BREAKING NEWS: Appeals court rules part of President Obama’s health care law unconsti

[elvis]

hahaha. take that, commies.

One step closer to National Healthcare through a one payer system.

Wake up and wipe off your stomach.

 

[St.Blues]

Doesn't change anything

Some courts have approved it others have denied

Have to wait for that 5-4 Supreme Court decision

Incorrect...

Once something is ruled unconstitutional it is deemed unconstitutional... It doesn't "Stay Constitutional" because one of three or for rulings say it's ok with them...

The other ruling you libs are married to said that it wasn't unconstitutional with regards to that case and those litigants... Those parties to the lawsuit can go about their merry ways with regards to 0bamacare if they want until appeal to a higher court smacks them down...

This case and the other one before it have ruled that the individual mandate clause is unconstitutional... Legally, the parties that brought forth this lawsuit (26 states) can ignore the individual mandate without any reprocussions...

Right now, more than half the states in the country do not have to force their residents to buy health insurance if they don't want to buy it....

They won't have to fork up the money to prepare for either.

Blues

 

[St.Blues]

This has been a bad two weeks for Obama. Between the downgrade, the debt ceiling deal he was cut out from, and now the appeals court ruling he must be sucking wind.
GOOD!

This is the beginning of the end of Obama's policies and the rule of the Leftists. The Left will claim (as they are now) that Obama isn't really a progressive at all. That is false. He is as progressive as any of them. But he is what happens when you put a progressive in the position of responsibility. Sen. Obama ran his mouth about this and that. But actually taking responsibility is different. Of course he isn't up to that either.

But now America can see the Progressivism is the creed of envy, stupidity, and poverty. In 2012 the Dems will be swept away. To survive they will need to dust off the old centrist plans of Bill Clinton.

Clinton was Obama, still is.. With out the repubs... he was toast.

 

[Lakhota]

The Eleventh Circuit’s Affordable Care Act Decision Cannot Be Squared With The Constitution | ThinkProgress

 

[St.Blues]

Union fAiL........jobs fAiL...........Court fAiL............Poll fAiL.............Global warming fAiL............Debt fAiL...........Stimulus fAil.................Keynesian economics fAiL...............

Who knew it would be so much fcukking fun around here to be a conservative with only half of 2011 over?? Not me..........but this has been priceless. Every day you look up, more misery for the k00ks!!!
And Im laughing..........just 24 short months ago, these mofu's were on top of the world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Pelosi was crawling out of her skin with socialist gleam.. She'll end up in a rubber room before long. She should have spent most of her life in one anyway.

Blues

 

[St.Blues]

You've drank too much liberal cherry kool-aid in the past 24 hours. Take two zanex and come back tomorrow

Do you think I like that idea? Do you think I support "Obamacare"?

On the contrary, I was opposed to the Patriot Act and I am opposed to "Obamacare". I am looking at this from a realist standpoint. Politicians live to accumulate power. "Obamacare" is a power grab. A politician is not going to willingly give up "Obamacare" or the tax dollars it will provide them in the future.

I think Republicans are pissed that Obama was the one that succeeded in bringing it about. He outsmarted them in their own game, but they will reap the rewards when their time has come. Just as Obama did with the USA Patriot Act.

All that doesn't mean I support the bill.

Immie

They call it Obamacare. But wasn't it originally a republican idea?

No, This was Hillarycare...

 

[Intense]

So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?

If the Federal Government can force you to buy health Insurance, it can force you to buy anything. What part of that do you miss. How do you compare that to Social Security? There is no correlation. Why is it that you fail to see the threat of an out of control Government, throwing away our hard earned money on every whim without accountability, consent, or justification. The only difference between a soft tyranny and a hard tyranny is the order in which they come to be, one precedes the other. Why do you run so hard to get there?

 

[J.E.D]

This isn't some highschool football game. There is no score kept idiot the last court ruling stands as law and the final decision UNLESS it is overturned.

Without the mandate there is no funding. Obamacare is effectively dead now.

Hahahahaha lulz

You cons crack me up. You do realize that the mandate has been held up in another decision, right? The Affordable Care Act is not dead. It will head to the SCOTUS, and despite what some delusional cons have said, the SCOTUS will not automatically go with the 11th's decision. Grow a brain. It might do you some good. Maroons, the lot of you.

Thank you Swami JoseFuck for your most insightful prognostication... You must have used all 4 of your brain cells to come up with this gem... And so certain you seem...

Awesome work...

