It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

page: 11
<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in


posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 06:52 PM
If we weren't fighting war all over the world everyone would have free health care. I hate to pay taxes just like the rest of you right wingers but for different reasons. I don't want my money going to B2 Bombers and conservatives/republicans/libertarians don't want to help anyone.

If you don't like paying taxes then live under the poverty line. Simple as that. Just like when you see a homeless man and you tell them to get a job. Don't like paying taxes? Then don't have anything.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:01 PM
reply to post by jzenman

Your right. I am going to sit right down and read my Henry David Thoreau book, Walden, and I am gett'n back to nature.

It would be better though if there was a boat and a deserted island involved though.

edit on 3-4-2012 by kawika because: added link

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:14 PM

Originally posted by jzenman
If we weren't fighting war all over the world everyone would have free health care. I hate to pay taxes just like the rest of you right wingers but for different reasons. I don't want my money going to B2 Bombers and conservatives/republicans/libertarians don't want to help anyone.

If you don't like paying taxes then live under the poverty line. Simple as that. Just like when you see a homeless man and you tell them to get a job. Don't like paying taxes? Then don't have anything.

I'm what you would consider a "right winger" but I agree: bring our men and women home. Let the rest of the world shoot each other in the face. Let's clean up our own piece of this planet, make our people safe, give them liberty, and empower them to achieve.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:28 PM

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Indigo5

You are predicting a Dem majority?

I would take that bet. No way, not this year.

If the law is overturned...yes, without a doubt. You need to have a political/social imagination...imagine the consequnces of the law being overturned and how that will play in elections. The GOP briefly cheer and pat themselves on the backs, and then the reality kicks in, the news starts to break about the real world consequences...people all over the country with dire diseases are dropped, insurance rates rise anew unhindered. college kids can't be covered anymore and those that are up to the age of 26 are dropped - parents of all political leanings asking WTF?, people with pre-existing conditions without hope, companies once again having to invest in policy changes, the stock market tanks on the unpredictability...all of the blame at the feet of a GOP, who by that time will have loudly and publicly taken full credit for the comming wreckage, a GOP that isn't doing so great already ...and all of it just a couple of months before election time and a fiercly mobilized left egging on the rage with re-invigorated campaign funds and ads etc.

If the bill is overturned...the GOP loses the House...again...I am not the only one that sees that storm on the horizon, you just need to take off the colored glasses and think.
edit on 3-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 3-4-2012 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

Unless the House puts forth a healthcare bill based on individuals pooling their money in family accounts that can encompass as much as 5 generations. As families expand, the funding base expands for all enrolled. Your money, run by your families choices, untouchable by any private, commercial, civil court, or govt entity. Catastrophic instance insurance to be paid by medicare for every American citizen. Family money takes care of family members. Outside donations into someone elses family pool accounts are a 100% tax deduction from individuals, corporations, organizations. The family shops for the care they choose to get, causing competition and lowering healthcare prices. Everyone has geneology and causes automatic enrollment and enforces family to take care of family.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 07:48 PM
The question of what is going on and judicial activism has come up now, after every thing. It seems that when ever a law is being struck down, those who are for the law, claim judicial activism. Yet no one has seemed to understand that the Supreme Court will not issue any sort of statement until about June. And the reality is that it still will not be judicial activism, for the following reasons:

The Judicial branch of the government, is the only branch that is required by law to justify their decision in writing, and backing such up with any and all relevant laws that would support their arguments. They can not just merely rule based off of their personal feeling. And it is subject to the review of the people, at the lower levels, even challenged. But this is the Supreme court, and it is the highest court in the land, whose duty is to weight the law against the one law that trumps all other laws, the Constitution of the United States of America, backed by precedence of a prior court and decisions there on.

We really do not know how the court is going to decide, or how the justices will vote. They will debate, and write opinions, pass back and forth between each other, but in the end, it will be those final words that they must write down, and sign off on. Until that time that the final opinions for the majority and those dissenting, will only be up in the air. And when it is released, we all should read both opinions as it will show the legal backing and that which they believe the law would dictated. And until that time, the justices have the right to switch sides as they see fit.

The questions the justices asked are very much valid, and should have been asked, as they do bring up points that no one really thought about or even asked. They were hard questions, that deserve answers to, seeking to figure out which side is correct and which side is not correct, which has more of a valid basis to determine how to vote and decide the outcome of this case.

