity & confidence that the people have in the SCOTUS. It will now not be seen as just another partisan entity.
      Because congress does have the right to levy taxes, good or bad, this puts it squarely back in their realm to kill this monster.
      It may be a hard pill to swallow (pun intended), but it was the right thing for Roberts to do.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 30, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

      The Dems think they have Romney in a corner because of Romneycare. Little do they know Romney doesn’t really need to worry about that because a ‘sleeping giant’ has awakened and the Tea Party has been re-energized and the fight will be fought hard now, regardless of who is running for the President. Not only do the Dems have to worry about Obamacare, they have to worry about Romney, and the House and the Senate.

      Signed,
      PART OF THE ‘SLEEPING GIANT’.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  2. inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
    June 28, 2012 @ 9:47 am

    The chicken hawks and socialist vultures that reside in the nest of the Supreme Court have grounded the American Eagle like Obama grounded our American Space Program. The irony of it all is that in doing so he has put a nail in the coffin of American economic competition and a nail through the heart of his own candidacy. Of course it’s a tax, which is all these Democrats EVER have to offer. When in doubt, vote them out. Caulk one more up for the team of socialist illegal inveiglers and clipped wings for the American Judicial Eagles.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (25 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      June 30, 2012 @ 7:47 pm

      Of course it is a tax. Any money collected by government is a tax. Even if they call it a “fee” or “penalty”.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      July 1, 2012 @ 11:32 am

      Vicki: What about money given to the government voluntarily? Is that a tax?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
    • cdrcodyComment by cdrcody
      July 1, 2012 @ 2:39 pm

      I pulled this from the comments at another discussion. I think this says it all.

      “Jack Marino · Top Commenter · Radio Host/Filmmaker at LA Talk Radio
      Paco…. this is all true. ROberts took out 5 birds with one stone. He dumped this commie bill back into the laps of the Dems. These idiots are jumping around as if they won a huge war. Roberts nutered Obama and his marxist gang from attacking the conservatives to election day. He took the one thing the DEMS love…. MANDATES away! They would love to tell us each day what to eat, wear, think and do. He killed the BILL as well as the other four on the bench did. Roberts keep the Holy Grail alive and turned it into a TAX. Now, this means that all 50 states can opt out of this Obamacare, rommeycare, kennedycare, stalin care, any care. They WON NOTHING! Now they must go through the motions to fund this monster which will take 900 million to 2 trillion. Congress doesn’t have the guts to raise taxes that high. They love their jobs more then their political ideals and party. They will vote this pig down and that will KILL IT as we all wanted it to be KILL on Thursday. Read the opinion it is 191 pages dry are chewing on grass but it is all there. Roberts pulled a Michael Corleone on the DEMS and reps that don’t know how this system works.”

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  3. GHUComment by GHU
    June 28, 2012 @ 10:02 am

    You’ve got to be kidding! God help us all……He is the only one who can after the idiotic decision of the Supreme Court!

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.8/5 (17 votes cast)
  4. LenaComment by Mona
    June 28, 2012 @ 10:09 am

    The remedy for this can only come through Congress and a president willing to repeal this law. Romney has vowed to do so but he can only do it if he has a conservative Congress.

    Our work is clearly laid out for us.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (20 votes cast)
  5. cxComment by genesal
    June 28, 2012 @ 10:30 am

    Yes, but even if this Act is repealed the SC left it wide open in the governments ability to have their way with you and call it a tax. Biggest and most insidious loophole SCOTUS has opened yet. Far reaching effects on the very slippery slope.

    SHAME ON THEM.

    There seems to be an Obamoite amongst us who is star struck.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 28, 2012 @ 10:46 am

      Roberts is a fool, can any Conservative President ever properly vet and nominate enough Supremes who will not turn their coats once given the Black robes?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (22 votes cast)
    • lwessonComment by lwesson
      June 28, 2012 @ 12:39 pm

      I have noticed an up tick in negative stars too. Likely, a fat Obama Troll, being given a job in his or her Mom’s basement. Hi Troll!

      Thomas Jefferson worried correctly, that the Courts could be the undoing of The Representative Republic. Yes, right about that!

      The switch, about this being NOW, a tax, as Obama argued it was not a tax, says much.

      Being a tax, you can now be in a situation of being arrested, imprisoned if you refuse to pay. Sure, Das Stat will try to seize your property, like payroll taxes, and SS taxes, but there are those that have no payroll…, prison…, FEMA Camps…

      Per The Black Robes, This Branch of Gov., I thought of once, as a kind of protective baby sitter. Time and again, Justices have been picked that do not like “The Baby”. We have hit critical mass now. Just a matter of time before this shell game of balance bla bla bla, would go very very bad.

      Per anger, this is something for Mitts to loose. On social sites, I have never seen the outrage, nor the pompus gloating, de-friending by those that you suspected of cheering on Das Stat. Mitt yapping about alternatives, and saying nothing, worries me, about what is really going on, again, loosing the anger of what is left of We the People. If Mitt fumbles this ball, game over.

