The Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…

Amy Howe: From the beginning of the Chief's opinion: "We do not consider whether the Act embodies sound policies. That judgment is entrusted to the Nation's elected leaders. We ask only whether Congress has the power under the Constitution to enact the challenged provisions."

On June 29 2012 00:05 Joedaddy wrote:


Depends on who you're talking to.

Obama was adamant in his 2010, iirc, interview with George Stefanopolis (sp) that it was NOT a tax.

On June 29 2012 00:05 Joedaddy wrote:


Depends on who you're talking to.

Obama was adamant in his 2010, iirc, interview with George Stefanopolis (sp) that it was NOT a tax.

On June 29 2012 00:02 DoubleReed wrote:
There are states with universal healthcare right? Doesn't Hawaii have universal healthcare? "Floods of poor people" sounds like blatant fearmongering.

On June 29 2012 00:10 xDaunt wrote:
Anyway, here's the bright side for all of those disappointed by the result. The Court more or less announced the right rules. In fact, federal power was significantly constrained today, notwithstanding the contortions done to uphold the mandate as a tax.

The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads “no vehicles in the park” might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning thatdoes not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: “No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it unavoidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution.” Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448–449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: “[T]he rule issettled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that whichwill save the Act.” Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).

On June 29 2012 00:11 JoelB wrote:
Congratulations Obama. You have brought your country a little step closer to the the civilized world again. I cannot even imagine what would happen in Germany if someone would go to court against healthcare because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism oO. This country and those people are still a mystery to me.

On June 29 2012 00:14 Signet wrote:

People moving to the US from Mexico are doing it for the jobs. In fact immigrants aren't eligible for welfare until they have lived here for 5 years.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/286981/gop-candidates-betray-spirit-reagan-immigration-daniel-griswold

On June 29 2012 00:13 menaceko wrote:

I don't want to live in this country anymore.... all it has become is big government that over spends... if I wanted to live in a socialist state(or on the verge of it) I would go back in time and move to the Soviet Union.


Wish there were real Justices in the Supreme Court not old people who dress as one... it's a joke, a mockery of our constitution what they did today.

God help us all.

On June 29 2012 00:14 menaceko wrote:



'because it is a unfair for the healthy people to pay for the unhealthy and calls that communism'

How is it not...? You foreigners are a mystery to me, you like paying for other peoples expenses? The people that sit at home and do fuck all and expect to get money? Stop talking moron.