Why does no one accept the idea that Romney is a Smart Guy, perfectly capable of LEARNING from past errors??? Fools and idiots don't learn from their mistakes; such people do not become millionaires.
I'm gonna ask the people around me what bad experience they've had with the government. Everyone has a story. IRS problems in the past? Problems with property taxes going up despite your home value going down? The hell you go through just to renew your drivers license? This is what people need to understand and they need to see it as it relates too them. When you then bring up healthcare and remind them that its the same government that will be handling life or death now. I think this will turn heads for sure and plant a seed.
This is why Romney was always a bad choice for nominee. Everyone knew it, and now it's come back to haunt those who wanted Romney.
Ways we can fight back. Copy, paste and distribute this article to everyone possible.
13 Ways Obamacare Will Ruin Your Life
Public Law 111–148 – The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act
(otherwise known as “Obamacare”)
A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
This document will not even begin to detail the unforeseeable ways that “Obamacare” will impact the freedoms and livelihoods of American citizens. America has bought in to what will likely be more government insertion into our lives and homes, if we do not act wisely in this next election.
It is our irresponsibility as a nation that we must now correct. We must show our disapproval by removing from office those who threaten to chip away at our freedoms, and tax us heavily for the advancement of big government.
Do you why you MUST vote those responsible for Obamacare out of offiice? Consider the following…
ALARMING FACT #1: Individuals/Families must carry Health Insurance – OR ELSE!
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 5000A. Requirement to Maintain to Minimum Essential Coverage)
Whether you agree with their decision or not, some individuals or families decide not to carry health insurance for a variety of reasons. Perhaps they are young, and have decided to spend their money on other things. Perhaps they believe the insurance industry is corrupt, and they choose not to carry coverage. Perhaps they participate in alternative services such as Samaritan insurance. Perhaps they choose not to have it….just because.
We are obligated as American citizens to act lawfully and pay taxes. Otherwise, there is freedom of choice. We choose whether or not to vote. Should we vote? Absolutely! Does everyone vote, no indeed. As an American, do you have the right to decide which commodities you will purchase, and what services you will procure? Not any more!!! As of 2014, you will be required to carry a government-approved health insurance plan. If you don’t – you will be penalized (i.e. – taxed.) You will be taxed for your decision not to do something.
Let’s compare it to what we are taxed for today. You want to own property – expect to pay a property tax. You want to buy a television – expect to pay a sales tax. You want to drive your car – expect to pay a gas tax. But, it’s also your right NOT to do those things. In that case, there is no tax to pay. The ruling of the Supreme Court, and the law itself now allows government to “tax” you for NOT purchasing something. Will this be the beginning of a new precedent? What behavior can we expect to be taxed on in the future? If this doesn’t outrage you, then what will?
The American’s right to healthcare isn’t the issue at hand. We can all generally agree that our healthcare system must be reformed, but not at the expense of the American citizen’s freedom to choose.
ALARMING FACT #2: Employers must provide health insurance for their employees – OR ELSE!
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 1513. Shared Responsibility for Employers)
This doesn’t seem like a bad thing does it? After all, employers should offer health insurance to their employees, right? And, since this only affects companies with more than 50 employees, what’s to worry about? Why shouldn’t “big” companies offer health insurance? Here are two potential fall-out scenarios that will answer the question “why not?”
1. We can all agree that the economy is in trouble. Jobs are precious. Employers are cutting costs and eliminating jobs every day. Now, let’s introduce a government mandate requiring employers to increase their costs and offer health insurance to their employees. Who is going to absorb that cost? The employer? Likely, the employee is going to feel the “cost” of this insurance in his/her own back pocket. The salary of that employee will inevitably drop (or get redirected) to cover the amount that the new health insurance plan is going to cost the employer. Or, if the employer fails to offer coverage, perhaps the employee’s compensation will drop by the amount of the tax (i.e. – the fine) the employer will pay for not offering coverage. Either way, the employee is the one who will probably pay the price. So, while the employee’s total compensation may not be altered, the drop in his/her take-home pay may seriously affect that individual’s (or his/her family’s) bottom-line. This will be an ever-increasing burden for low to middle income wage earners, as the costs for coverage increases.
