Supreme Court ObamaCare

Yippie! Not Constitutional is Winning 22-11 !
.
.
.
.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering and snarking.

LOL :woo hoo:

:pop

Forward this poll to the Supremes now! If Ginsburg sees that 285Bound has called Obamacare null and void, she will change her vote for sure.

And if the SCOTUS happens to rule that it IS Constitutional, I will be the first to take great pleasure in shoving your poll down your throats....

(And if they rule the other way, I will be the first to suggest that it's another 5-4 political decision that has nothing to do with "calling balls and strikes"...)

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course there is no way that Thomas would have leaked info to a tea party lobbyist, i.e., his wife.

And you have proof of this?

you betcha!
Ginni Thomas’s 2009 creation of a tea party non-profit group for which she raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed contributions, as well as her subsequent creation of a tea party consulting firm last year, has become the basis for allegations by some liberals that her husband’s impartiality has been compromised.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/04 ... z1r7woU5xC
Justice Thomas’s wife Virginia Thomas now a lobbyist

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/02 ... z1r7xPs6gN

and of course inJustice Thomas somehow forgot to disclose her earnings on the required financial disclosures:

Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22 ... e-20110122

But of course he is totally impartial

I'm still waiting for your proof that he tipped the Obamacare decision to his wife. I didn't think so. You don't have squat.

Where did I claim that he tipped the decision to his wife?

You have proof of this... "Of course there is no way that Thomas would have leaked info to a tea party lobbyist, i.e., his wife." That's the same as saying he did. Where's your proof.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/ ... tid=pm_pop

President Obama wrote: “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal. And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has. As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.”

Blink, blink, blink cuz I can't believe a former Con Law Prof would say that.

Which then leads me to my next thought, what on earth is this man popping. No joke.

Contest... how many lies can you find in the follow statement...

President Obama wrote: “Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. [/b][/i] And I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Well, first of all, let me be very specific. We have not seen a court overturn a law that was passed by Congress on a economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce — a law like that has not been overturned at least since Lochner. Right? So we’re going back to the ‘30s, pre-New Deal. And the point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it’s precisely because of that extraordinary power that the court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this. Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has. As a consequence, we’re not spending a whole bunch of time planning for contingencies.”

Unprecedented? The Court has done so 165 times, as of 2010. That's about 1.2 laws overturned since 1803. About one a year. Roe versus Wade comes to mind. Is Obama a complete idiot or does he think the public is. This sounded more like a campaign speech. Oh wait... every time he opens his fat trap... it's a campaign speech.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/04/05/the- ... eme-court/

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course there is no way that Thomas would have leaked info to a tea party lobbyist, i.e., his wife.

And you have proof of this?

you betcha!
Ginni Thomas’s 2009 creation of a tea party non-profit group for which she raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed contributions, as well as her subsequent creation of a tea party consulting firm last year, has become the basis for allegations by some liberals that her husband’s impartiality has been compromised.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/04 ... z1r7woU5xC
Justice Thomas’s wife Virginia Thomas now a lobbyist

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/02 ... z1r7xPs6gN

and of course inJustice Thomas somehow forgot to disclose her earnings on the required financial disclosures:

Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22 ... e-20110122

But of course he is totally impartial

I'm still waiting for your proof that he tipped the Obamacare decision to his wife. I didn't think so. You don't have squat.

Where did I claim that he tipped the decision to his wife?

You have proof of this... "Of course there is no way that Thomas would have leaked info to a tea party lobbyist, i.e., his wife." That's the same as saying he did. Where's your proof.

so in your world when someone makes a statement, you take it to mean just the opposite. You seriously need help.

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: Of course there is no way that Thomas would have leaked info to a tea party lobbyist, i.e., his wife.

And you have proof of this?

you betcha!
Ginni Thomas’s 2009 creation of a tea party non-profit group for which she raised hundreds of thousands of dollars in undisclosed contributions, as well as her subsequent creation of a tea party consulting firm last year, has become the basis for allegations by some liberals that her husband’s impartiality has been compromised.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/04 ... z1r7woU5xC
Justice Thomas’s wife Virginia Thomas now a lobbyist

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/02 ... z1r7xPs6gN

and of course inJustice Thomas somehow forgot to disclose her earnings on the required financial disclosures:

Virginia Thomas earned over $680,000 from conservative think tank the Heritage Foundation over five years, a group says. But Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas did not include it on financial disclosure forms.

http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/22 ... e-20110122

But of course he is totally impartial

I'm still waiting for your proof that he tipped the Obamacare decision to his wife. I didn't think so. You don't have squat.

Where did I claim that he tipped the decision to his wife?

You have proof of this... "Of course there is no way that Thomas would have leaked info to a tea party lobbyist, i.e., his wife." That's the same as saying he did. Where's your proof.

so in your world when someone makes a statement, you take it to mean just the opposite. You seriously need help.

My mistake. I apologize. So you admit that the Justice wouldn't leak anything. Thanks for the clarification.

Do you think that if Romney gets elected and he gets a majority of R's in Congress....that the law would actually get reversed legislatively....I would bet not. I would bet, not passionately, that the only way this will get reversed will be in the courts. I think once in office, the money grab that comes from this bill will push too much money at any subsequent lawmakers to keep it in place.

I predict the program will start and will quickly expand with support from both sides of the isle. Right now congress has the power to make you buy things...pay attention...companies will only lobby to expand this to into other industries, there does not seem to be a corporate interest to stop this, thus it will not stop, unless the courts do it.

Those that care about freedom actually need activist judges right now, kinda ironic.

Let's not forget that we would not even be having this discussion if Romney had not brought his health insurance mandates to the commonwealth. He likes the idea, he just likes getting elected more for now.