Supreme Court Ruling on Health Care

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Bay
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh my, the vexing question of how to appoint judges that will toe the line of one ideology or the next. Certainly more of a vexing and urgent question than how to do the basic business of the people and all that protecting of life, liberty and pursuit of freedom stuff…Yeah we get it, health care coverage has always excluded some people - no pressing urgency in that, not at all. And we know the market can take care of ballooning costs - one way or the next. So that leaves us with the supreme concern of the hour: how to get judges who will adhere to our ideology…
And how does this unpredictability desplayed by Roberts work into Conservatives using Catholicism as a cover- stating that we are obliged to vote for GOP Presidential candidates due, in part, to the “Pro-Life” justices they would appoint, thus overturning Roe vs. Wade?

Is merely the “hope” that that the elected GOP president would appoint a justice who would “follow through” enough to oblige a Catholic to always vote GOP?
 
Seekerz in response to the premiums in the other thread, premiums have increased in Massachusetts under RomneyCare, that is a fact, and chief architect of ObamaTax is saying premiums will increase under ObamaTax. Why would he say that? He is not a conservative
RomneyCare and ObamaTax. How clever. . . . . :rolleyes:
 
Seekerz in response to the premiums in the other thread, premiums have increased in Massachusetts under RomneyCare, that is a fact, and chief architect of ObamaTax is saying premiums will increase under ObamaTax. Why would he say that? He is not a conservative
If you read my response, you will see that I also agreed that premiums have increased. The important question is: by how much? The sources I quoted explain that*** the rate of increase has been less than the rest of the country***; these numbers can then be broken down by type of policy etc.
 
And how does this unpredictability desplayed by Roberts work into Conservatives using Catholicism as a cover- stating that we are obliged to vote for GOP Presidential candidates due, in part, to the “Pro-Life” justices they would appoint, thus overturning Roe vs. Wade?

Is merely the “hope” that that the elected GOP president would appoint a justice who would “follow through” enough to oblige a Catholic to always vote GOP?
Happily, I saw through that strategy a long time ago and refused to hang my hat on that peg…The importance of abortion as a moral issue cannot be overstated. Neither can the importance of how the ways to realistically and effectively impact the practice to the benefit of the unborn. Obviously, spending decades and tons of money on courting 9 people to perhaps one day, roll the dice, is not the most reliable strategy…
 
And how does this unpredictability desplayed by Roberts work into Conservatives using Catholicism as a cover- stating that we are obliged to vote for GOP Presidential candidates due, in part, to the “Pro-Life” justices they would appoint, thus overturning Roe vs. Wade?

Is merely the “hope” that that the elected GOP president would appoint a justice who would “follow through” enough to oblige a Catholic to always vote GOP?
Could it be that we are not probing into what possible motivations Roberts may have had for voting the way he did? We can only suppose what was in his mind and perhaps there is a much deeper meaning to what he has done. Perhaps he thought the bill would be easier to overturn if it were viewed as a tax, which, at one point in the oral arguments, it was deemed by the administration lawyers. Now it only takes a majority to revisit the issue and overturn it. It will not be easy, to be sure, but with more Dem Senators that GOP, running for reelection, many of them in very precarious positions in their states, is it possible that Roberts forsaw that as a way out that would come from the people and not from the SC? As someone on here says often “just saying”.
 
If you read my response, you will see that I also agreed that premiums have increased. The important question is: by how much? The sources I quoted explain that*** the rate of increase has been less than the rest of the country***; these numbers can then be broken down by type of policy etc.
I do not think you can compare premiums for a state plan which is different in many ways to ObamaTax, to a federal plan
 
I do not think you can compare premiums for a state plan which is different in many ways to ObamaTax, to a federal plan
That is NOT what I am doing. I am referring to figures which show that health insurance premiums have risen at a slower rate in MA than in other states. Apples to apples.
 
Well, I am glad that federalism remains intact.

However, I have problems with the “majority” opinion that the penalty is a tax, but it doesn’t have to be apportioned and it doesn’t invoke the anti injunction act. It’s a made-up class of tax.