2. The employer may decide that it’s cheaper, in the short-term, to pay the tax rather than cover the bill for each employee’s health insurance plan. At least for the next few years, the cost of paying the tax is cheaper than the cost of the insurance policy. (I can even see employers who currently offer health insurance plans deciding that they might want to dump coverage and pay the tax, and let their employees go get a government-sponsored plan.) By the time the cost of the tax (i.e. – fine) is as much or more than the cost of that employer covering the health insurance premium, the damage will have been done. Everyone will have moved from private insurance coverage into the government-operated plans, and private insurance companies will be defunct. Perhaps this is exactly what the government wants! Perhaps they want employers to pay the fines so that we can move to a government controlled health care system. Don’t think that is a reasonable conclusion? Think about this:
Let’s compare the two entities who will offer coverage. Private insurance companies will offer coverage to individuals. Those private insurance companies are in business for profit. The government will also offer government-sponsored plans. The government is billions of dollars in debt, and yet they keep adding to that debt. Does the government seem the least bit concerned about making a profit? What private insurance company is going to be able to compete with the rates of the government-sponsored insurance plan? Add to that the fact that the law now requires private health insurance providers to pay an annual fee based on each individual company’s share of the total market. Ultimately, even if the private insurance companies are able to make money, they’ll be fined as a result. Do you think our government isn’t moving us toward a government-controlled health care system? Think again. They’ve done such a fine job with the health and state of our nation. NOT! Why would we even begin to want them in charge of our health care?
ALARMING FACT #3: You must pay for coverage you might not need.
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 1302. Essential Health Benefits Requirements)
Again, whether you agree with it or not, we have always been afforded the right to decide what kind of insurance coverage we’d like to pay for (or none at all). The new law requires that the following services must be covered by an individual’s policy: Ambulatory patient services, Emergency services, Hospitalization, Maternity and newborn care, Mental health and substance use disorder services, including behavioral health treatment, Prescription drugs, Rehabilitative and habilitative services and devices, Laboratory services, Preventive and wellness services and chronic disease management, Pediatric services, including oral and vision care.
What if you’re a single male? It doesn’t matter, you must still pay for a plan that offers maternity care. What if you have no children? It doesn’t matter, you still must have newborn care and pediatric services on your plan. In short, you are helping to fund services for others by being charged for services that you do not, and perhaps will never need.
ALARMING FACT #4: The cost of eating out is likely to increase.
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 4205. Nutrition Labeling of Standard Menu Items At Chain Restaurants.)
Many restaurants are already struggling to stay in business due to higher food and commodities costs. This law requires restaurants with 20 or more locations to list the calorie content of their standard fare on their menus and drive-through menu boards. The supposed reason is that consumers will make healthier choices if they know the calorie and nutrition convent (or lack thereof) of their favorite restaurant selections. This is, at best, arguable. Regardless, the costs restaurants incur by adapting their menus and signage is sure to drive up the costs of their food. Again, the cost will inevitably be passed down to the consumer. That means YOU.
ALARMING FACT #5: Preventive Care Free On All Plans
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 2713. Coverage of Preventive Health Services)
It’s about time to get something for free, right? Under this law, an insurance provider must cover preventive health services at no charge to you. Sounds wonderful! The doctor will provide you with this preventive care which includes, but is not limited to immunizations, cancer screenings, mammograms, alcohol misuse counseling, breastfeeding counseling, cholesterol screenings, depression screenings, HIV screenings, obesity screenings and counseling, behavioral counseling to prevent sexually transmitted infections, tobacco use counseling and interventions, blood pressure screenings, and any other evidence-based items or services that have in effect a rating of ‘A’ or ‘B’ in the current recommendations of the United States Preventive Services Task Force (http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/uspstf/uspsabrecs.htm), or as otherwise provided for under this section of the law.
If you don’t have to pay for it, then from whose pocket will these costs be paid? Somebody has to pay for it. Some think, “Who cares….as long as I’m not the one paying for it!” Oh, but don’t be fooled, you are paying for it. Premiums for health insurance have been sky-rocketing. The insured American paying health insurance premiums is absorbing the cost for these services in the form of higher premiums. Someone has to pay for these “free” services.
