This is starting to bother me.
In the opinion Roberts wrote that it is not the job of the supreme court to judge legislation on the merits of its wisdom, only on its constitutionality.
Look, I understand that there was some goofy stuff with ACA but that is not what I'm looking at.
Roberts is taking a beatdown for just looking at the law as passed, looking at the arguemen ts as presented to the supreme court and making a judgement.
I don't even understand this deal about him changing his mind...so what...I change my mind about 100 times a day.
Does the House have the power to levy taxes or does it not, in my mind that is the only question, the freaking lawyer for the administration made that argument so it had to be considered.
There is a ton of folkes that I read, alot, that don't seem to get the point the way I see it.
Obviously I got something wrong but I just don't know what it is.
I don't care about any twisted theorys, It's just the actual decision itself from the standpoint of what was presented to the court.
There are lead pipe cinches on both sides, I so don't care about them, What the heck am I missing?
Hi,
Here is what I got out of it.
1. Congress has the right to tax most anything but the people have the right to hold their feet to the fire for it. Like it or not the libs just shoved the biggest tax increase in history down our throat. Even with that, it will come something like $1.4 trillion short of the costs.......which means the death panels will prevail, has to happen.
2. The libs tried to get it through the Supremes by saying it was covered under the commerce clause. Remember the federal government provides for the common defense and regulates trade...all the rest is left to the states....yeah right! Roberts point was it was not covered under the commerce clause because it was a non-event, the person who is being taxed did nothing; therefore there was no commerce. That has needed to be reigned in for quite sometime and in the long run it has clipped the wings of the liberals.
3. Now here is the kicker. He also said the states could opt out and the federal government cannot penalize them for doing so. You had 26 states file suit so if they all opt out,there is no national health care. Strong case for state sovereignty.
While a lot of us would have just preferred the Supremes said it was unconstitutional this is the second best thing and not so bad. I still recall the confirmation hearing for Roberts when he was asked about protecting the little guy. His response is that he will make rulings according to the Constitution. If the Constitution says the little guy wins, that is how he rules, if it says the big guy wins, that is how he rules. When he took the job of writing the majority opinion he did us all a huge favor.
Now here are some scenarios. This election is now a clear cut vote on Obamacare. If you will recall, when it passed something like 56% of the American people were opposed to it so they were governing against the will of the people. Rasmussen polls since that time still show the majority of the public oppose the law. So if the people vote in a democrat congress and they keep the law, then it is OUR problem. I am not so sure that 100% of the democrats would vote to retain the law either.
And finally. After the 2008 election there was a Russian scholar that predicted the US would splinter like Russia did into several smaller countries. The affirmation of state sovereignty and the way the country is headed, it would not surprise me if that happened. This time a civil war; possibly without a shot being fired.
Bottom line, the working class has had all the BS they need. They can easily take back the country as Obamacare can be repealed with 51 cotes in the senate. If they do not, then we deserve to suffer the consequences. I love it when the governor of FL told the federal government to shove it, they are going to make sure all voters are legal. Hopefully more states will follow suit.
Interesting times folks, we have the power to prevail if we do not screw it up.
regards,
5412