The questions will raise up more when it comes out if and how the court decides this. If it is a 5/4 split then it could be a case of activism, and could be argued on either way, no matter how the court rules. But what if it is not, what if is say a 6/3, or 7/2, or an 8/1 or a 9/0 decision? Would it then still be such or is it more a case of something in the law that is no there or considered?

The reality is that the judicial branch of the government must weigh the law and take into consideration what the aspects of the constitution is, and that such will have an effect on all of the future court cases that will come up that are similar to such.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:22 PM
reply to post by jzenman

I am sure my words will not be heard, but here they are.

Most here think they do not want government healthcare, but that is because they have never had it. You do not know what it is like to go to emergency, get whatever healthcare you need and then return home.... without an invoice. You do not know what it is like to go to your Doctor's office, get regular check ups and then get on with your day..... without an invoice.

You are told about long delays in healthcare outside of the United States. That is simply not true. I think many would benefit from giving this new system a chance. Everyone else did and now they would not trade it for the world. Why? Because it is a comfort to know that it will be there when you need it. And someday.... you will.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:29 PM

Originally posted by Indigo5

It's actually a lose-lose from someone with your hopes...

Someone with my hopes just hopes to be left out of it, not forced into it.

If just the mandate is dropped, which I doubt they will do for reasons discussed, then the insurance industry is still on the hook to cover everyone and can't do it without the mandate...enter expanded medicare and medicaid...this time at the urging of the GOPs former sugar daddies, the insurance industry...and the public might not be fond of the mandate, but they are overwhelmingly fond of the idea of covering everyone.

The woes of the insurance companies are not my lookout - I don't play their game any how. I couldn't care less if they all collapsed and disappeared tomorrow morning at 9 am. They can cover whomever they please with their expansions as long as I'm left the choice to opt out of it altogether.

If the whole bill is over-turned...yes, it will be tossed back to Congress for a second shot...but a congress that will be likely a Democrat majority after a liberal base, which has thus far been wishy-washy...mobilizes with ferocity, kids dropped from thier parents plans, cancer patients dropped from coverage, skyrocketing rates it will be mayhem with the GOP holding the idealogical bag heading into elections.

If the law is overturned, Congress will go Dem and the bill will be reconstructed with a Dem Majority and a Dem President, a wiser, more mobilized left...

You seem to be under the impression that I care about the GOP. I do not. They can disappear right along with the insurance companies at 9 am tomorrow morning, and I won't miss them at all. They can take the Democrats with them if they want to see me dance the three of them out the door. Yes, I'd dance, even with my bum knee. You see, it makes no difference at all to me whether it's the right hand or the left hand trying to cut my throat - the thing of importance to me is the throat-cutting itself, regardless of who the perpetrator is.

The GOP crapped their nest with me several years ago, and I've never looked back.

Not just my opinion, strategists on the right are thinking the same thing...many GOP strategists are starting to think the best thing would be for them to uphold the The law is better than nothing, but I would be good with a do over, there was too much kow-towing to the fanatical GOP the first time around and if the law falls, the Dems will win more elections, take Congress and be in a position to write a less compromised bill. Maybe even a public option this time.'s a lose-lose for those that hate Obamacare.

Fine by me. I can't foresee caring in the least who wins the upcoming elections. It might be a different story if I could detect a nickel's worth of difference in the parties, but I can't. This is the most ambivalence I've felt towards any election I've ever endured. Like I said above, it makes no difference to me whether it's the right hand or the left that wields the knife that cuts my throat.

Their "kow-towing" to the GOP had pretty much no effect, since the GOP neglected to check with their voters to see what the electorate wanted. had they done so, there might have been more strenuous opposition than there was. I note that in the aftermath, a lot of those who passed the bill were out of a job when the very next election rolled around, but by then it was too late, the damage had already been done..

I'm tempted to vote for Obama this time around, just so that the country can burn to the ground under the left rather than the right, but burn it will, whomever wins, because there isn't a nickel's worth of real difference between the two, other than the labels applied. the contents under the labels is just the same. The only difference is the packaging.

Of course I know you will disagree...but I have been pretty spot on in the past...I predicted this would land in Kennedy's lap a month after the bill passed. I predicted the GOP comeback in the house last election...otherwise, my logic centers and political bias reside in different parts of my mind.

That's cool. You should get a job politically strategizing, then. I hear it pays fairly well. Either way it goes, I'm not going to comply with any more of their power grabs - from the left OR the alleged right. Enough is enough. I mean, seriously - the "right" thinks that Romney is the best they have to offer? The same guy that pioneered Obamacare, mandate and all, in his home state? With "Republicans" like Romney, we don't need Democrats at all!

maybe they should have run a guy with a philosophy different than the Democrats, but it's a little late in the game to think of that now...