One reason for higher premiums is due to the increase in Medicaid enrollment. On average, Medicaid pays the medical providers $.86 for every dollar of care provided. So, the providers are shortchanged. How will they make up that difference? They charge privately insured patients more.
Do you think that President Obama and the members of Congress weren’t aware that health insurance premiums would be affected? No, in fact, the Congressional Budget Office was clear in their warnings that individual and small-group health insurance premiums would be 10-13% higher under the new law. They voted to pass the law anyway, knowing that it would raise your insurance costs. Free preventive care? There is no such thing!
Another note, before you run out and schedule your “free” physical, make sure you talk with your insurance carrier to understand what is and is not free. For example, some of the blood tests your doctor might run are covered, but the cost of drawing the blood is not.
Insurance companies and medical providers, out of sheer necessity to protect their own bottom-line, are quite adept at finding ‘loop-holes’. A quick screening may turn into a diagnostic procedure, which would then cost you money. Generally, a doctor might screen and treat any problems they find at the same time. This would cause you to get a bill for something you thought would otherwise have been “free” as preventive care.
ALARMING FACT #6: Drug Companies and Medical Device Manufacturers are being heavily taxed
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 0998. Imposition of Annual Fee on Branded Prescription Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Importers) (See Public Law 111-148 Sec. 0990 Imposition of Annual Fee on Medical Device Manufacturers and Importers)
The law imposes an annual fee (i.e. tax) on manufacturers and importers of branded drugs based on each individual company’s share of the total market. There is also a 2.3% excise tax on manufacturers and importers of certain medical devices. Why should you care? Well, who do you think will absorb the cost of these taxes? These companies will simply increase the cost of their products. But, you have insurance right? Who cares how much they cost…that’s why you pay your premiums. Have you noticed that your insurance companies have been denying coverage for name brand drugs when there is a generic version of the drug available?
Are you beginning to notice the bottom line? All of these taxes and increased costs have done nothing but eat into your bottom line as an American citizen and consumer.
ALARMING FACT #7: Business owners being obligated to provide specialized treatment for nursing mothers
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 4207. Reasonable Break Time for Nursing Mothers)
It is inarguable that the design of breast milk is perfect in its caloric content, amino acid concentrations, and enzyme concentrations to best serve an infant’s needs. This is why expectant mothers are counseled to strongly consider breastfeeding their babies, if at all possible. It, therefore, seems appropriate to afford nursing mothers the opportunity to take reasonable breaks during the workday to express milk. The unfortunate flaw is that there is no definition of “reasonable” under the law. The employer does not have a baseline for what to expect in terms of time away from the job to make this possible for the employee. By law, that employer must also now provide an appropriate place (other than a bathroom) for that mom to express the breast milk, which is shielded from view and free from intrusion by other co-workers or the general public. Where does the cost to provide such a place come from? If a hiring decision for an employer comes down to two qualified candidates, one male and one female, what might that employer take into consideration?
ALARMING FACT #8: Tax on Indoor Tanning Services
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 5000B. Imposition of Tax on Indoor Tanning Services)
It started way back when with the Tea Act in 1773. Tax on commodities and services has been around for centuries. But, now we’re getting just downright ridiculous. If you decide to get a tan by going to a tanning salon, you will pay an additional 10% tax. The next thing you know, you’ll be taxed for absorbing the sun’s rays. Freedom is never free…and, neither is your choice to get a tan in a tanning bed. There is now a hefty tax that goes along with that choice.
ALARMING FACT #9: You want a maximum benefit insurance plan? Then, cough up an extra 40% for taxes
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 9001. Excise tax on high cost employer-sponsored health coverage.)