      Oh, and Roberts, what an a$$ clown.

      Bye Troll, your bad pizza is getting cold.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (16 votes cast)
    • lwessonComment by lwesson
      June 28, 2012 @ 8:24 pm

      Was Roberts doing a high end throw down???

      Sip your Coke Zero Troll. Zero. Indeed.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.3/5 (7 votes cast)
  6. justamomComment by justamom
    June 28, 2012 @ 11:20 am

    I cannot believe that Roberts betrayed us all like that. What is the matter with him?

    Do we understand what this REALLY means? This means the government can compel you to DO ANYTHING and if not, fine you, and call it a tax, and it’s legal. You are now property of the state.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.3/5 (24 votes cast)
  7. Rich MoneyComment by Rich Money
    June 28, 2012 @ 11:23 am

    The Supreme Court ruled today that Obamacare is constitutional, with Chief Justice Roberts siding with the four liberal judges on the court to allow it. I do not think most people realize just how disastrous this ruling is to America as we know it. Not only has the Supreme Court given the Congress the right to establish mandates determining products and services we must purchase whether we want them or not, they have given the Congress the power to enforce those mandates with taxes. The genie is out of the bottle for good, and short of repealing Obamacare, it will never be confined again. It boggles my mind that Justice Roberts could look at this and determine that it was the intention of the Founding Fathers to give such unchecked and broad-reaching power to the US Congress. What’s next? Congress decides that broccoli is really healthy for you and passes a mandate that all Americans must buy broccoli at the threat of a non-compliance tax? If you think it isn’t possible, think again. With this ruling, such a scenario is not only plausible but likely, considering the nanny-state healthcare system we are now having forced down our throats. After all, if it helps lower healthcare costs, it must be good, and therefore the American people must take it whether they like it or not. The Supreme Court just gave power to Congress that it was never intended to have, and we as the private citizens are now subject to whatever whims flit through the minds of those in the executive and legislative branches. Not to mention that this ruling tramples all over the states’ rights provision of the Constitution. All in all, the worst ruling handed down by the Supreme Court since Roe v. Wade, and it may be the last straw in pushing this country into full-blown socialism. Congratulations, Mr. Roberts (I refuse to call you a judge after this debacle), your legacy may be destroying the United States as we know it. Sleep well, sir; you may have destroyed the finest nation on earth today with your incomprehensible stupidity.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.1/5 (24 votes cast)
  8. cxComment by genesal
    June 28, 2012 @ 11:26 am

    At least Romney said the right things about the decision. We just have to wait and see. Trouble is some of the effects of the decision itself will be permanent.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.5/5 (11 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 28, 2012 @ 1:11 pm

      Romney gathered 1,000,000 dollars in (4) four hours after the decision. Go Mitt.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (16 votes cast)
  9. mvotano58Comment by mvotano58
    June 28, 2012 @ 11:34 am

    Why is it that the government wants to reinvent the wheel and start yet another program that is broken to begin with and will just continue to decay until a new POTUS decides to “fix” it…..I am self-employed and so now I am going to have to pay yet more taxes….guess what more taxes means I can’t afford to hire anyone.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (15 votes cast)
  10. The SentinelComment by The Sentinel
    June 28, 2012 @ 11:48 am

    Follow the money and scrutinize certain Justices or their family’s finances. I smell a rat.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.3/5 (12 votes cast)
    • inluminatuoComment by inluminatuo
      June 28, 2012 @ 5:34 pm

      I was thinking the same thing.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast)
  11. tfcraig1Comment by tfcraig1
    June 28, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

    I’ll take another view, which could be just whistling in the dark. The democrats are now stuck with a bill that’s theirs and theirs alone, passed without debate and despised by almost twice as many as support it. They can’t weasel out of what this will probably do to the economy. I don’t like its being upheld, but it may do the dems more harm than anyone else, even with their sock-puppets in the media.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.8/5 (17 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 28, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

      You might be right, could backfire on them. It is firing up the Conservative base I know.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.8/5 (14 votes cast)
  12. cynicalobserverComment by cynicalobserver
    June 28, 2012 @ 4:42 pm

    Not only is there something rotten in Denmark but there is something rotten in the Supreme Court which stinks to high heaven.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 4.0/5 (8 votes cast)
  13. thomasjeffersonComment by thomasjefferson
    June 28, 2012 @ 8:08 pm

    This from the same SCOTUS that says it’s legal to lie your *** off in order to get elected to office.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast)
  14. biloak71Comment by biloak71
    June 28, 2012 @ 8:24 pm

    To genesal: Unfortunately for us, this law is written so it cannot be repealed completely. But, and that’s a big but, we have to have leaders in the House. The ones there now are a big disappointment. Thanks, Roberts! You singlehandedly gave the federal gov’t power they didn’t dream of having. Except Obama. He prayed to allah foe this to happen to America; and it did. One man, one vote. Now, I pray that all of you – and me too – do not get sick. this law doesn’t affect the healthy as it does the young stricken with serious ailments, the elderly and infirm (not useful any longer) Wait till 2014 when the heavy duty policies go into effect. All this turmoil and coming headaches to cover 30 million people(a lie!, and then leave out 12 million? With no money to cover our current system. It all goes back to JOB#1; Obama must be defeated.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      June 28, 2012 @ 8:33 pm

      “Unfortunately for us, this law is written so it cannot be repealed completely.”

