Comment

Comment by rtaylortitle on July 2, 2012 at 9:34am

Conservatism has morphed into neo-conservatism -> fascism.  Libertarians are the only individuals that are standing up to fascism, progressivism, socialism.  Forcing people to buy medical insurance (public or private) is no more wrong than taxing you property to force you to support a public screwl (endoctrination) system.  Forcing you to pay income taxes (even though the tax code says it is 'voluntary') is equally egregious.  Where' the outcry over this?

Comment by Central Scrutinizer on July 2, 2012 at 6:59am

Roberts switched views to uphold health care law

The justices of the U.S. Supreme Court sit for their official photograph Oct. 8, 2010, at the Supreme Court in Washington. (AFP/Getty Images)

(CBS News) Chief Justice John Roberts initially sided with the Supreme Court's four conservative justices to strike down the heart of President Obama's health care reform law, the Affordable Care Act, but later changed his position and formed an alliance with liberals to uphold the bulk of the law, according to two sources with specific knowledge of the deliberations.

Roberts then withstood a month-long, desperate campaign to bring him back to his original position, the sources said. Ironically, Justice Anthony Kennedy - believed by many conservatives to be the justice most likely to defect and vote for the law - led the effort to try to bring Roberts back to the fold.

"He was relentless," one source said of Kennedy's efforts. "He was very engaged in this."

But this time, Roberts held firm. And so the conservatives handed him their own message which, as one justice put it, essentially translated into, "You're on your own."

The conservatives refused to join any aspect of his opinion, including sections with which they agreed, such as his analysis imposing limits on Congress' power under the Commerce Clause, the sources said.

Instead, the four joined forces and crafted a highly unusual, unsigned joint dissent. They deliberately ignored Roberts' decision, the sources said, as if they were no longer even willing to engage with him in debate.

The inner-workings of the Supreme Court are almost impossible to penetrate. The Court's private conferences, when the justices discuss cases and cast their initial votes, include only the nine members - no law clerks or secretaries are permitted. The justices are notoriously close-lipped, and their law clerks must agree to keep matters completely confidential.

But in this closely-watched case, word of Roberts' unusual shift has spread widely within the Court, and is known among law clerks, chambers' aides and secretaries. It also has stirred the ire of the conservative justices, who believed Roberts was standing with them.

After the historic oral arguments in March, the two knowledgeable sources said, Roberts and the four conservatives were poised to strike down at least the individual mandate. There were other issues being argued - severability and the Medicaid extension - but the mandate was the ballgame.

It required individuals to buy insurance or pay a penalty. Congress had never before in the history of the nation ordered Americans to buy a product from a private company as part of its broad powers to regulate commerce. Opponents argued that the law exceeded Congress' power under the Constitution, and an Atlanta-based federal appeals court agreed.

The Atlanta-based federal appeals court said Congress didn't have that kind of expansive power, and it struck down the mandate as unconstitutional.

On this point - Congress' commerce power - Roberts agreed. In the Court's private conference immediately after the arguments, he was aligned with the four conservatives to strike down the mandate.

Roberts was less clear on whether that also meant the rest of the law must fall, the source said. The other four conservatives believed that the mandate could not be lopped off from the rest of the law and that, since one key part was unconstitutional, the entire law must be struck down.

Because Roberts was the most senior justice in the majority to strike down the mandate, he got to choose which justice would write the Court's historic decision. He kept it for himself.

Over the next six weeks, as Roberts began to craft the decision striking down the mandate, the external pressure began to grow. Roberts almost certainly was aware of it.

4 pages worth here...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-view...

Comment by truth on June 29, 2012 at 12:48pm

Ron Paul’s Statement on Supreme Court Obamacare Decision

By: From the Trenches
Tags:

• POLITICS/ELECTIONS/CORRUPTION

”I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it comes to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

“Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse.

Comment by rtaylortitle on June 28, 2012 at 6:00pm

Tell me more about this "opt out" clause

Comment by James Sheridan on June 28, 2012 at 3:29pm

We defeated tyranny to become a country and have now been mobilized to SLAUGHTER it once again.

"When the people fear their government there is tyranny;
when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
~ Thomas Jefferson

Comment by truth on June 28, 2012 at 1:24pm

yep Nikki, two wings of the same beast

Supreme Court Upholds Obamacare As Corporate Media Ignores It’s Dan...

For their part, the corporate controlled media is mostly ignoring this important fact and has even claimed that the death panels are an outright lie even though Newsweek has run articles and cover stories on the case for killing granny.

You can expect the death panels to return in full force with it being sold as a way to reduce medical costs.

Comment by Nikki on June 28, 2012 at 1:23pm

So Roberts, a conservative appointed by Bush, sides with the Democrats. That says a lot about our one-party system.

Comment by karen arsenault on June 28, 2012 at 1:16pm

So now that we are the USSA can we buy cancer insurence so the fascist Gov won"t tell you to go home and die.

I see in Canada they can if they can pay for it...http://lifesure.ca/products-and-services/critical-illness-insurance... you watch how many more people will lose the job's this is a sad day in america. 

Comment by Nathan on June 28, 2012 at 11:05am

Well, the courts openly declare that yes, we have a fascist govt and yes, they are in collusion with it. Perhaps they think that historical lessons do not apply to them; all tyrannies fall and all those who support it share the same fate as the tyrant.

Long Live the Republic!

Comment by Central Scrutinizer on June 28, 2012 at 10:38am

seems to be a opt-out clause, EVERYONE USE IT!!!!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page