... and I'm willing to bet that was the plan all along.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 08:47 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

Sad thing is most people can't see this, they refuse to see it....and when it does come crashing down you are going to see the dumbfounded look on their faces.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:00 PM

Originally posted by tangonine
reply to post by milominderbinder

Originally posted by khimbar

Originally posted by LadyTwoCrowns
Will be back later. LOL, maybe a conservative will have put forth a good alternative to Obamacare, where EVERYONE GETS TO SEE A DOCTOR and have equal treatment, because MONEY IS NOT GOD. I won't hold my breath, though. You all are more heartless than the crack dealers on the corner.

I'm not in the USA but howabout if you stopped bombing the # out of the brown people in the world and being the 'democracy' spreading war mongering policeman?

Would that not pay for some of it? Or is that too simple?

I agree with him. Bring our troops home and let them slaughter each other. No more relief efforts, no more UN forces. Just let them go ape**** on one another. Call us when you're done. How much $$ would that save?

edit on 3-4-2012 by tangonine because: (no reason given)

Yep. We tell Iran to do whatever they want, we tell Israel to go screw themselves because they are on their own. We leave Afghanistan and Pakistan...they want us gone anyways. We take that $1.5 Trillion dollars we have pissed away in the desert and re-allocate it immediately to converting every vehicle currently on the road to run on E-85 (about $350 in parts and labor w/out ANY economies of scale).

Then we tell the whole Middle East that they can just go ahead and do whatever the hell they want just so long as any wars, weapons of mass destruction, or significant acts of terror do not leave the big sandbox. If anybody's religious wars start slipping past their own hellholes we just start nuking everyone's top 5 major cities equally. No preferential treatment for Israeli's or Saudi's.

Problem solved.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:17 PM

Originally posted by AlreadyGone
Does anybody recall Obama inviting the Supreme Court Justices to a Joint Session of Congress speech a few years back... A speech in which Obama "dissed' the Justices face to face?

No matter how objective they may try to be and no matter how persuasive Obama may be... I bet they all remember that night with a hint of sour grapes.

You know what they say bout Kharma...what goes around comes around.

It was a state of the union address and he dissed them for upholding the law that has to do with corporations donating to presidential campaigns. He made a false statement and took a shot at the Supreme's with them sitting right there, to which John Roberts mouthed the words, "that's not true". It was unprecedented to take a shot at the supreme court. They are a sovereign branch of the government and it simply isn't the president's place to take shots at them.

This POS president has been handled with kid gloves and pampered for years. He's like an over-grown, spoiled brat. He has no class and doesn't give a rat's ass about protocol or respect. Quite frankly, he can't go away soon enough.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:17 PM

Here's the part where you lose and I win: " It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. " Yes, the judiciary is empowered to uphold the constitution. Welcome to the first day of law school. and 5th grade government. genius.
reply to post by tangonine

So...what you are saying is that the SCOTUS has the power to declare a law unconstitutional as a result of Marbury v. Madison....which is actually what I said.

It was Judicial Review NOT the Constitution.

That's the significance of that case, because it's not in the Constitution!! It was a power that was self appointed by Justice Marshal. It's History...well documented.
Genius? No, I never proclaimed to be one...
Can you have a debate without condescending remarks?

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:22 PM
reply to post by nenothtu

I honestly believe even if you this very dubious legislation is upheld you can still opt out of it. I honestly believe that the Congress made a fatal error by leaving the collection of fines for the "failure to comply" up to the IRS. I think in doing so what they have done is actually revealed the IRS to be a Great and Powerful Oz with an odd little fellow hiding behind the curtains pulling levers and gee gaws and in the end can only offer its constituents useless papers declaring intelligence, or jewelery indicating heart, or what the hell ever to indicate courage, and just click your heels three times and you can go home.

By using the IRS as the enforcer of a health care act, Congress inadvertently raises a serious question. How is it a tax collection agency now has the "authority" to collect fines imposed by legislation not at all related to taxation? That in turn should raise more questions about the lawfulness in the way the IRS actually goes about enforcing and collecting a tax that is disingenuously treated as a direct tax upon income when it suits its purposes, an indirect tax when it suits its purposes, and when neither suit its purpose - and alarmingly so - as some sort of subjectless tax.

