Comments on: Chief Justice Roberts crafts a ruling more conservative than it looks Thu, 21 Jul 2016 07:57:19 +0000 hourly 1 By: whyknot Tue, 03 Jul 2012 07:49:15 +0000 The tax will be repealed and four more years wasted with no improvement in the health care system. We need to find common ground or only the very rich will have doctors

By: smanchwhich Mon, 02 Jul 2012 10:32:22 +0000 I have heard this ruling described elsewhere as a masterful stroke of legislation that harkens back to Madison v. Marbury. Unfortunately, in the raging screamathons that our national elections have become, none of this reflective nuance will matter one whit.

To the people who get their news 140 characters at a time (read: the majority of people), Obama won, conservatives lost.

By: RobinInSanDiego Sun, 01 Jul 2012 18:17:17 +0000 There’s something creepy about that photo of the two men praying over the court’s judgement. I presume they’re trying to convince their “god” to change it?

By: majkmushrm Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:48:42 +0000 Much to my shock and amazement, my take on the decision was much the same as Mr. McConnell’s. My opinion of Justice Roberts has improved. I have long thought that the interstate commerce clause has been badly abused since the ’30s. My opinion has always been that the CC gave the Feds the power to regulate actual interstate commerce, not the power to regulate activities within a state just because the fruits of those activities might ultimately cross state lines. Further, ever since Ronny baby started pulling stunts like make your drinking age 21 or I cut off your highway funds, I’ve described those sorts of behavior as extortion. Apparently, Justice Roberts agrees with me.

By: brandonhstubbs Sun, 01 Jul 2012 17:33:39 +0000 when obama is reelected and scalia keels over, his lips foaming uttering diatribes against obama, this rulling will be meaningless. it will be a delicious irony if obama appoints his successor. like justice william o. douglas in his last days, scalia is losing it.

By: sylvan Sun, 01 Jul 2012 12:23:16 +0000 Does the statement “healthcare mandate was a tax on young healthy people who chose not to buy health insurance at rates to subsidize their elders” sound anthing like the Medicare program that has been in effect for almost fifty years now, and expanded significantly by last Republican administration, to the learned law professor? If Congress can’t tax population to provide basic services for the citizenry, then explain Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. But then me thinks that is entirely the point. Hypocritical hystrionics by the spoiled and entitled and declining elite who believe only oil companies and food conglomerates deserve to be supported by the public coffers.

By: auger Sun, 01 Jul 2012 11:23:50 +0000 The health legislation correctly surmises that not one of us will likely enter, and then leave life, without an encounter with the for-profit health system. If all could be counted on to keep a portion of their income – against making a token payment when emergency services are rendered – than this payment would be seen as neither a tax nor a penalty. That which the SC has labeled a ‘tax’ is in truth a subsidized token fee for services not yet rendered – and in a more fanciful light, could have been offered back to the payer (with interest) at retirement – in the extraordinary event it was unused. The obvious alternative is being barred from care without your wallet

By: JustThinking2 Sun, 01 Jul 2012 07:26:50 +0000 Now, since the Supreme Court has decided it’s Constitutional and a tax, how are they going to assure the tax money collected will only be spent on “healthcare”? No funding for lobbiests, junkets to far away conferences a la GSA, etc.? Only spent on HEALTHCARE! Have fun with that one!

By: edifer Sun, 01 Jul 2012 02:26:47 +0000 Affordable Care Act is Law
The sticking point of “mandated” health care is now moot, regardless of what argument was used. I thought the Constitution had a phrase, “promote the general welfare.” My very personal take is that government-mandated investment and required behavior has continued to benefit Americans in a big way, even when they don’t like it: Helmets for motorcyclists; car insurance for drivers, all mandated. SEATBELTS are a personal, individual mandate on both carmakers and vehicle drivers and passengers. Without seatbelts, my entire family would be dead. An 82-year-old woman SUV driver crossed 4 lanes of traffice to hit them head-on. She hurt her wrist. My son had a dislocated shoulder; younger granddaughter had cuts and bruises; older granddaughter had an ugly broken leg; daughter-in-law had internal injuries, 2 surgeries, coded twice and 2 months in ICU. They are Alive because of the seatbelt mandate. We still need to get to healthcare for all with no middlemen. We’ll keep working on that. The Lifeflight, ambulance and hospital charges were over a million dollars for this one family.

By: resaci Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:55:00 +0000 Roberts Rules Supreme

Am I the only one who sees
The forest thru the trees
Roberts’ rules the elected chaotic
Rewriting congress for being myopic
Altruistic is his play
Turn the tables and let them flay
Set them up with defeat
Then lose their mouths to find their feet
The elected lose when they claim this win
2010 Tea Party, was a way to begin
Now the focus is crystal clear
There is one party whose end is near
What other outcome could be more esthetic
Than to enable the voter and not the pathetic