Blum writes: "The individual mandate is constitutional and the media spin is in. But the spin omits a darker side to the controlling opinion authored by the chief justice."
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. (photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
I agree. The Republican plan all along was to uphold the law but make sure it was labeled as a tax, thus giving the Republicans a wedge issue to run on. Once Roberts figured out that Kennedy wasn't going to vote to uphold the law, Roberts was forced to change his vote in order to keep Obamacare in the debate. His vote was not based on the law, the Constitution or any of the arguments before the court. His vote was 100% pure politics. He violated his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense.
If Romney wins this election and the Republicans retain the House, then, you will be able to thank Mr. Roberts for his gift of more corruption and NO sane healthcare for anyone who cannot afford it.
The only long-term winning that will come out of this is if people get out and vote for the people, not the money, and not for a suit that's bought and paid for by the very people who have scrambled the US democracy into the hottest bed of uber-capitalism we've ever seen in order to take down America's people.
Do not believe the man behind the curtain; he speaks with hatred and hubris, and he WILL bamboozle those who only see the money, those who believe "the tax argument." And he will rake in money to project a persona that has NOTHING to do with you, me, or democracy and everything to do with gaining and wielding the ugliest power we will have seen since Bushco.
I smell the flesh of the 99% burning. But we can douse the flames.
N.
Whether a justice is appointed by democrat or republican should make no difference. None.
Com on, Glen. Grow up and join the adults here.
That was not the original intent of the court.
Egos aside, these people are supposed to uphold Constitution... they ignore the Constitution.
Yes we should be doing our part to get America back...
The college-age students who are getting a short-term reprieve if their parents have a policy--must plan for the advent of age 27. Women who think they will get a better deal if rates are not based on gender will still find themselves penalized by age rating--an item the insurers insist upon.
The ACA is so complex and costly that it will prove unmanageable. It will fall in on itself. Meanwhile the profiteers will continue to carry our tax dollars to Wall Street.
Pregressives who post on RSN preach to the choir, but progressive DEMS must not join in the ACA spin. We must admit to the unadequacy of the legislation which depends almost entirely on the unnecessary, greedy and often devious private insurance industry. Urge the President to expand cost-effective traditional Medicare and give it to everyone.
oldleftie, you have given a good reason why it is important for the Democrats to hold the Pesidency, inorder to be in a position to change the composition of the Court. Do you think that it is also important for Democrats to hold the Presidency and gain majorities in both houses in order to improve the future chances of getting Single Payer?
Ginsberg is 79
Scalia is 76
Kennedy is 76
Breyer is 74
Thomas is 64
Alito is 62
Sotomayor is 58
Roberts is 57
Kagen is 52
Whoever wins the presidency this year is likely to be able to nominate at least 4 and perhaps 5 justices, moving the court to a 6-3 and perhaps even a 7-2 since it is possible that Thomas will not stay on if his enablers retire.
Thank you for asking the question.
If you have the time and resources to relocate to a district where a pro Single Payer candidate is seen to have a chance to be elected over a Tea Party incumbent, by all means. But frankly, I don't think that single payer becomes a viable option until 2014.
But I'm not sure about that. And I do try to understand them in spite of myself. They're all around where I live.
At a party last night an employee of General Motors said, "I'm simply tired of supporting them."
Who were "THEM?" Imagined welfare queens. And the unemployed. And the poor.
Does this guy really support them? Well, he pays taxes. I guess that's what he means. And the "THEM" are less deserving than "HIM" whom I assume gets some services himself from the taxes he pays (including the government bailout that preserved his employer).
I guess he'd prefer no public services for anybody, no country, no employer, complete chaos.
Waiter, I'll have 50 per cent public service, 50 per cent private business, and blue cheese dressing, please.
That is what is so wrong with so many ignorant Americans. They do not even know or recognize the number of ways in which they are personally reliant on their federal government.
Remember those interstate highways, those national parks, that disaster recovery help in times of flood, hurricanes, tornedoes, etc.?
I have said it before, and I will say it again: I have seen the data, from the Government's own mouth. And if you chart Federal involvement in the economy against the strength of that economy (value of the dollar), the correlation is not just obvious but jumps out and slaps you in the face.
The historical facts are strongly indicate that having strong central control, and a robust economy, simply don't occur at the same time.
It just doesn't work. Never has, never will.
The clear bottom line is that higher taxation of the wealthy and large government programs to improve the infrastructure of the country are tools that will improve our lives and the economy. The Government is NOT a business. It exists not to "make money" or "compete", but to level the playing field and provide the structure of society that all commerce and prosperity depends upon. Everyone benefits from properly run government, and attacking the government as a problem is absurd. Lowering taxes on the wealthy is not reasonable since it only panders to greed and needless opulence. Wealth is generated by all, and all must benefit from it.
http://tedrey.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/conservative-judicial-activism-in-play/
What kind of "price" does a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court ever have to worry about paying? He serves as long as he wants to, and if he wants to work after, he can have any job in the world.
My work requires integrity, high intelligence, and strength. That loon lives in lala land, and his nuts would fall right off if he tried to remove a transmission from a small vehicle, let alone a truck or large SUV.
Of course, he probably thinks mechanics are cavemen.
Actually I would love to see him try to do what I do every day. We could swap jobs. Of course doing better than he does on the Supremos wouldn't be much of a challenge. Elmer Fudd could do better.
It is flagrantly obvious that what that ruling does is make the very few actual humans who control the money of a corporation into super-citizens, with the power to vote thousands or hundreds of thousands of times while the rest of us get to vote once, period.
That five people, monsters is more like it, could be so shallow, so programmed, so utterly blinded and blinkered that they could ignore the entire history and purpose of the Supreme Court, and vote for such an outrage, is just about more than I can grasp. I see it, I know they did it, I just can not imagine why or how.
I find their actions utterly disgusting, obscene, Unamerican, inhuman, and grotesque.
Go back to the earlier RSN article, "What Hath Roberts Wrought?
By George Lakoff, Elisabeth Wehling, Common Dreams, 03 July 12,
and look at the picture of Roberts. If slime and sleaze could form themselves into a semblance of human form, that is what it looks like.
His whole face looks like an ulterior motive.
It is one of those pictures that the photographer sees and gasps at what he or she caught. The Loch Ness Monster in the goldfish bowl.
This he might have not planned on or perhaps he did. After the ReaGun Years, Bush Sr and Jr, future federal spending should be overseen carefully.
Ruling has happened, there is a chance for growth on this Healthcare Reform. It has some excellent halp, yes, like anything legal has lot of work to do yet.
robert's Rule will go into History for better or worse, it certainly is contreversial no matter which angle you look at it from. Let's move on and see articles about what we can do for Election's Success for Democrats or Write In....
People may be fined for not purchasing health insurance but that fine has no teeth because there are no provisions for exacting the fine. Matter of fact, enforcement of the fine is explicitly rejected in the act so people can ignore the fine and there is no way they can be forced to pay it. No arrests, no criminal charges, no nothing. So, happily, the insurance companies do not necessarily stand to gain anything unless people are intimidated into paying the fines. Wake up folks and read the fine print and don't jump to conclusions.
If you chose to respond, refer to what you are responding to.
http://tedrey.wordpress.com/2012/07/08/conservative-judicial-activism-in-play/
James38 says he couldn't get this on Yahoo. Goggle should work. Or search "spinning on a fretful midge tedrey". Some other interesting stuff there sa well.
RSS feed for comments to this post