All taxes come with a subject and there is no such thing as a subjectless tax and while Congress most assuredly has the complete and plenary power of taxation, no Amendment or any other sort of legislation can relieve them of the rules placed upon them by Constitution. By blatantly using a tax collection agency to function as something else in regards to this health care bill, Congress has invited people to take a harder look at how it is the IRS ever had any lawful authority over them to begin with.

To the best of my knowledge, the vast majority of income earners are not even liable for the so-called "Personal Income Tax". Earning income has certainly never been named as the subject of the tax. The Supreme Court has consistently held that this tax is not a direct tax on income as property, and is instead an indirect tax on some specified taxed activity, but when t comes to the vast majority of people that taxed activity is inexplicably offered up as "taxable income". "Taxable income" is then tautologically defined in a series of circumlocution that makes Abbot and Costello's "Who's on First" routine seem limp and facile in comparison.

I think you are not only not subject to the health care act, in all likelihood you are not even liable for the so called "Personal Income Tax" and the more people come to understand this, the more Congress is going to regret handling this health care issue the way they have.

edit on 3-4-2012 by Jean Paul Zodeaux because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:43 PM

Originally posted by nenothtu
You know, I was a Republican for a gozilloin years, give or take a few, and will never, EVER, vote for a Republican again. It's not that I abandoned them, but rather they abandoned ME.

Throughout US political history, what has been considered "conservative" and what has been considered "radical" has been fluid, ever changing. The founding fathers were "radicals" whose philosophy became "conservative" when it was entrenched over time. Likewise, the Republicans started just before the civil war with a "radical" agenda, which again became conservative as it was entrenched over time.

That's why I've personally eliminated all of the traditional Right-Left paradigm words from my vocabulary. I just plain old-fashioned refuse to talk about "liberals" and "conservatives". In my opinion, as soon as one gives voice to those words, you empower those bastards to keep dividing us.

The important thing to notice is that they are both parts of the SAME COIN.

Agreed. They are ALL a bunch of traitors. Actually, six months ago I vowed that I would never vote for a Republican OR a Democrat again. I softened this stance a bit for Ron Paul. However, in a lot of ways I'm glad he isn't getting the Republican I can go ahead and vote for him on the Libertarian, Independent, or Green ticket this fall.

Radicals like me, who believe in individual liberty and taking care of your own mess in the best way you can find to do so are now the "radicals", and people who think we should rely on everyone else to take care of us, and force them to if they're recalcitrant, are rapidly becoming the "conservatives" of the day, as more and more that philosophy becomes prevalent. That's why I find the recent new-found "religion" of the DNC in trying to foist off the individual mandate on the Republicans so humorous - they're the SAME COIN, just one side playing off of the other, in an effort to keep the population off balance so that they are free to promote their agenda while no one is looking..

Correct. I'm a HUGE fan of hand-ups...but I loathe hand-outs. I just don't understand why we have such a hard time telling the difference between the two any more.

Thanks for the link to the riot agents treaty - that was news to me. I knew they were used throughout the 60's, 70's, and 80's. They were mighty damned effective in extracting tunnel rats from closed in places. I see the treaty is from '93, so that is apparently a thing of the past. Since they're still legal for LE use here, I've hedged my bets against their effective use on me. Other folks will have to find their own solutions, though.

No worries. They are legal for "law enforcement" in most states, as I understand it. I just find it really bizarre that we lump these substances right in mustard and nerve gas when it comes to sworn foreign enemies on an open battlefield...but don't really seem to take a notice when they are used on lawful and peaceful citizens assembling in demonstration as the Constitution assures them is their inalienable right.

I also get a kick how so many of those riot cops meet four out of five definitions of "Domestic Terrorist" pursuant to the Patriot Act but all we do at the worst is give them some kind of slap on the wrist or reprimand. Any other citizen doing the same at the Republican or Democratic National Convention would be locked up right next to Bradley Manning.

More than anything else this militarization of our "police" forces scares the bejeebies out of me the most. Hopefully we have a Julius Ceasar or two in the military that will just turn a couple of those damn carriers around and bring them "across the Rubicon" to protect our citizens from our own government right here at home.

You would think the day has got to be pretty close. I personally found it a bit fishy that all those Navy Seals were shot down a couple of months after we allegedly "got" Bin Laden. One would think the rest of the Navy Seals, Army Rangers, and Green Berets gotta be thinking the same thing...right?

