Obamacare in deep deep trouble
- Thread starter 377OHMS
- Start date
Quote from AK Forty Seven:
Welcome to the mind of a birther.The Georgia birther case that birthers thought would keep Obama off the ballot fails and birthers like jem thinks its because Obama approved a nuclear reactor
Now you are going all obamaloon on us.
Being that Obama provided no evidence of eligibility to the court or the state election officials .. it is a bit of a longshot he was allowed on the ballot... don't you think? Or is that too logical for a loon like you.
Quote from Max E. Pad:
in my opinion, The articles are doing that to create drama, if you had to bet your life on Sotomayor which way would you bet?
If you are betting Sotomayor will strike it down i would gladly take the other side of that....
lol no thanks, don't want any of *that* action
Some of her questions were interpreted as being harsh towards the soliciter general (government lawyer arguing to uphold).
Did Kagan recuse herself? I can't find any mention of that.
Its all for show even by Sotomoyer imo.No way she votes against the President who appointed her imo
I think it might actually go 6-3,I think Obama and Roberts are pals ,I think Roberts might be a yes vote
For all the complaining from the right this is a republican bill that the health and pharmaceutical industry wants as long as the mandate is in place
I think it might actually go 6-3,I think Obama and Roberts are pals ,I think Roberts might be a yes vote
For all the complaining from the right this is a republican bill that the health and pharmaceutical industry wants as long as the mandate is in place
Justices just said they intend to strike down the entire law:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...ntire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story
Ouch.
Is this on Intrade? Gonna take a look...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...ntire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story
Ouch.
Is this on Intrade? Gonna take a look...
I'm surprised they would make such statements prior to issuing the ruling.
Anyway, the article says this is what the administration says.
The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.
That sounds like Obama is trying to dictate to the court some limits. If they strike down the entire law, which they should, is Obama going to try to ignore the ruling and create a real constitutional crisis?
Maybe he figures if Gingrich can talk about ignoring SCOTUS rulings, he can just do it.
Looks like your law degree from the molson factory needs to be rescinded.
from 377 link...
http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...0,2058481.story
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obamaâs healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The courtâs conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a âwrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.