In another effort to penalize the successful American for actually achieving the American dream and making money, the government is going to levy a hefty tax on maximum benefit health insurance plans (dubbed “Cadillac” insurance plans). This whopping 40% excise tax applies to plans valued in excess of $10,200 for individuals and $27,500 for families. What the law does not account for is that some individuals/families making far less than $250,000 per year also choose to participate in Cadillac health plans. Ironically, President Obama pledged not to tax these families who make less than $250,000 per year. Oh well….can’t afford the tax – tough! Then, you can’t have the plan. Even more frustrating is that as inflation and the cost of medical care increases, so will the value of even moderate benefit insurance plans. The inflation index allowed for in this law is valued at less than the current increase in medical care costs. At some point, more and more Americans will have moderate benefit plans that will end up being taxed.
ALARMING FACT #10: Robin Hood In Modern Terms….new “Hospital Insurance” income tax
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 9015 Additional Hospital Insurance Tax on High-Income Taxpayers)
This isn’t folk-lore or fairy tales folks. We are back to the days of Robin Hood, except that it is our government that is “taking from the rich to give to the poor.” Perhaps 100 years ago, a family who made $250,000 (or individual making $200,000) per year was considered rich, but not by today’s inflation standards. Yet, what is happening is that these individuals/families will be “penalized” for their success by an additional tax in order to help fund the new entitlement program offering health care plans to those who cannot afford them. We can expect that as inflation increases, more middle-income families will be hit with this tax, because that $250,000 threshold is not indexed for inflation. Again, are we setting a precedent with the passing of this law? Will future lawmakers look at this decision and be tempted to use payroll tax as a way to pay for other programs?
ALARMING FACT #11: Limitation on “tax-free” money…reduction of benefits through Flex-Spending Accounts
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec 9005. Limitation on Health Flexible Spending Arrangements Under Cafeteria Plans)
Flexible spending accounts (FSAs) and Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are a wonderful benefit to wage-earners, because it allows them to use their money, before it is taxed, to cover the cost of certain medical expenditures. The employee budgets these funds at the beginning of the calendar year, and uses that money throughout the year toward covered medical expenses. The law now limits the amount that can be deposited into FSAs and HSAs to $2,500. It also reduces the number of medical products that taxpayers can purchase using these accounts. Furthermore, it increases the penalty to 20% for purchasing disallowed products with the HSAs. With inflation as high as it is, $2,500 will barely cover the cost of an aspirin….oh wait, is aspirin even covered anymore? Thanks for nothing!
ALARMING FACT #12: Fair Health Insurance Premiums….Who cares if you’re health or not!
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec 2704. Prohibition of Pre-Existing Condition Exclusions Or Other Discrimination Based On Health Status.)
Health insurance companies are no longer able to underwrite policies based on the person’s health. So, if you’d like to pay premiums that reflect the good care you’ve taken of your body….tough! You’ll pay the same rates as anyone else.
ALARMING FACT #13: Want cosmetic surgery? Fine….but, you’ll have to pay a tax for that choice.
(See Public Law 111–148 Sec. 5000B. Imposition of Tax on Elective Cosmetic Medical Procedures.)
Whether you’re a proponent of elective cosmetic surgery or not, the bottom-line is that an individual has had the right to choose whether or not they would like to have a surgeon sculpt a smaller nose, or to medically eliminate wrinkles, etc. Under the law, you now still have that “right”…but you will be taxed for the decision to exercise that right. There is now imposed a tax equal to 5% of the amount paid for such elective procedure.
Food for thought: Do you see the theme throughout this document? Free isn’t free! Who is paying for this wonderful new health plan for all Americans? YOU! Even more importantly, your freedom isn’t free. Your freedom to choose is being heavily taxed.
Oh yes, and the lawmakers who think this is such a great idea – they have exempted themselves from participating. How nice for them!
We must show our government our extreme dissatisfaction and disapproval, and vote these politicians, who are so willing to spend our hard-earned money for us, OUT OF OFFICE!
The most important thing about the Declaration is not that Jefferson wrote it, but that the Preamble's "self-evident truths" agree so completely with the voice of conscience.
The most important thing about the Constitution is not the Convention nor the brilliance of the Founders, but that it was unanimously ratified by the original 13 States, voluntarily adopted by all ensuing States, and amended 27 times by at least 79%, on average 94% of the States. It IS the "consent of the governed" spoken of in the Declaration.
How can Roberts and four dyed-in-the-wool statists matter against that?