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:50 PM

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

Originally posted by babybunnies

Originally posted by navy_vet_stg3
Apparently, the dictator in chief (purposely placed in lower case) thinks that the 3rd branch of government is a waste. He already said he'd act if Congress didn't, basically saying the 2nd branch of government is a waste. This guy is dangerous, and November can't get here quick enough.

You're obviously one of those who don't realize that whether or not you disagree with the current Commander-In-Chief, by not stating the position as The President, you're disrespecting the office, not the man.

Just like Sean Hannity, who insists on calling President Obama "The Annointed One", he's being disrespectful to the Office of The President, not the ACTUAL President.


Liberals don't respect anything about the President or the Office when a Republican is in the WH. The liberal media bashed him for anything and everything at EVERY opportunity. So I don't want to hear about how we should "respect" the office.

I'm 33 years old. There has not been a President in the United States that has been deserving of "respect" since the day I was born in 1978.

You tell me...why should I respect "the office" at all? Presidents that the country "looks up to" or whatever are just a myth. A legend from a long time away in land far away that I have not ever set foot in.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 09:56 PM
The members of SCOTUS are vetted by our elected representatives. They are far more than simply elected by the common voter that maybe knows nothing except the (R) or (D) by the lever they pull. They are supposed to be the equivilant of the high jedi council that answers only to an generative (not degenerative) Absolute. Don't trash me for the Star Wars analogy, either.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by nenothtu
So yeah, the SCOTUS DOES have jurisdiction over questions that arise as to Constitutionality of laws that are made under the US Constitution.

LOL. I should sure as hell hope that the SCOTUS has the authority to say if something is unconstitutional. I mean...who the hell else would?

I really wonder where the hell some people get their ideas from.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:08 PM

Originally posted by AwakeinNM

President Obama, employing his strongest language to date on the Supreme Court review of the federal health care overhaul, cautioned the court Monday against overturning the law -- while repeatedly saying he's "confident" it will be upheld.
The president spoke at length about the case at a joint press conference with the leaders of Mexico and Canada. The president, adopting what he described as the language of conservatives who fret about judicial activism, questioned how an "unelected group of people" could overturn a law approved by Congress.

Really? Who does this guy think he is? He does not hold sway over the Supreme Court. He does not hold sway over Congress. Last I checked there were THREE distinct branches of government, and he is only ONE of them. Sorry, did I learn this wrong in school?

He is sounding more and more like a DICTATOR.

edit on 3-4-2012 by CantSay because: (no reason given)

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:10 PM

Originally posted by prophetboy12
Now is the time to stand up for religion, for the free enterprise system, For God, for family, for freedom, for life, liberty for all, for the unborn, for good, for justice, for light. Pray for the resurrection of the United States of America and our way of life.

You are about five different types of crazy. Let's leave "god" out of it...allright? We have enough problems getting the children in Congress to agree on far less esoteric matters.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:15 PM

Originally posted by prophetboy12
Obama has a whole house of Czars that were not elected. They are making policy and conducting themselves without restraint every single day. They are the ones that need to be removed, investigated and prosecuted if found to be breaking the law or implementing policy that is against the constitution. It is time for house cleaning . It is repulsive to me to have any one in our government called Czars. Russia has czars not America. We have to stop thinking it is ok to exploit of our system 0f government. When and who can we depend on to call a wolf a wolf. We let the weasel into the hen house and now we have a problem.

You do know that it was Ronald Reagan who created the first "Czar" in his cabinet, right? I'm all for eliminating these tax-suckling whores...but I'm always amazed at how clueless so many people can be about even recent US history.

posted on Apr, 3 2012 @ 10:19 PM
I happen to be in Washington, DC right now--as I am a tour director and I have a group of kids from across the country visiting DC.

I just heard this tonight----and I am absolutely disgusted. Seriously!? Who does this guy think he is?

Tomorrow we are touring the Supreme Court. What am I supposed to say? That is the court that bestows the law of the land? That upholds the constitution? That interprets and protects the constitution? Is that true anymore?

It seems to me the court must protect itself from Obama. This is the 2nd time the court has had to defend itself from our president.

Incidentally: I saw a guy protesting today in front of the Capitol by himself and he was surrounded by security and removed from the premises. His protest had been peaceful.

It's hard to be in DC and see our country..our constituion eroding.

When will this big promise of a new age come to fruition?

When will this secret cabal be arrested?

I'm starting to think it's just wishful thinking.....

top topics

<< 8  9  10    12  13  14 >>

log in