Ricko Loc: Florida

Carolyn-maybe not a crooked but a weak Supreme Court. The ACA websites are inundated with people trying to get information but in many states very few are signing up. The success of the act depends entirely on young people, who will pay the full premium without subsidies, signing up and that is not happening., Most of the people who have signed up are those being subsidized and all that does is add to the burden. People do not understand this law and there representatives in congress cannot explain anything to their constituents because they have not read nor do they understand the law. It is a mess which could have been prevented by delaying it one year and by educating the public as to what benefits they will get for their money. Two people in Calif. received bills from their insurance company recently-the single person will pay $1800.00 more per year while the man with a family of four saw his premium go up by $10,000.00. This is madness not health care. Good Luck America !!!

claytonln Loc: Kansas

I am not sure that allowing any President appoint Supreme Court members is a good thing. Obviously if you appoint people with like minds or agendas it makes it easier to get your way.

carolyn

You say weak. I say crooked because Supreme Court Justices are SUPPOSED to be strong enough to ignore threats from the president.

carolyn

I believe they should be put on the ballot like any other political member.

Comment Loc: California

The founders when separating the powers of gov assumed that the SC justices would be politically neutral and that they should serve life terms to be free of political exposure. The flaw comes from that erroneous assumptions. We need to amend the Constitution to elect the justices by members of state's houses. I am not keen on electing justices by popular vote due to the politically ignorant public. Term limits should apply. If a bad judge is elected he can be gotten rid of. Not for life!

carolyn

You are right about the people not knowing a thing about a candidate. They show this now and it isn't because they are not intelligent enough. It is simply that they are too lazy to even check a candidates history so they can make an intelligent choice. They would rather let the mainstream media tell them whom to vote for.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I'm can't believe what I am reading here. Presidents do not "appoint" Supreme Court Justices, they nominate them for approval by the Senate. Only then is a "nominee" allowed to sit on the Court. If the forefathers showed error in assumptions about S-C appointees, and their tenure, then what other erroneous assumptions did they make? Word has it that they were pretty damn immaculate in their foundation for government. Why are some so anxious in wanting to change it?

If everyone is so in love with the Constitution, then why is it
under such attack by those who claim to worship it? If we keep changing the Constitution to suit our own needs and standards, then why not just rewrite it every so often to suit the political whims of whomever is in power? Worse yet, by those who want to be in power!

Whatever happened to the "checks and balances" written into the Constitution? Are they working only when they work in favor of one side or the other? Also, which state house of the fifty states determines who is appointed or nominated for the Supreme Court? Aren't state houses elected by the very same people who aren't smart enough or informed enough to make decisions for themselves?

I say, let the system work its' way through these crisises on its' own, like we alway have. As Americans, we should have more faith in the system set forth by our glorious forefathers. American democracy remains the greatest governmental experiment in history. Let the system run it's course.

I have trust and faith in that system....and the American people. I worry about ye of little faith. We rise or fall together. We have answered greater challenges than what is before us now. BELIEVE! :thumbup:

If you think this is all naivete' on my part, then so be it. I am "naive" enough to believe in my countrys' ability to survive this and future crisises.

bahmer

I truly hope that this is true. I know we have faced greater odds before and come out he other side as winners and stronger for our battle.

The only difference now and I don't know what difference it is going to make in the long run is the divisions that this socialist president is making in our general populace.

We now have the rich against the poor, the blacks against the whites and Asians as well as Hispanics, the middle class attacked from both the top and bottom, and a president that is stirring the pot of unrest in this country.

If we do come out in the end do you realize how much rebuilding will have to be done on the relations of those that just a few short years ago were in good condition.

Before this creep took over race relations were considered good in this country and now the report is that people feel that race relations are strained and getting worse not better.

Homestead

What we have to worry about is Cloward and Piven.
The first part of their strategy was to bankrupt the country, by exploding it's debt until it imploded.

The second part was to build a shadow government, ready to take over the country, at the moment it collapsed, by having key people in key positions of power.

Every financial crises, has led to a bigger consolidation of power. The bigger the crises the bigger the power grab.

Will this next crises be the final one or will it be the one that brings in the final phase.

Either way, we need to stop the take over and undo what has been done, in preparation for it.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Thank you, bahmer. You do have, as do we all, reasonable concerns, and I recognize them. Also, in your response, you are respectful in your questioning of my hopes for our future. That, in itself, is a good start.

You have, almost always, remained a voice of calm and respectful reason. That is, too often, a rare quality shown on these forums. I do appreciate yours being the first post after my "rant" (AuntiEs' influence, lol).

You, and those like you, , are part of my "naivete'", or "hope" for our country. May you increase in number!

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

I understand your concerns, also, Homestead. Insofar as
Colward and Piven are concerned, consider this: I worry about every boy that takes my granddaughters out, also. I fall back on the way they were raised, and calm myself with the fact they were raised properly, and are able to make the right decisions for themselves. A light and unfair comparison? Perhaps, but it goes to the root of the situation: People are allowed to make decisions for themselves. We have to hope/believe that they are the right decisions.

If not, we work our tails off, VOTE, and correct the situation within the system. That is the American way.

As with Bahmer, Homestead, I do respect your input...without always agreeing with it. The fact that you are involved, and not apathetic, is a testamant to your concerns and patriotism. Be well. :thumbup:

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

Only one correction and comment.

"American democracy remains the greatest government in history" I would point out nowhere is the word "democracy" in our founding documents, nor are we a "democracy". We are a constitutional republic.

Yes, I know...picky...picky and in terminology on this matter a stickler I am.

It is may not be "naive" but based on historical fact the republic does tend to correct itself. It is not always pretty; however, it does occur.

slatten49 Loc: Lake Whitney, Texas

Your correction is accurate and noted. However, I wrote "American democracy remains the greatest governmental experiment in history." It is a minor, yet significant difference.

I'm just glad I'm not a bloodied, tattered, and shredded remnant of a man left standing after your review!
:shock: :roll: :oops: :wink: :lol: Thank you for your mercy! :mrgreen: "It is may not be naive?" :oops:

Floyd Brown Loc: Milwaukee WI

I think that if you look closely as to what happened is that ACA contains parts that the right had proposed in the past & not much unlike the plan Romney set up when he was governor.

I would offer that it was offered that way in the hope that it would have the support of the right.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

It still should have been America republic. I am being even worse on this topic as my progeny's government professor apparently "hammered" a student for just such a statement. The "hammering" occurred in front of a huge class.

Your correction of my exceedingly poor sentence structure is duly noted. I shall don a lovely deep rose dunce cap and repair to the corner. I am still taking my iPad with me.