A Sea Of Red

Court rules 6-3 in favor of Obamacare.

welp, that sucks. Didn't see the 6-3 coming.

6-3 was surprising, but the decision was not. Glad to see that even China is becoming more and more capitalist compared to the United States.

Even 3'rd world banana republic countries I've been to are looking a lot better right now. And I don't mean this decision, I mean how liberalism has won in America.

It was 5-4 with Roberts casting the deciding vote. Kennedy voted against it.

Justice Roberts goes turncoat. Good news though it's not a mandate it is a tax. DOH!

So what about the part that was struck down? I guess we'll have to wait for some law talkers to read the entire decision. But it seems like each individual states don't have to comply with this? Or maybe that's just medicaid? I guess I don't really know anything about that.

Obama and dems said the bill was not a tax, so the Supreme court should have invalidated the bill and send it back to Congress. And let them rewrite the Bill as a tax and try to pass it.
Judas John Robert made his mark today.

Do you want him to judge the constitutionality of things in his extremely qualified opinion or do you want him to judge based on whether or not it's a good idea? It's not like he's supposed to take the context of how a politician sold it. He read the text of what was passed. He did what he was supposed to. We've got nobody to blame but our retard peers for electing those responsible.

No where in the bill was it deemed a tax, read the bill as is. So now in the future any Congress can pass a bill saying buy something or pay a fine and if it goes to the Supreme Court, they will say oh it is ok as a bill. F*#% the dems who passed this bill.

I guess the Supreme Court isn't aware of what a tax is? You cannot tax something when nothing is done. That's unconstitutional. But then again, do you really think Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagen, et al, even care what the Constitution says? They're liberals. To hell with the Constitution.

But I feel good about this. I'm glad we have Republicans like John McCain, Mitt Romney, John Boehner, and Bob Dole, who will stand up strongly for repealing this bill. Oh... wait oops never mind.

Guess who appointed Roberts? Bush....doh. It will be interesting to see how Cucinelli handles this in the next few days. The fight against Obamacare has just begun.

It's going to be a fight that lasts years and years. It's only just beginning; it will flip-flop back and forth between who has the majority.

I'm very much opposed by the whole ordeal but people are acting like we're talking about thousands of dollars. The fine is $95 or 1% of your yearly income. Don't pelt me...I understand the issues of liberty and freedom. I don't like it very much but it's become reality, and it's probably not changing with Romney. He'll talk a big game but he won't have the guts to sign the repeal in office.

Just donated money to Romney. He is the last shot to stop the government takeover of the lives of private citizens.

Flame Convert wrote:Just donated money to Romney. He is the last shot to stop the government takeover of the lives of private citizens.

lol. he's the father of obamacare.

RubberMallet wrote:

Flame Convert wrote:Just donated money to Romney. He is the last shot to stop the government takeover of the lives of private citizens.

lol. he's the father of obamacare.

Just funded the machine

I understand the constitutionality problem with the individual mandate but if you just look at it from a purely actuarial side the individual mandate makes sense.

TDDance234 wrote:It's going to be a fight that lasts years and years. It's only just beginning; it will flip-flop back and forth between who has the majority.

I'm very much opposed by the whole ordeal but people are acting like we're talking about thousands of dollars. The fine is $95 or 1% of your yearly income. Don't pelt me...I understand the issues of liberty and freedom. I don't like it very much but it's become reality, and it's probably not changing with Romney. He'll talk a big game but he won't have the guts to sign the repeal in office.

The fines goes up every year for the first three years.. and my main issue is it causes the cost of my premiums to go up so I can subsidize poor people who will smoke drink and do all sorts of drugs and then i have pay for their poor health cause they dont take care of themselves ...I mean i subsidize enough people as it is with welfare...class warfare here we go.

From the class of 09 wrote:I understand the constitutionality problem with the individual mandate but if you just look at it from a purely actuarial side the individual mandate makes sense.

No it doesn't. Next question.

skywalker5291 wrote:

RubberMallet wrote:

Flame Convert wrote:Just donated money to Romney. He is the last shot to stop the government takeover of the lives of private citizens.

lol. he's the father of obamacare.

Just funded the machine

Dear Ron Paul people. Please wake up and smell the coffee. Voting for Paul will just guarantee an Obama win. Yea I despise the lesser of 2 evils thing too, but in this case that decision is paramount to the survival of our country. If we as conservatives (or non liberals) do not get behind Romney (no matter how bitter the pill is to swollow) well let's just say Atlas is about to shrug. I actually agree with more of Paul's policies than Romneys, but unfortunately he has as much of a chance to win as the lint in my pocket. So please, for the good of the country, move on.

Obama has been "beeing good" for the last 3.5 years and is just waiting to be reelected and begin to roll out policies that make Obamacare look like constitutional Congress stuff. Wake up now before your love for a good, but unelectable man pushes the plunger.

That is all.

Good luck with repeal. It's not going to happen even if zombie Reagan is elected. But hey, it could be a worse bill. And they'll try to make it worse as time goes on

Dude, I would SO vote for Zombie Reagan!

