Comments on: California state officials speak on SCOTUS ruling

By: Elwood

Elwood — Sat, 30 Jun 2012 02:56:48 +0000

Really? Well I’ll be damned!

By: JohnW

JohnW — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:55:01 +0000

Elwood, just to let you know, there are news sources available other than the right wing CNS, formerly known as Conservative News Service.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 22:52:46 +0000

Re: #6

Roberts deferred to the political branches. I think that’s called “judicial restraint.”

Roberts voided the Commerce Clause as a source of constitutional authority for the mandate and thus established a new precedent that will limit future use of the Commerce Clause to expand federal powers. I think that’s called “judicial conservatism.”

Roberts said the Constitution gives the government tax and spending powers. I think thats called “reading” the document.

Roberts stopped the administration from using the leverage of withholding existing Medicaid funds to the states as leverage to keep them from opting out of the Medicaid expansion and it’s 90/10 cost sharing. In doing so, he set new limits on the ability of the federal government to burden states with unfunded mandates. I think that’s standing up for states rights.

Which of these things bothers you most?

Suggest reading that raging liberal, Charles Krauthammer’s, “Nixon to China” comments on the matter. It’s online.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:44:46 +0000

Read it and weep:

http://tinyurl.com/87x9hd8

By: Elwood

Elwood — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:42:07 +0000

This may be the most ridiculous, twisted, tortured, convoluted decision in the history of SCOTUS.

By: Elwood

Elwood — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 17:31:47 +0000

21 tax hikes totaling $675 billion!

https://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/380750_10150904688025911_1325369564_n.jpg

By: Elwood

Elwood — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 04:26:37 +0000

John, would you please point out what part of my post #1 is untrue?

The Ayrab denied that the individual mandate was a tax. SCOTUS ruled that he is full of crap. Surprise!

The individual mandate will be the largest tax increase in history. And it IS a tax. SCOTUS says so.

By: JohnW

JohnW — Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:09:06 +0000

Oh, come on folks! Your thinking skills are better than that.

By: Claire Voyance

Claire Voyance — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 20:01:09 +0000

I support the Individual Mandate because it contains exemptions for the poor (see H.R. 3590 Sec. 1501). I am happy that SCOTUS declared that the Individual Mandate is constitutional, which was the correct ruling under the Taxation Clause.

However, I also support intelligence and honesty.

The Messiah is either an idiot or a liar.

The Messiah is an idiot IF he believed that the Individual Mandate was constitutional under the Commerce Clause. That argument is absurd.

The Messiah is a liar IF he knew that the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, he knew that the Individual Mandate was a tax, he knew that the Individual Mandate would be declared a constitutional tax under the Taxation Clause, and, accordingly, he knew that the Individual Mandate constituted a raise in taxes.

The Messiah said that he would not raise taxes.

In my opinion, based on my inferences drawn from the facts, I believe that the Messiah is a LIAR!

By: Elwood

Elwood — Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:32:31 +0000

SCOTUS says Obama is a liar.

Denied individual mandate was a tax

Biggest tax increase in history

http://tinyurl.com/87823ek