Rush is correct -- it makes no sense for Romney or his supporters to tip-toe around the Obamacare issue and get trapped in the minutia (is it a tax?). Nothing has changed since the Supreme Court ruling: the law is the same one we had before, and the ruling we got isn't correct simply because it's the ruling.
The complete head-scratching SCOTUS decision analysis:
I am more concerned about the Senate and if they will repeal it. Seems like all the Tea Party conservatives are in the House and not the Senate, with a few exceptions like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. If we hold on to the House and get the Senate in November, the Republicans in the Senate need to have the backbone to kill this thing, regardless of what the far left liberals have to say about it. And, since this IS a tax, it can now be killed in the Senate using Reconciliation, which means we only need 51 votes to do it. The Tea Party conservatives in the House are ready to go. Can the same be said for the Republicans in the Senate if they are successful in November? I certainly hope so.
Conservatives need to go Von Clausewitz on Liberals this year. Total War, no quarter given.
We're dealing with people who have no standards and no ethics and will do "whatever it takes". (see: Bob Beckel on The Five last night)
We need to be prepared to do the same. No arguing on their terms with their "facts". No accepting the false premises of the discussion. Reject the name calling and mud, hammer them on the facts over and over and over.
If we lose, then this nation fails. That's not alarmist, not tin foil hat. 5000 years of human history tells us it's fact. It's not time to be timid and be the more "stable" candidate.
Obamacare vs Romneycare.
Whats the difference?? Many in the US just see it as that.
A large segment of the population doesn't even vote. Many don't and won't vote for a variety of excuses. But it mostly boils down to that there just aint nuthin to vote for.
These type of folks hate and detest politics and politicians. I'm talking about highly educated, intelligent and respectable folks who don't want to sully themselves with dirty politics. Many are even leaders in businesses and professions. These respectable folks just don't desire to descend into these sewers called elections. And these type of folks just won't go to vote to just vote against the worse of the two evils.
Rush fire shots with big guns today. We exaust our energy trying to difine actions took place and how it may indirectly or directly affect the country. The point is Obamacare is the equivalent of slavely or colonial rules by a foreign country upon another country. Our main focus is to eliminate this policy, period.
Nothing is fair at all in life, worser in politics.It's already long past comparing Romcare to Obamacare, it still both take money out of ones pocket for the use of local or federal gov.I remember what Newt answered about supporting Romney, we are not comparing Romney to Reagan, and to compare Romney to Obama, as Obama cuts military budget and still send money to moslem countries that hates America, I never sense a care or love from O to the Jews state of Isreal.Would Obama loosen up on our Energy regulations and allow oil cos. to drill? Would Obama allow the economy to grow by allowing small bussiness to operate with fewer regulation from tax to safety to EPA and numerous proposals and policies the we the people feel unconstitutional will affect our lives in worser conditions.
Do I trust Romney , not yet ! Palin were my choice representative, since she did not run, Newt were my second choice.
Someone said here on trs we go to war with whom we have not whom we want. I won't sit at the side line, will throw in my vote for Romney. If my distrust of Romney will materialize should he become POTUS after Nov. I shall remember as with much prayers I did not compare him to Reagan, and Obama in my opinion is still the worst POTUS of the Union.
John Roberts and brilliance is an oxymoron. He is corrupt. I guess GWB can be blamed for this also. He gave us that creep.
The Founding Fathers and the Constitution are timeless. It's a shame John Roberts spit on it.
How about Romney talk about the Constitution and Freedom? Tell him to start by reading the Constitution and Declaration of Independence. We're celebrating this document tomorrow, and I don't know why we're celebrating it, when it's being trounced upon?
John Roberts, look what you've done.
It's not just what it will do from a healthcare perspective. If the economy is an ocean, imagine dropping a mile wide rock into it at high speed. The tidal waves and tsunami's will be devastating. Not only will it destroy our standard of care, it will destroy our economy and standard of living because of the alotment of very harmful taxes and fines. That's what I see anyway.
Neal Boortz is retiring. I regret the day that Rush Limbaugh retires because he's not replaceable.
