Considering the heavy unpopularity of ObamaTax, it may not be as hard as you think, with 20 Democrats having to fight for seats. The GOP just has to win half of them and its game over. And some of those Democrats may not want to have their campaigns sullied by the fact that they are going around with the President who foisted the largest tax increase in modern history on the middle class…all in the name of fairness.
Last time I checked, both Obama and Romney were accepting contributions from Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, etc. I think we’ve gone past socialism.
At least at the turn of the Civil War, the Democrats were openly pro-slavery. They just changed their criteria. They are against private slavery in favor of making all citizens slaves to the federal government.
“Tyranny of the Majority.” Now you sound like the Wisconsin Democrats.
Actually, it’s tyranny of the masses.
Scott, as I pointed out to you earlier, even the reconciliation has to be voted on by the House and signed by the President. Reconciliation may be used only once during a Senate term and deals with budgetary items only.
Considering it was passed by reconciliation, then repealing it by reconciliation is possible. reconciliation can only be used once PER YEAR. Since it hasn’t been used since 2010, its all good.
Maybe it’s me but I see a lot more forgiving in Justice Roberts than Stupak, who had been crucified back in 2010. Maybe it’s because the latter is a Democrat?
Would we call that Corporatism? No, the word is Oligarchy. I think the Rockefeller’s, Astor’s, and Gould’s of the past. Would envy the power of our modern Banker-barons.
Only if a worm is a lion is a bear who is a man, for now a penalty is a tax because the IRS collects it. Oh Well……
Maybe Roberts sent a very clear message to the American electorate. Elections have consequences. If you vote for free piles of Obamacash, then what you may end up with is huge piles of Obamac**p.
Regardless he abrogated his responsibility to interpret the words in front of him and invented new meaning for words he had. No guts no glory. I think a braver individual in humility would have worked with the words he had and sent the law back to the legislature for rewriting. But, we moderns do not understand humility or bravery anymore then we understand charity verses coercion.
My company’s coverage is worse, but I take issue with two things you have said.
Ok, here’s the history.
He’s stated as much, repeatedly.Oh, I guess I missed the part where Romney was a “Federalist minded” pol.
I think I hear your kettle boiling.
Did you miss the 2010 election?
Strong probability in 2012 and even stronger in 2014. This is judging by the high number of Democratic seats that are up for re-election.
Roberts is following the Constitution in not making laws, but allowing Congress to do it.From the article cited:
“Obamacare is now essentially upheld. There’s only one way it can be overturned. The same way it was passed — elect a new president and a new Congress. That’s undoubtedly what Roberts is telling the nation: Your job, not mine. I won’t make it easy for you.”
If this is the case and if Roberts isn’t just backing down in the face of an angry socialist chief executive; then Roberts is defining the election. It is still an a abrogation of his own duty to up hold the law and the constitution as written.