I'm a Ron Paul supporter, and unlike many of my brethren I will be voting for Mittens. But I understand their frustration.

Romney says he'll repeal the bill. That's good. The problem is that he will only replace it with his version. Two years ago, the Republicans touted this "repeal and replace" campaign for the Congressional elections. You see, everyone hates the bill, but sadly, Americans love all the little goodies inside of it. Because everyone likes it when someone else pays for them. That is the problem. The Republicans know this, so they'll just try the "big government conservative" alternative of the bill.

Thanks for the deep thought provoking insight. So should we sit back and do nothing? quote="RubberMallet"]

Flame Convert wrote:Just donated money to Romney. He is the last shot to stop the government takeover of the lives of private citizens.

lol. he's the father of obamacare.[/quote]

Dear Ron Paul people. Please wake up and smell the coffee. Voting for Paul will just guarantee an Obama win. Yea I despise the lesser of 2 evils thing too, but in this case that decision is paramount to the survival of our country. If we as conservatives (or non liberals) do not get behind Romney (no matter how bitter the pill is to swollow) well let's just say Atlas is about to shrug. I actually agree with more of Paul's policies than Romneys, but unfortunately he has as much of a chance to win as the lint in my pocket. So please, for the good of the country, move on.

Obama has been "beeing good" for the last 3.5 years and is just waiting to be reelected and begin to roll out policies that make Obamacare look like constitutional Congress stuff. Wake up now before your love for a good, but unelectable man pushes the plunger.

That is all.

I won't be voting for Paul, I don't believe they actually tally/count write in votes. My vote will go to Gary Johnson this year. It's no accident that the country has drifted to the left over the years by voting for big government Republican moderates like Romney at all levels in the house, senate, and presidential elections.

As for Romney, I can't believe a word that comes out of his mouth, and that's based on his history. Besides, it's not like Romney can just repeal Obamacare. He needs the support of the House and Senate. The best course of action is for Cucinelli (who'd make a great governor) to appeal that it is unconstitutional to tax due to inaction. If that doesn't work, states can try to annul Obamacare just like Virginia virtually annulled the NDAA through the party platform and state law.

although the opinions probably wont be published until October, I will sum up from what I have read.

Edit to Add: The decision was based on Congress taxing power, Not the Commerce Clause.

Facts
1. The plaintiffs (states) argued that: (1) the individual mandate exceeded Congress' enumerated powers under the Commerce Clause; (2) the Medicaid expansions were unconstitutionally coercive; and (3) the employer mandate impermissibly interfered with state sovereignty.

Questions of Law
1. Is the suit brought by respondents to challenge the minimum coverage provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, 2 U.S.C. 7421(a)?

2. Does Congress have power under Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, specifically under the Commerce Clause or the Taxing and Spending Clause, to require most Americans to purchase health insurance?

3. Is the individual mandate severable from the Affordable Care Act?

4. Did Congress exceed its enumerated powers and violate principles of federalism when it pressured States into accepting conditions that Congress could not impose directly by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, the single largest grant-in-aid program?

Conclusion
5 for-4 against

Analysis
1. Unanimous vote that Congress did not intend that the payment for non-compliance with the Individual Mandate be a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act

2. majority concluded that the Individual Mandate penalty is a tax for the purposes of the Constitution's Taxing and Spending Clause and is a valid exercise of Congressional authority. The payment is not so severe as to be coercive, is not limited to willful violations like fines for unlawful acts, and is collected by the Internal Revenue Service by normal means.

The dissenters said that calling it a tax instead of a penalty should require rewriting the Act, that was their beef, not the actual penalty if you don't have health insurance.

3. Basically, not even voted on. majority concluded that the Individual Mandate was not a valid exercise of Congress' power to regulate commerce. The Commerce Clause allows Congress to regulate existing commercial activity, but not to compel individuals to participate in commerce.

dissenters argued that the Chief Justice's distinction between economic "activity" and "Inactivity" is ill-defined and unsupported by either the Court's precedents or the text of the Constitution. Furthermore, even if the distinction were permissible, individuals who fail to purchase insurance nonetheless frequently participate in the healthcare marketplace, substantially impacting healthcare commerce, and may therefore be regulated by Congress.

this is known as the "substantial effects test"

4. They did not address whether it was unconstitutional....which is key. That means Congress will have more of a say. This means a lot of democrats will pay a price for this non-decision. I will put money on it.

5. 7-2 vote said that Congress does not have authority under the Spending Clause to threaten the states with complete loss of Federal funding of Medicaid, if the states refuse to comply with the expansion.

6. Majority concluded that the remainder of the Medicaid expansion provision, without the unconstitutional threat to completely withdraw Medicaid funding, could stand as a valid exercise of Congress' power under the Spending Clause. Dissenters argued that the Court does not have the power to remedy the unconstitutional expansion as written. Such power should be vested exclusively in Congress.

All the info I can gather right now. Can't wait to read more about the decision(s).