      There is no such law. Congress and if necessary the states thru constitutional amendment can repeal ANY law passed by Congress.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.9/5 (7 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 28, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

      Without Obamacare we are bankrupt. with Obamacare we are Mexico with some Americans.

      How much is this going to entice illegal immigration coming to get free Obamacare?

      Obama, Reid, Polowsky, Holder and many more must be defeated!

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.7/5 (6 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      June 28, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

      The individual mandate is a tax for breathing. Are illegal aliens really immune?

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.4/5 (5 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 28, 2012 @ 8:49 pm

      Wait til the ‘Bush tax cut’s’ expire. Then Obama will have raised taxes the highest and second highest amount in American history. Good track record Lowbama.
      PS we know you’re still lying.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.5/5 (8 votes cast)
    • VickiComment by Vicki
      June 29, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

      I ask above
      “The individual mandate is a tax for breathing. Are illegal aliens really immune?”

      I found the answer. No they are not. The constitution speaks of direct taxes. One of those taxes is a capitation tax (Head tax). Direct taxes must be apportioned according to the population of PERSONS (not just citizens) in a state. So both legal and illegal aliens are required to pay the tax.

      —————————————————-
      Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.

      (snip)

      The Constitution mandates that a Census be conducted every ten years to determine the populations of the States, and this clause provided for a temporary apportionment of seats until the first Census could be conducted. The population of a state originally included (for congressional apportionment purposes) all “free persons”, three-fifths of “other persons” (i.e., slaves) and excluded untaxed Native Americans. Presently, the Census counts illegal immigrants, and Census figures are used to determine congressional seats.
      —————————————-
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_2.2C_Clause_3

      NOTICE that the census counts illegal immigrants. That means that they must also pay the tax and that the number of representatives in the House of representatives is directly affected by the presence of illegal immigrants.

      No wonder both the Republicans and Democrats want to keep them in the country.

      (Amusing side note. I was born in America. I assume you and most of the readers here were too. That means we are native Americans and according to one possible reading of the Constitution exempt.
      Since I know the intent was for the group of people who were already here (American Indians) it is just a point of amusement.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)
  15. biloak71Comment by biloak71
    June 28, 2012 @ 8:37 pm

    But, it doesn’t look good for Obama’s defeat now. Thank you, Roberts. This ruling plus the immigration decision last week, sure makes it tough ti get rid of the ultra-liberals. They have to be beaten. our nation needs them beaten. I wish I could predict things in Atlantic City, as I did this decision quire some time ago. I thought Scalia would be the rat, but it turned out to be the turncoat leader. As we’ll soon see, this healthcare charade was never about healthcare, but sweeping gov’t power and control.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.5/5 (6 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 29, 2012 @ 8:25 am

      Scalia would never be a rat. He is a true constructionist judge and considered one of the most conservative if not the most conservative on the Court. However, I’m shocked at the decision by Roberts to flip on this. I never thought that would happen, but as a lot of people have pointed out, this could be just what the Republicans need for a winning issue.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.3/5 (3 votes cast)
    • begneli2011Comment by begneli2011
      June 29, 2012 @ 8:28 am

      Scalia almost always the good guy.You must have meant Stevens

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (4 votes cast)
    • cxComment by genesal
      June 29, 2012 @ 8:37 am

      It’s Kennedy who was expected to maybe tip the liberal side. He actually said that the whole law should be thrown out. I’m still in shock, which will soon turn out to be ‘sticker shock’.
      This is an text book example of legislating from the bench. Didn’t quite expect that from SCOTUS but, hey, we were promised Change. Sometimes you just have to adjust to be a good commie (sarcasm)

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 2.8/5 (4 votes cast)
  16. T LadyComment by T Lady
    June 29, 2012 @ 11:04 am

    The dissenters are 100% right on the money. This is a travesty.

    VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
    Rate this comment:
    Rating: 3.7/5 (3 votes cast)
    • LAPhilComment by LAPhil
      June 29, 2012 @ 2:09 pm

      Yes, Kennedy said the whole bill should have been thrown out. He was right.

      VN:F [1.9.6_1107]
      Rate this comment:
      Rating: 3.0/5 (2 votes cast)

Leave a Comment





Reference Pages

  • About
  • Network-wide options by YD - Freelance Wordpress Developer