Have you read the articles that say the “dissent” by the conservatives reads like a majority opinion and refers to Bader Ginsberg’s opinion as the “dissent”? It seems CJ Roberts shifted his vote late in the game.
 
Next president could elect 3 Supreme court judges. Think of the legality of roe vs wade for many years to come if Obama is reelected and can pick. This election is serious, not only because of repealing ObamaCare but because of protecting the unborn
 
Next president could elect 3 Supreme court judges. Think of the legality of roe vs wade for many years to come if Obama is reelected and can pick. This election is serious, not only because of repealing ObamaCare but because of protecting the unborn
But didn’t Roberts vote show how unpredictable even a Conservative judge can be in a ruling?
 
But didn’t Roberts vote show how unpredictable even a Conservative judge can be in a ruling?
And Roberts is not the only one. Both Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by Reagan, and David Souter, appointed by George H.W. Bush, were thought to be conservative justices. As it turned out, however, Justice O’Connor became more of a centrist and swing vote, while Justice Souter often voted with the liberal justices. I wish more justices were like these two, including liberals who vote with conservative justices. Partisan politics should have as little influence as possible in the Supreme Court.
 
And Roberts is not the only one. Both Sandra Day O’Connor, appointed by Reagan, and David Souter, appointed by George H.W. Bush, were thought to be conservative justices. As it turned out, however, Justice O’Connor became more of a centrist and swing vote, while Justice Souter often voted with the liberal justices. I wish more justices were like these two, including liberals who vote with conservative justices. Partisan politics should have as little influence as possible in the Supreme Court.
I do agree with that. I don’t want political activism from either side of the aisle being the operative dynamic on the Court. We should expect as much neutrality as is humanly possible from all jurists, especially these jurists. (And that’s one reason that it should be very difficult to pick an appropriate nominee for such a position; none of us can fully filter out our personal prejudices or life experiences, but a SC candidate should be even less predictable in that regard than the average citizen or legislator.)

An example that I don’t believe is helpful in inspiring faith in the Court is what Scalia recently did, which was gratuitous i.m.o. This is despite the fact that I do believe he was correct in some of the content of his rant; there was no occasion for such a rant & it’s unbecoming to the office for a SC judge to behave that way. An “officer of the court” should behave in a manner more dignified than your typical politician or other headline-grabber.
 
I do agree with that. I don’t want political activism from either side of the aisle being the operative dynamic on the Court. We should expect as much neutrality as is humanly possible from all jurists, especially these jurists. (And that’s one reason that it should be very difficult to pick an appropriate nominee for such a position; none of us can fully filter out our personal prejudices or life experiences, but a SC candidate should be even less predictable in that regard than the average citizen or legislator.)

An example that I don’t believe is helpful in inspiring faith in the Court is what Scalia recently did, which was gratuitous i.m.o. This is despite the fact that I do believe he was correct in some of the content of his rant; there was no occasion for such a rant & it’s unbecoming to the office for a SC judge to behave that way. An “officer of the court” should behave in a manner more dignified than your typical politician or other headline-grabber.
You’re referring to Scalia’s “broccoli” rant, Elizabeth? He is becoming a caricature of himself, but he has in his favor the fact he hails from Queens, New York. We’ll know it’s all over when these justices begin appearing on “Dancing with the Stars.” Seriously though, the highest Court in the land is the last bastion of integrity, certainly compared to Congress and the executive branch. But it too is fading fast.
 
But the appointment of Democrat presidents are totally predictable.
How? Why? What makes Democratic appointees MORE predictable? That doesn’t make sense.

So we are supposed to always vote GOP for President b/c their Supreme Court appointees MIGHT overturn Roe vs. Wade but we really can’t guarantee that?

I disagree vehemently with 99% of the GOP platform but I am supposed to vote for a GOP based on the above reasoning? WOW!
 
