ACA Supreme Court Tuesday

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by horseofcourse

This has been happening for years and years without the ACA (paying more and more and more in premiums as well as co pays and deductables). I suppose you could argue the ACA will increase payments even more, but I think it's moot, it's already been happening pre-passage. And the bolded part is laughable...that ain't ever gonna happen again (there's them jobs to be created and all...can't ever raise them again!!). In essence it's simply what America is right now...choose evil or evil. That's what a national election is and that is what is the ACA or pre-ACA is. The high comedy of all this is that we have an economic neo-liberal right wing ultra-conservative president right now, and we have to try to out-conservative him in the republican primaries...it is extreme hilarity of the highest order. Right now Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan would be way, way too liberal to win a democratic primary. That is where we stand. Obama has taken what the Bush admin has done to the infinite order to where a sitting president has the right to execute any American they wish with no repurcussion whatsoever. None. Obama cut his deals with the health insurance companies and pharmacutical companies long before he was even elected. Single payer was not an option and never was and never will be, that this plan is defined by the "other side" as socialism is beyond laughable. People still can't understand that the two political parties are in complete synch with each other and 100 percent in collusion, it is all a complete act the "gridlock", there is no disagreement about anything....look at the votes on the military spending bills and NDAA, they go about 90-10 in Senate. They make up stuff for the reality television type entertainment as the contraception fight....really, and the fight over this health care reform which is nothing really, the system stays as is and has been forever. It's a pretty straight forward conservative solution, insurance mandates, from the 90s. So what one side wanted is now "socialism", and at the time what the other side wouldn't do now unanimously votes for it. That we have 24 hour news channels covering it just makes it simply circus clown stuff. Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, and whomever else has a big time stake in maintaining this fake "left and right" supreme divide as denoted by the "R and D" tribal gatherings. That does not exist at all any more and hasn't for quite some time. Some are starting to figure it out, but it will take a long, long time and by then it will likely be too late. We're suckers of the highest order.

Look at the NDAA votes. Look at the number of Goldman-Sachs stooges on Obama's staff, look at the military decisions of Obama, and compare them to Bush. There is zero divide people....zero. None. It's simply a game show. A president Santorum or President Romney, or President Bush, or President Clinton or President Obama. Same as it ever was.

can't argue with any of that. luckily here in arkansas you don't have to register with any party-i'm not registered as belonging to any of them, nor as an independent. neither party is a good one in total. both have some good ideas, both have a lot of bad ideas. they all work for one thing only, keeping their seats. and yes, on ndaa etc, dems have tried to portray themselves as being for liberties, as being against things like the patriot act. they saw the patriot act and then raised!

and back to what i said earlier about obama and the individual mandate:

http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Oba...3/29/id/434199



'The Supreme Court seems poised to declare Obamacare unconstitutional, based partly on an argument that President Barack Obama used to attack former Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton’s healthcare plan in 2008, according to Daily Mail Washington correspondent Toby Harnden.'

[Danzig]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...-court-defeat/


not sure if anyone saw obama's comments directed at the scotus the other day regarding the upcoming ppuca ruling. i thought they were ill-advised, and he was overstepping historical boundaries...now i've read this:

'With his comments this week, Obama became the first president to weigh in on a major Supreme Court case after oral arguments wrapped up but before a decision was actually issued, according to University of Texas Supreme Court historian Lucas Powe.'

eric holder has had to put together a three page response per a fed'l judges orders. now, if only someone would the AG write a term paper on why he feels it's hunky dory to avoid due process for u.s. citizens.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ents-persists/


and this, on his comments that an overturning would be unprecedented (he's incorrect on that score)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...ted/54004040/1


i know there have been references to how intelligent obama is supposed to be, but i'm beginning to wonder...or maybe he slept all thru civics and u.s. history classes?

[Riot]

Oh, please: the Republican party has been talking directly about specific Supreme Court cases and threatening/discussing "activist judges" for years.

Except, of course, when those judges rule to stop vote counting in Bush v. Gore, and decide a presidential race opposite to the popular vote result.

What Obama said is nothing new, even for a president. It's simply the timing.

The conservative (non-Thomas) Supreme Court judges were, on the bench, talking about political considerations of overturning the ACA. Political!

That shocked long-time Supreme Court watchers. I didn't see much outrage over that departure from convention in the media, any comments on those judges behaviour.

Good grief - two extremely conservative "movement leader" appellate court federal judges have already ruled the entirely of the ACA constitutional. The Supremes, of course, will do what they wish.

I cannot believe the double standard and absolutely ridiculous attacks this president has been subjected to by his political enemies. That is what is unprecedented.

Especially a nonsensical lower-court judge requiring "three pages single spaced" from Eric Holder. God save this country.

[Riot]

I laughed:

Well, earlier today, the panel—really, Republican judicial ppointee Jerry Smith—got the letter it wanted (PDF). And speaking as a lawyer, it's a painfully embarrassing read. As I expected, it's simply a recitation of the most basic tenets of constitutional law that get taught in the first year of law school. It's like explaining band-aids to doctors.

Smith, a notorious partisan hack, pretty much asked the Department of Justice to scrawl "Marbury v. Madison" 50 times on the blackboard, and that's exactly what they did.

But the last word will go to Attorney General Eric Holder, who did the menschy thing and signed the letter himself, rather than making the DoJ line attorney who was the target of Smith's ire take any more incoming fire. Holder's final paragraph reads, in its entirety:

Whether you agree with that or not, it doesn't matter. There's just nothing Smith can do. He can sputter all he likes, he can go to bed every night convinced Eric Holder is mocking him, and he can even continue to make life miserable for the Dept. of Justice lawyers who are appearing before him. But if he was trying to show up the president, he failed—badly.

[Danzig]

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-gover...184232040.html



and obamacare looks to add tens of millions more to medicaid rolls. then what will rein in spending that is already too high?

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Danzig

http://news.yahoo.com/illinois-gover...184232040.html



and obamacare looks to add tens of millions more to medicaid rolls. then what will rein in spending that is already too high?

Two ways to rein in spending on the poor, sick and needy:

1) Don't do it
2) Reform the system

I'll stick with Option 2, thanks. We are not a country of monsters, no matter how many politicians are publicly taking that stand.