Not only will it destroy our standard of care, it gives the government the ability to intrude on every aspect of our lives; our bodies, our bank accounts, and anything else the secretary shall determine they need to know. Say goodbye to patient privacy.
I realize that data has been accessible for many years, but the government did not have the right to access it without warrant. Every comment a patient makes to his/her physician will now be part of the health record and in the hands of bureaucrats.
"Oh say does that star spangled banner yet wave
o're the land of the free and the home of the brave?"
In a word ... nope.
The Constitution has been permanently irrevokably damaged. The National Uber State (nothing Federal about it any more) has the power to make slaves of our children and grandchildren. America as we knew it is no more even if ObamaCare is repealed.
Republicans are not concerned about repealing it because IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THEM! They're the Scottish Nobles from 'Braveheart'.
All things end and the shining city on a hill has become a prison.
someone credible and trustworthy has said this ... " ... by God, we will not squander what has been given us"
"a TRUE CONSERVATIVE wil B at 1600 in 2013"~ Sarah Palin,CPAC 2012. TheRealDeal has not told us the *mechanism* only the OUTCOME #BelieveHer
I saw a comment at another site that I thought was a really great response to liberals who say "it is a human right to have access to healthcare" --
The only thing Obamacare gives you is access to health INSURANCE.
There is nothing in the bill which guarantees you health CARE.
The bill doesn't even give you access to health insurance. The exchanges won't be set up in many states and the uninsured will have to pay even more for insurance they already couldn't afford. Many states will not expand medicaid....as they shouldn't....and the uninsured will be in the same boat they were before. Except, millions more will join them when their employers drop the employer based health insurance plans.
Doesn't this bill actually give even less access to health insurance?
I think the bigger picture is that it's intended to destroy private insurance altogether, forcing the implementation of a single payer system. We will all be covered then, but with very poor service and a very high cost to taxpayers.
Semantics or not, as long as people hear the word "TAX" they will recoil from it. The same as if they hear the word "MANDATE".
The worst features of ObamaCare should be brought up and pounded into the minds of the voters (many have very short term memory) all the way to November elections.
When my wife, who is a liberal Democrat, heard on the TV that Medicare will have to fund ObamaCare with 500 billion dollars she went ballistic. Now she really hates Obama.
Btw we are both in our seventies. These last few days she has been like a Tasmanian devil, so I won't mention the death panels, for fear she might blast the TV next time Obama appears on screen.
VIVA SARAH !
A lot of people are not swayed by taxes they believe will be paid by someone else. Tax on businesses? No problem, they are hoarding money anyway. Tax on the rich? No problem, they need to share the wealth and they have plenty to spare.
Too many people are under the impression that this bill will make it cheaper for them to get insurance. People do not realize that businesses will drop employer based health insurance and millions will lose coverage. They do not realize that massive taxes on the rich and businesses comes out in the wash...at the bottom. Less jobs, higher cost for products and services, and etc. People see the fines and they say "I have insurance so that won't effect me". Wrong, their premiums will go up and they will be lucky to even have the insurance in the end.
People that support this don't have a clue what's about to hit this economy...and them. Libs will blame it on Republicans, I'm sure.
Because of Roberts? How was Bush supposed to know that a strong conservative judge would issue one of the worst rulings in history? Kennedy shocked the hell out of me by giving the strongest opposition to this than any of them. We can't always predict the outcome. Are you serious about blaming Bush or just being comical?
For the record:
This blog is from 2005!!
If you’re looking for evidence of the total betrayal of conservative principles by President Bush and the conservative movement, then John Roberts—nominated by the former and staunchly supported by the latter—is the gift that doesn’t stop giving. Name the hot-button issue, and it turns out that ol’ John has devoted his much touted legal brilliance to helping the liberal side of it. According to an approving article in Inside Higher Ed, Roberts “participated in discussions on preparing a brief, filed by a coalition of higher education associations, defending the use of affirmative action.”
And Ann Coulter also nailed it 2005:
Other than that, he is a blank slate. Tabula rasa. Big zippo. Nada. Oh, yeah ... We also know he's argued cases before the Supreme Court. Big deal; so has Larry Flynt's attorney.