Read the page: he imposed tithes.
You know, it would really help if you used an example of a saint that was a real comparison. That saint lived in a time where the Church was essentially the government. If you needed help, the Church or maybe mercenaries were about it. Establishing a tithe tax then was no different than us establishing a tax now to fund our military.

The fundamental difference here, which you ignore as do all those in favor of these creeping evils, is that the Church wanted the money. It didn’t force you to go shop at Blacksmith Orgenberry’s shop whether you wanted his goods or not. Obamacare forces you to buy a product against your will and at gunpoint. And yes, the power to tax is the power to destroy. And yes, it is at gunpoint because if you don’t pay, Johnny Law shows up at your door with a gun.

Another lie from another lying politician. During his primary, the difference between Obama and Hillary was that Obama declared he didn’t think it right to force people against their will to buy something they don’t want. He went back on that. He lied. But that’s what progressives do. Whatever it takes.

You would do well to use examples that are apples to apples rather than try and dishonestly box in other posters to get them to somehow confront the Church or her teachings. That would be the Christian thing to do. I doubt you or your ilk will do so, however. The evil at work here is staggering.

As to the others here:
The mental gymnastics being done right now by the Republican party to somehow claim a victory and justify the intellectually dishonest “judge” known as Roberts is laughable. Another liberty was stolen and the government just gained the power to force you to do anything because everything, including doing nothing, is taxable.

Both parties reject God. Don’t tell me what they say or put in a platform. Look at what they have done. That’s it. It’s a joke. Romney is going to fight his own plan? Wait, he said it was good for his state, it’s a state by state issue, but not a federal plan. If you have any principles, you’ll know that that forcing people at gunpoint to buy something from another private citizen is immoral. It’s evil. Our liberties came from God, not the state or the Constitution. When someone removes them, it’s evil. If this was wrong in Massachusetts, it’s wrong everywhere. This isn’t a question of raising a tax rate from 11 to 13 percent. This is a fundamental liberty murdered. And this is the guy that will serve as an alternative?

I’m sorry folks. Christians in the West, and that includes what should be the steadfast Catholic Church, have completely lost sight of what evil means. People keep buying into the logic of the world when you should only care about Christ. That’s how you discern these things. Put your faith in the truth of God, not in the machinations of political parties, elitist judicial decisions, and a culture that ridicules the truth. When you do that, you’ll see these folks for what they are: scum. Until the Church and others do that, you can forget it.

One of the rules here poses this quote: “Love without truth would be blind; truth without love would be like 'a clanging cymbal”. But what happens when a clashing cymbal is necessary to wake your brothers and sisters up? That is love, too, the kind of love Paul himself used in that very text when he described people using what today we might call uncharitable language/ And until people have the courage to embrace that kind of love, the kind of love that shakes people from their stupor and then offers to help them see the world anew, more and more folks will falter and look elsewhere.
 
But didn’t Roberts vote show how unpredictable even a Conservative judge can be in a ruling?
You do not know how Roberts would vote if the legality of roe vs wade as assessed, and plus Democrat supreme court judges are always going to be against giving the states back control on abortion law
 
New York Times did a poll in which the result was 34% of Americans support ObamaTax

To be sure, about a fifth of those who oppose it say it did not go far enough, essentially frustrated liberals

Dr Margaret Flowers, single payer activist, liberal and paediatrician says ObamaTax is ‘crony capitalism on steroids

The individual mandate requiring people to purchase private insurance and using hundreds of millions of our public dollars that go directly to the private insurance companies is outrageous. If you look at it people having private insurance still doesn’t guarantee that you could see the doctor that you need to see, get the treatment that you need to seek; [it doesn’t guarantee] that you can afford the healthcare because of co-pays and deductibles…The greatest cause of bankruptcy is medical [costs] and 80 percent of those people that went bankrupt from medical cost had health insurance. So, we’re forcing people to purchase a defective product, we’re putting our private dollars into a private corporation that’s just going to take that money as profit and not give it out to the people for care

Obama did not get a bounce in Rasmussen poll after Supreme Court decision
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top