Obama-Care
Charles Krauthammer and Judge Napolitano comment on SCOTUS Obamacare ruling
Dennis Prager Interviews John Eastman About SCOTUS Decision on Obama-Care
John Eastman makes the point that any taxation legislation must originate in the House. Obama-Care, which is a tax, per the Supremes, did not originate in the House.
The Supreme Court ruled Obamacare A Tax!! Obama Lied, Freedom Dies (Updated with RushBo)
“In the Dissenting Opinion of Justices Alito, Thomas, Kennedy, and Scalia: “YOU’VE EXTENDED FEDERAL POWER TO VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING. …IT EXCEEDS ALL FEDERAL POWER.” ObamaCare allows the Federal government to tell us when and what we will buy.” ~ Gateway Pundit
Obama said it wasn’t a tax…
Obama promised to cut taxes for the Middle Class:
Key: Obama now owns one of the largest tax increase ever! In US History!
Steps Between You & Your Doctor Before & After
- [Before] ~ You {employer + insurer} Doctor;
- [Obama’s After] ~ You {employer + insurer + government} Doctor
I am predicting a 6-to-3 opinion* ~Plus, largest health provider keepinig some of the common sense aspects of the bill
* but if it is strictly along party lines (originalists [4+swing] versus legal positivists), then it will be a 5-4
In as soon as ten days from now, the Supreme Court is expected to render its decision on the unconstitutionality of ObamaCare. During the week of June 25th, America will learn whether Obama’s attempt, using his draconian health care law and an unprecedented individual mandate, to take over 1/6th of our nation’s economy will fail to pass through the branch of government designed to protect our citizens from overreach and tyranny.
While we wait, Forbes has some good news.
So much for a national health care law.
Based on Intrade, there is a 69.9% chance that the Supreme Court will strike down the individual mandate in the national healthcare reform act, known in the political soap opera world as “ObamaCare”.
Democrats Hurting Majority In Drive To Egalitarian “Special Rights” Utopia
One Franciscan University employee said:
“But there you have it: thanks to the government’s firm desire to make sure the one or two women left in the country who did not have easy and cheap access to contraceptives, abortofacients [sic], and sterilization procedures, our 2,500 students will no longer have an insurance plan ready and waiting for them.”
[….]
Franciscan’s refusal to comply with the HHS edict shows that this issue will not go away quietly for Obama among Catholics and members of other faiths less inclined to vote Democrat. As more Catholic institutions opt out, the issue will get more and more acute for Obama as bishops press hard for freedom of religious conscience.
Earlier (Feb 6, 2012), the Archdiocese of Boston said it may stop offering insurance:
The Archdiocese of Boston says it may stop offering health insurance for its employees if the Obama administration does not relax a new rule that requires many church-affiliated employers to cover the cost of birth control in employee health plans.
In a sharply worded letter sent to parishioners, Boston Cardinal Sean O’Malley called the rule a violation of Catholic consciences. Citing the Church’s longstanding opposition to contraception, O’Malley wrote:
In its ruling, the Administration has cast aside the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, denying to Catholics our Nation’s first and most fundamental freedom, that of religious liberty.
O’Malley’s letter was one of many sent out to parishes across the country at the behest of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
What a rotten consequence of Democratic leftism! It — liberal ideology — makes many unintelligent to the real problems and ways to fix them with common sense (like inter-state insurance competition, tort law reform, and the like).
Here is a great example from 2006 of how leftists ideology harms the people they purport to say they help. In this example, children:
(Washington Times, 2006) The recent decision by Catholic Charities of the Boston Archdiocese to stop offering adoption services to avoid placing children with homosexuals is reverberating through child welfare circles and sparking fears that other Catholic Charities agencies may follow suit.
“Everyone’s still reeling from the decision,” Marylou Sudders, executive director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC), said yesterday.
“Ultimately, the only losers are the kids,” said Maureen Flatley, a Boston adoption consultant and lobbyist. If other Catholic Charities agencies withdraw from public adoption, “you can’t even begin to talk about what the impact of that will be nationwide,” she said.
[….]
A spokeswoman for the state DSS said it was already working to “transition” hundreds of foster children to new agencies. The Boston Catholic Charities’ contract expires June 30.
[….]
Ms. Sudders of MSPCC said that by not renewing its state license, Boston Catholic Charities will be opting out of myriad services, including recruitment of adoptive parents, training, home studies, managing adoption placements and working with special needs adoptions. She said the loss of the state’s biggest and most experienced adoption agency is “a very big deal for Massachusetts and a very big deal for the kids.”
The Democratic Party, enslaving, hurting, and killing the innocent since 1812!
Obama `Struck Down` by the 5th Circuit ~ Homework
Via Gateway Pundit:
This is what happens when our Constitutional lecturer president stands on the White House lawn and astoundingly challenges the authority and credibility of the Supreme Court; he gets issued a homework assignment on the fundamentals of our Constitution.
Obama’s radical statements yesterday were so inconceivably stupid and dangerous he managed to completely offend and alarm the entire U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Panel. So, today, during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare lawsuit, Appellate Judge Jerry Smith issued an Order for Obama’s Department of Justice to explain by Thursday whether the administration ”recognizes that federal courts have the authority to strike federal statutes” that are unconstitutional… single-spaced and on no fewer than three pages.
According to Fox News,
A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be “unprecedented.”
A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.
One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a “challenge” to judicial authority — referring directly to Obama’s latest comments about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care case.
The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.
“Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?” Judge Jerry Smith asked at the hearing.
…
Smith also made clear during that exchange that he was “referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect … that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress.”
“That has troubled a number of people who have read it as somehow a challenge to the federal courts or to their authority,” Smith said. “And that’s not a small matter.”
Smith ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of “no less than three pages, single spaced” by noon on Thursday.
High Court Likens Law to `Cruel & Unusual Punishment` (8th Amendment)
Remember this “retort” by Obama?
And this ability to not be able to read a law before passing it because it is sooo large?
Oooops, that monstrosity of mangled law backfired on them!
Some Pro/Con Reaction from People In Front of Supreme Court
Some GREAT[!] Audio from Todays Supreme Court Justices, Kennedy & Roberts (Updated with Sotomayor and Scalia)
Keep in mind that Kennedy is the “swing” vote, and it seems he is leaning towards the conservative side.
Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli’s claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. I would be hopeful that she would apply the law/Constitution properly. She could have been trying to allow the Obama admin lawyer a forum to restate his case, better than when questioned by the other Justices. We will see.