slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

The one aspect of this thread that everyone seems to be dismissing as un-important: The Supreme Court ruled the law constitutional, and is regarded as the ultimate judicial
authority in our country. Mr. Connolly, and others, do not/did not have the final say in its' "constitutionality". I dare say their knowledge of the law is less than the Supreme Justices.

The only Supreme Court ruling that I can think of being later overruled was the Dred Scott decison. Until, and if, the law is overruled, all this hullabaloo is empty rhetoric. If it is overruled, it will open the gates to overruling any past decision by the Court.

I would dread that possibility. Be careful what you ask for.

carolyn

The world can always tell a confirmed Democrat liberal by what they believe in. And this is anything another confirmed Democrat liberal believes in or says is true.

The reason these crooks would not allow this monstrosity to be read before v****g on it was because they knew there would be many who were intelligent enough to see what a farce it was. And now that they have had a chance to read it and understand just what you slime bags tried to pull over us, they are standing firmly against you crooks. But yet you still try and put blame on these great people by saying they do not understand what they read.

You Democrats are to be pitied for such audacity. But I believe the people are beginning to finally wake up to your lies and bribes. It took awhile, but it is now all out in the open because the illegal bill is finally out for everyone to see.

stymie

I do not for one second believe you read the ACA. To say you spent all that time reading the subject matter and not have a single opposing opinion is ludicrous. Typical to attack the messenger and accuse them of fear mongering. You all read Saul's book. BTW, In the future reference to whom you are responding; it makes it easier to understand.

Comment Loc: California

My Robert's decision is a complete sham. He disgraced the court. For decades the Supreme Court has been in the pockets of the left. Granting it's self more and more power. It has, also, guilty of grating more and more power to the central gov. It has, in collusion of the left wing politicians, usurped power from the people that they were never suppose to have. They have repeatedly violated the Constitutions limits relating to the balance of power and states rights. A gutless congress has let the SC get away with abusive power. Now, the SC is the most powerful branch of gov. Those who think the Supreme Ct. is the God of the land assumes that SC will come to a fair and reasonable decision according the Constitution. Mr. Lawmaker, justice Roberts had no such power to make he decision that he made. It's time for the people to take control of the SC. IT'S VERY DANGEROUS TO HAVE A ROGUE COURT FOR LIFE. THE DAMAGE DONE TO THE COUNTRY COULD BE IMMEASURABLE. Yes, Mr. Slatten, Roberts acted illegally, but I think you disagree. People sense when a law of a court decision is unjust and that's what we are experiencing now. And there is a division as to what is.

stymie

I'm not arguing your point, I will give you that; however your overlooking the fact that it was a five to four decision meaning one v**e made it so-called constitutional. That's four of our learned judges that indicated it wasn't constitutional. The framers fought to keep this kind of power from the judicial branch but through the years like everything else the Constitution it's self has been diminished. We could write a book on this but as you said for the time being it's constitutional. It's the law but that does not mean we have to agree with the law. I for one would welcome overturning this law before the law completely destroys the America we know. The only statement ever made by Biden that I agree with is his quote," this is a big fxxking deal." This was never about healthcare it is about control. The law was designed to fail and it will ultimately will fail so that the Single Payer Option can be established as Obama actually wants.

stymie

YES!!!! :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Mr. Billhuggins & Stymie, I will try to respond to each of your posts, since they are intertwined.

I will not argue the validity of any objections you have raised. The problem is: Every decision has its' detractors, and each would be overturned, if left to segments of the population. The more recent examples, from either side of the political spectrum, are the "Citizens United", and the "Affordable Health Care Bill" decisions.

Both were highly unpopular decisions, by different segments of the population. Why not just disregard/overturn either or both of them? Why not just go through all of the past decisions ruled by the Court, and pick & choose which ones we like? It can't work that way, and we would most certainly regret some or all of the reversals.

Most decisions of the more recent past have been 5-4. I would guess that 5-4 has ruled in more decisions over the course of our history than any other "score". That does not make it less "legitimate" than 7-2, or even 9-0. It has been a "majority rules" since the initial Marshall Court of our Founding Fathers. Should we change that part of the Constitution, also? Where does it end?

Mr. Roberts, whether you or I like it, acted "legally", within the Constitutional priviledges granted him. He was appointed by G.W. Bush, I believe, not Obama. I was quite
surprised with his v**e. I grew up during the Warren Court, and he was considered the most liberal Chief Justice. He had been considered a conservative judicial voice in the State of California before his appointment by Eisenhower, I believe. He was considered a disappointment for not following the whims of some who felt they had gotten an appointee to fit their needs. People usually show their true colors when they are given a life-time appointment. Appointers of Justices "takes their chances".

We can't expect any Justice appointed to follow a party or idealogical "line". They v**e their conscience, within the law. To assail Mr. Roberts as a "tool" of the left-wing in this country, to me, is absurd. Ask the left-wingers you know how they felt about his Citizens United stance.

None of us have always been happy with rulings, amendments, e******n results, etc. At what point do we accept the results of legally obtained decisions regarding each of these aspects of American society?

V**E! That is the ultimate tool for expressing your desires for the direction of the country.

I didn't stay home, or run to Canada when I was called to serve in Viet Nam, simply because I hadn't been given a v**e in any e******n or decision in the matter. I did it because my country called/needed me, and I did what was right!

The right thing to do here is to abide by the rules. You then use those rules to gain more voice in future decisions.
Anarchy, violent or otherwise, is not the answer.

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

Regarding Obamacare, there was a tenth v**e - his. In that v**e he decided that some significant portions of that law can be ignored or postponed at his pleasure.

buddy55

no I do not think so

Dave Loc: Upstate New York

You don't think so what?

carolyn

I would not dread it one bit because the Supreme Court is filled by political appointees that will do the biding of the party in power. And for Roberts to gave ruled as he did, that should show the world what we have as the highest court in the land. I personally believe the Supreme Court Justices should be elected along with every other public servant in government. But before they could run for this position, I believe they should be able to prove they are able to recite the constitution verbatim, and prove they know what it means.

A simple test before announcing their intent to run would be sufficient.

Ricko Loc: Florida

wanttoknow-I know of 3 people besides yourself who have read the entire bill. The other 3 all agree that it is a disaster. You are the only dissenter. So you are either an ideologue, unable to read, or refuse to admit that this is the worst piece of legislation ever passed by the democrats. Even the architect, Max Baucus, says its a train wreck and therefore he is leaving the senate. As Dr, Paul said," democrats have big hearts but small brains". Amen. Good Luck America !!!

carolyn

:thumbup: :) ;) :thumbup: :P :lol:

I hope I got some of these right anyway.

bahmer

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

Homestead

Your a damn liar!

If in fact, if you read the entire three thousand pages of ObamaCare and know the Constitution, THEN, you should have been able to explain where he went wrong on his analysis, point by point.

The only thing you said was that,

"Just because someone claims to be learned does not mean they know what they are talking about."

So show us where he was wrong!!!!