• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

I wonder if I can get a waiver like everyone else! :ninja:

Only those evil, multi-million dollar corporations rate a waiver.

I wonder how many Libbos have noticed that all their beloved governmental regulation benefits the evil multi-milllion dollar corporations and hurts small business.
 
the reason she EXEMPTED the megacorps (just as if they were nebraskans) is cuz they were gonna DUMP their employees, breaking too openly and too rapidly the obscurantist's promises that we could keep our plans if we wanted

HIS understanding of the constitution is now open to question

seeya in congress, chums, as well as in the capitols

did you see what happened in the states, by the way, on tsunami tuesday?

Devastation: GOP Picks Up 680 State Leg. Seats - Hotline On Call

"most in modern history," and FIFTEEN state dems have since SWITCHED PARTIES

what do you think are the voters' sentiments in the commonwealths concerning this mandate?

i mean, outside missouri, arizona, oklahoma, louisiana, georgia, virginia and idaho, where the people or their reps have already spoken?

have you noticed in the last few decades what broadminded municipals have been able to pull off concerning, say, immigration?

ever heard of sanctuary cities?

how 'bout pot laws, how effective are the feds in oakland?
 
Last edited:
we're not going to repeal it, we're going to repeal major portions of it

like 1099's and the mandate

and both parties are gonna have to do something about the states, you know, california, new york, illinois...

(are you aware of governor bredesen's views, on behalf of the entire conference? why, even diane feinstein in my home state is eagerly on board)

sebelius has already done a great deal about repealing the requirement of 750K of coverage---she EXEMPTS anyone, apparently, who asks out

we'll be sure, tho, to keep the pre existing protections, the 26 year old dependents---they're necessary and popular

we will do what the american people are overwhelmingly demanding we do

stay tuned

Says the guy who guaranteed it wasn't going to pass in the first place.
 
I am so glad we live in a country where you can make inane comments like the above.

:) and pray tell me how steeply versed are you in the implications of the doctrine of judicial supremacy?
 
:) and pray tell me how steeply versed are you in the implications of the doctrine of judicial supremacy?

Quick, change the subject. I am sure no one will catch you at it...
 
:) and pray tell me how steeply versed are you in the implications of the doctrine of judicial supremacy?

Liberals are all about judicial supremacy. It's just about the only way they can get their agenda pushed through the system.
 
Maggie, there was so much bad stuff in that bill we just need to start over.

I entirely agree.

Although it can be appealed at the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and then SCOTUS, so it's not over yet.

Read the ruling, he specifically rules out the mandate as unconstitutional. That mandate, damn it :p

Here's one person who's glad about this *points at self* The healthcare reform bill (called "Obamacare" for some reason) was the biggest obstacle to substantial healthcare reform that actually fixes the fundamental flaw. Obama did a better job of stopping it than any Republican Congress in 40 years lol.
 
Last edited:
we're not going to repeal it, we're going to repeal major portions of it

like 1099's and the mandate

and both parties are gonna have to do something about the states, you know, california, new york, illinois...

(are you aware of governor bredesen's views, on behalf of the entire conference? why, even diane feinstein in my home state is eagerly on board)

sebelius has already done a great deal about repealing the requirement of 750K of coverage---she EXEMPTS anyone, apparently, who asks out

we'll be sure, tho, to keep the pre existing protections, the 26 year old dependents---they're necessary and popular

we will do what the american people are overwhelmingly demanding we do

stay tuned

Here's the man we should have been listening to before it passed.
He's also got my vote if he decides to run in 2012. Yes, I will vote for him over Palin:shock: She can be his energy Czar.:yes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTcVO_1TPZ8&feature=related
 
Gives one pause, don't it?

Excerpted from “Henry Hudson, Judge In Health Care Lawsuit, Has Financial Ties To Attorney General Bringing The Case” By Sam Stein, The Huffington Post, First Posted: 07-30-10 01:16 PM , Updated: 09-29-10 05:12 AM
[SIZE="+2"]T[/SIZE]he federal judge set to issue one of the first decisions on the Obama administration's health care law has financial ties to both the attorney general who is challenging the law and to a powerhouse conservative law firm whose clients include prominent Republican officials and critics of reform. …
 
Gives one pause, don't it?
Wait, so you're suggesting they found a judge that was more likely to support them to judge the case?

What a novel concept!
 
Says the guy who guaranteed it wasn't going to pass in the first place.

Wow, I'm impressed. You actually took each of his points from the post you quoted and destroyed them one by one..... :roll:

How about addressing his points rather than bringing up something from months ago. I'm sure you never had a prediction fall through either, right ???
 
I'm not making it complicated. I'm just stating fact of which you countered with congressional appropriations which isn't a repeal but rather a stalling tactic.

If Republicans want to repeal the health reform law then repeal it! But they'd better come up with something far better than what they'd tear down or they're likely to regret their action should things ever come to that.

no, it's not a stalling tactic, it's called having the numbers to do whatever you want to do.
surely following Obabma over the last two years you understand that mindset.

So now,
it's our turn.
And before you get upset over the notion of not working "together",
I repeat, just recall the last two years of in your face, my way or the highway,
and feel our pain.

NO FUNDING = NO PLAN
It's simple, and it's politics , there wont be an appropriations committee that exists that wont have republican majority.
And the republicans are simply listening to the majority, another forgotten entity in America over the last 2 years.

Its called Democracy
 
Gives one pause, don't it?

Its nice to see you are consistent. Im glad that you are as concerned about an individual who began investing in a firm 13 years ago as you were about a homosexual judge ruling on if homosexual marriage laws were constitutional.
 
If Obama sees his healthcare monster get (1) defunded, and (2)defeated in the Supreme Court, he might publicly implode.
 
If Obama sees his healthcare monster get (1) defunded, and (2)defeated in the Supreme Court, he might publicly implode.

naaa... he'll just go into hiding...
ObamaHeadUpAsslLogo.jpg
 
Its nice to see you are consistent. Im glad that you are as concerned about an individual who began investing in a firm 13 years ago as you were about a homosexual judge ruling on if homosexual marriage laws were constitutional.

what about all the judges who are not homosexual ruling on the law, and reaching the same conclusion? And if they didn't, would it be because they were heterosexual?

You brought it up, but I wonder if you see the problem in your complaint?
 
what about all the judges who are not homosexual ruling on the law, and reaching the same conclusion? And if they didn't, would it be because they were heterosexual?

You brought it up, but I wonder if you see the problem in your complaint?

How many of them don't live in California or Massachusetts? LOL
 
Ah yes, another blue state these days.

It is what it is, and it is the correct reading of the law, like it or not. but, you have not answered my question. I wonder why? :coffeepap
 
It is what it is, and it is the correct reading of the law, like it or not. but, you have not answered my question. I wonder why? :coffeepap

I thought such absolutes in statements were problematic for people of your ideological persuasion?


j-mac
 
I thought such absolutes in statements were problematic for people of your ideological persuasion?


j-mac

Says the American thinker fellow who makes silly generalizations about lberals. But, no, reading after reading has reached the same conclusion, like it or not. You can disagree, but those who have actual knowledge have come up with a different view.
 
Says the American thinker fellow who makes silly generalizations about lberals. But, no, reading after reading has reached the same conclusion, like it or not. You can disagree, but those who have actual knowledge have come up with a different view.


Oh, "actual knowledge"....I see. So in essence, what you are really saying here is that those who disagree with your interpretation of this are somehow just stupid, don't have knowledge enough to form the "right" opinion of it, eh?

pretty arrogant Joe.

j-mac
 
Back
Top Bottom