But unfortunately, other than that that, we don't know much about John Roberts. Stealth nominees have never turned out to be a pleasant surprise for conservatives. Never. Not ever.
Which is why everyone who loves this country needs to do everything they can to defeat Maobama.
This means donating, making phone calls, knocking on doors, letters to the editor, etc.
It's also why I get so frustrated with those who have their heads in the sand and keep saying they'll never vote for Romney and blah blah blah.
The primary is over and Maobama must go!!
Which is why we shouldn't be too optimistic about defeating Obama in November. Who knows what tricks or fabricated disasters the libs have planned.
No I was shocked. I thought the fate of the country rested in Kennedy's hands.
I was shocked that Kennedy said the whole thing should be struck down....
Of course after both Kennedy and Roberts screwed us in the Arizona case I was not optimistic about the obamacare ruling.
Ok, you win. But....be honest. Did you think it would be Roberts that would cave on this? I thought it would be Kennedy.
As Levin suggested, we need to have REAL vetting for future Justices. If you are not an Originalist, you get voted down. That takes balls by Senators. There is no more "the President gets who he wants" no, sorry. Not happening.
Bush was a big government republican, I'm not a big fan other than his leadership during 9/11 and his decency as a human being. Other than that he did nothing to cut government, in fact, he grew it.
There are 200 million guns in America and I don't a liberal that loves them. You figure out who wins that war.
Fair enough. I'm pushing for a complete overthrow of the government, but I guess we're not there yet. :)
The problem is we're so far in the opposite direction from what kong suggested. We have a bunch of RINO squishes who won't stand up to radicals like Kagan and Sotomayor. Look at their records! These radicals have no respect for the Constitution and have NO business being on the Court!
You're right, either you support the Constitution or you don't get approved! What a radical stance!!
I hate to argue about this because we are on the same wave of thinking about the Court protecting the Constitution. But...
If liberals could overrule the Supreme Court with a super majority in Congress I'd hate to think of the damage they could have done in the first two years of Obama's term. That would seriously damage the balance of power.
We should probably just agree that we need to do something to keep the government and the Supreme Court from destroying the Constitution. That's the first step and if we could get leadership that agrees we can hack out the details later.
Look either you support the Constitution or you do not get approved. I think its time to get the Amendment out there to allow Congress to overrule the Supreme Court with a supermajority of Congress, as Levin suggests term limits for SCOUS.
Lol, that's an interesting solution. But what about when libs are in power? Return the favor? Eventually we wouldn't have a Supreme Court at all.
I agree about Bush.
As far as only voting for Originalist judges, good luck with that. Liberals would filibuster every appointment and seats would remain vacant.
He was pushed by many "true" conservatives you may know, including Mark Levin.
"In the short period he has been on the court, John Roberts has shown he does not bring a personal agenda to his work. He follows the Constitution, and he is excellent."
- Mark Levin
At least this guy shows remorse...
Anger is well noted and well deserved by Roberts. But did anyone know he viewed himself as the Court's PR protector?
I'm all in favor of term limits for the Supreme Court judges. We have to have a way to remove them if they become corrupt.
Mark Levin puts a lot of emphasis on foresight and the decision making of others. (Just listen to a rant on Boehner.) I expect the same from him, and it's because of his expected foresight and critical thinking skills many listen to him, not hindsight abilities.
Since joining the court, I have not witnessed anything strongly conservative about him. Guy can't even administer a presidential oath without screwing up.
Not after that piece that Mark Levin cited where Roberts sees himself as a custodian of the Court's PR and not protecting the Constitution. Roberts is a douche.
Its the uninformed RINO's that who are caught up on semantic. Who the hell cares if the punishment for not having medical care is a tax or a penalty the point of Obama care is to control the individual on so many levels from what you eat to making the decisions that should be made between you and your doctor. I am sick of people like Sen. McConnell who says that Obama care won't be easy yo undo! Who cares if its easy to undo! The program is only a couple of years old and I am sure that we can find a way to eliminate this horrific law. I mean Sen. McConnell finds ways to ostracize and demean conservative Republicans he can find a way to eliminate this atrocious and horrific law!