Thank you, Dr. Cock-stain, for showing us how clueless you are. Show me where I said anything that isn't a fact. As I said, the 9th (I believe) already ruled the mandate constitutional. The MANDATE, not the entire Affordable Care Act. So the entire law is not in jeopardy. And there is no law that says the SCOTUS automatically sides with the decision of the last appellate court. So, just because the 11th ruled the mandate unconstitutional, doesn't mean the SCOTUS will do the same. Of course, if you think I'm wrong, them prove it. Don't think your high school post is sufficient. You need to actually prove it.

 

[Annie]

So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?

If the Federal Government can force you to buy health Insurance, it can force you to buy anything. What part of that do you miss. How do you compare that to Social Security? There is no correlation. Why is it that you fail to see the threat of an out of control Government, throwing away our hard earned money on every whim without accountability, consent, or justification. The only difference between a soft tyranny and a hard tyranny is the order in which they come to be, one precedes the other. Why do you run so hard to get there?

The only common theme I understand between the two is coercion of the government on the people.

 

[J.E.D]

The next issue is will Kagan have to recuse herself....

Then Thomas should do the same, since his wife belongs to a group that advocates for the repeal of the ACA. He, along with Scalia, should also recuse themselves because they have both been paid to speak at events for Tea Party groups who advocate for the repeal of the ACA.

 

[Ame®icano]

Oh, I see, I am not allowed to post here if I do not blow one party or the other!

Gotcha

Immie

Careful. One minute you're having a normal conversation with this guy. The next thing you know, he puts you on ignore.

Lol, naw. I only ignore idiots. Once and awhile I sneak a peak only to find they're still idiots.

Take it easy... Immie is a good guy.

 

[Immanuel]

The country is on fire with problems and BO hasn't a clue as to which way to run so he will go on vacation next week. Many Americans can't afford vacations this year because of him and his buddies.

He is never on vacation.

Ever work at a job were you were on call 24/7? Well, take that experience and multiply it by say 100. The man does not get a vacation for 4 years. He is on the job for every minute of every day for the entire length of his term even while taking a crap.

Immie

i bet you was one of the dimocrats ( thats not a spelling mistake ) who complained that G bush was not available when the country was in crisis .

That would be one bet you lost. 1) I left the Democratic Party during the Carter years, 2) I was a Republican and voted for George Bush in 2000 and in 2004, 3) when the bullshit about President Bush being on vacation so often came up, I said the exact same thing that you just quoted me about.

You would lose your bet.

George Bush was never "not available when the country was in crisis". President Obama has never been not available while this country IS in crisis. Now whether or not his "leadership" has helped at all is a different question.

Immie

 

[Ame®icano]

So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?

If the Federal Government can force you to buy health Insurance, it can force you to buy anything. What part of that do you miss. How do you compare that to Social Security? There is no correlation. Why is it that you fail to see the threat of an out of control Government, throwing away our hard earned money on every whim without accountability, consent, or justification. The only difference between a soft tyranny and a hard tyranny is the order in which they come to be, one precedes the other. Why do you run so hard to get there?

Imagine government forcing you to buy one of Obama's books.

Damn, I would rather agree to insurance mandate...

 

[Flopper]

The mandate should have never been put in the law. The penalty is to low. Half the middle class will be excluded. There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down. For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program. Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later. We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal.

 

[saveliberty]

The mandate should have never been put in the law. The penalty is to low. Half the middle class will be excluded. There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down. For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program. Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later. We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal.

Nope it was a matter of collecting a large amount of cash to help fund this monster. This is a deficit increasing problem.

 

[Greenbeard]

Nope it was a matter of collecting a large amount of cash to help fund this monster. This is a deficit increasing problem.

Yes, it was expected to bring in a whopping $17 billion--total--over a ten year period.

 

[rightwinger]

The mandate should have never been put in the law. The penalty is to low. Half the middle class will be excluded. There are a number of perfectly legal alternatives that can be used if the mandate is struck down. For example, the government could have an open enrollment period as they did with the Medicare drug program. Those who do not sign up for insurance, pay a penalty if they sign up later. We were never going to get anything near 100% compliance anyway, so the mandate is really just amounts a matter of principal.

There are alternatives. But do you seriously think Republicans will allow any alternative other than "repeal Obamacare" to pass?

 

[Foxfyre]

Do you think I like that idea? Do you think I support "Obamacare"?

On the contrary, I was opposed to the Patriot Act and I am opposed to "Obamacare". I am looking at this from a realist standpoint. Politicians live to accumulate power. "Obamacare" is a power grab. A politician is not going to willingly give up "Obamacare" or the tax dollars it will provide them in the future.

I think Republicans are pissed that Obama was the one that succeeded in bringing it about. He outsmarted them in their own game, but they will reap the rewards when their time has come. Just as Obama did with the USA Patriot Act.

All that doesn't mean I support the bill.

Immie

They call it Obamacare. But wasn't it originally a republican idea?

No, This was Hillarycare...

Actually it goes back to at least Richard Nixon who wanted a national healthcare plan, but fortunately there were still enough conservative genes mixed among legislators on both sides of the aisle at that time that it didn't even get as far as Hillarycare.

And even the Democrats the relatively short distance back to Clinton's first years had enough common sense to see how destructive Hillarycare would have been.

Unfortunately, as the more moderately conservative Democrats and Republicans have left Congress, they have been increasingly replaced with big government liberals on both sides of the aisle. And the result is witnessed in the current economic meltdown.

We started reversing that trend in the last election and hopefully will continue to do so in 2012. I wish all our members regardless of political affiliation would get behind that concept as it is our only hope.

 

[Intense]

So I guess this means that privitzarion of SS is also unconstitutional?

If the Federal Government can force you to buy health Insurance, it can force you to buy anything. What part of that do you miss. How do you compare that to Social Security? There is no correlation. Why is it that you fail to see the threat of an out of control Government, throwing away our hard earned money on every whim without accountability, consent, or justification. The only difference between a soft tyranny and a hard tyranny is the order in which they come to be, one precedes the other. Why do you run so hard to get there?

The only common theme I understand between the two is coercion of the government on the people.

Coersion.

The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats. The crime of intentionally and unlawfully restraining another's freedom by threatening to commit a crime, accusing the victim of a crime, disclosing any secret that would seriously impair the victim's reputation in the community, or by performing or refusing to perform an official action lawfully requested by the victim, or by causing an official to do so.

A defense asserted in a criminal prosecution that a person who committed a crime did not do so of his or her own free will, but only because the individual was compelled by another through the use of physical force or threat of immediate serious bodily injury or death.

In the laws governing wills, coercion is present when a testator is forced by another to make provisions in his or her will that he or she otherwise would not make if permitted to act according to free choice. It is an element of both duress and Undue Influence, two ways in which a testator is deprived of his or her free choice in making the will. If coercion is established in a proceeding to admit a will to probate, the document will be denied probate, thereby becoming void; and the property of the decedent will be distributed pursuant to the laws of Descent and Distribution.

Coercion, as an element of duress, is grounds for seeking the Rescission or cancellation of a contract or deed. When one party to an instrument is forced against his or her will to agree to its terms the document can be declared void by a court. A marriage may be annulled or a separation or Divorce granted on the grounds of coercion.

The coercion of small businesses by a cartel to fix prices of particular items supplied to them is a violation of antitrust laws, which are intended to prevent the restraint of competition in commerce. Laws regulating labor-management relations are violated by coercion when the employer coerces employees not to join a Labor Union or when a union representative pressures, uses physical force, or threatens an employee into joining the union.

Coercion is recognized as a defense in prosecutions for crimes other than murder. If an accused can establish that he or she committed a crime as a result of the coercion imposed by another the defendant will be acquitted on the charge as a Matter of Law. He or she will not be excused for the crime if there was only fear of minor physical injury, damage to reputation, or property loss. The person who coerces another to commit a crime is guilty of the crime committed. The coercer can also be prosecuted for the separate crime of coercion.

Coercion by law is the rendition of a judgment or a decree by a court, tax assessment board, or other Quasi-Judicial body for an amount of money presently due that mandates the sale of property owned by the defendant to pay the judgment.

Coersion legal definition of Coersion. Coersion synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

I think the forced hand comes from Government, something it has grown too comfortable with. We are not commodities.

 

[Foxfyre]

He is never on vacation.

Ever work at a job were you were on call 24/7? Well, take that experience and multiply it by say 100. The man does not get a vacation for 4 years. He is on the job for every minute of every day for the entire length of his term even while taking a crap.

Immie

i bet you was one of the dimocrats ( thats not a spelling mistake ) who complained that G bush was not available when the country was in crisis .

That would be one bet you lost. 1) I left the Democratic Party during the Carter years, 2) I was a Republican and voted for George Bush in 2000 and in 2004, 3) when the bullshit about President Bush being on vacation so often came up, I said the exact same thing that you just quoted me about.

You would lose your bet.

George Bush was never "not available when the country was in crisis". President Obama has never been not available while this country IS in crisis. Now whether or not his "leadership" has helped at all is a different question.

Immie

The difference I see here is that President Bush has never been invisible during a crisis. He might have been at Camp David or at the family place in Kennebunkport or in Crawford--did George & Laura ever take a vacation anywhere else?--but his "red phone" was always at the ready and there was never any question that he was aware and involved in what was going on.

One of the biggest complaints about Obama, even sometimes among the Democrats, is that he so often appears to be MIA when he should be visibly involved and exercising leadership in serious negotations.