If the Supremes overturn the ACA, four justices appointed by Republican presidents will have voted in lock step with Congressional Republicans, not one of whom voted for the bill.
(I’m staying out on my limb – I think Roberts votes for Obamacare. And if he does, so does Kennedy.)
You can have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, or democracy. But you cannot have both.
Whatever Works 
four justices appointed by Republican presidents will have voted in lock step with Congressional Republicans, not one of whom voted for the bill.
Does it bother you equally that the Supremes appointed by Democrats will all vote FOR Obamacare?
LikeLike
Yup. But they would have been upholding a law passed by the Congress, not overturning it.
LikeLike
If the SCOTUS strikes down ACA based upon the Individual Mandate it will mean nothing more and nothing less than that the majority of the SCOTUS Justices did their job and protected the Constitution from Congress and the POTUS.
LikeLike
“(I’m staying out on my limb – I think Roberts votes for Obamacare. And if he does, so does Kennedy.)”
Will just keep fingers crossed.
LikeLike
Hey jonolan…..
How do you explain HAVING to pay social security?
ain’t THAT a mandate?
oh by the way…
the ‘mandate’ is actually a tax
poor people don’t pay it….
rich people HAVE Health Insurance….
Guess who it affects?
LikeLike
the ‘mandate’ is actually a tax
Obama didn’t argue it that way. He said it wasn’t a tax. If they said that it WAS a tax, then I think it would be a whole different ballgame.
LikeLike
pino> Regardless as to whether or not Obama called it a tax or not, the technical fact of the matter is that it IS a tax.
Public perception of it would have been possibily different but just because he didn’t call it a tax doesn’t mean that it isn’t. It’s levied by the IRS.
LikeLike
…it IS a tax.
Sorry. It’s a mandate. The government mandated that you have to purchase health insurance. They didn’t tax you and then give you something, they said that you have to go buy a thing.
Question, can the government “tax you” and then give everybody a gun? In other words, mandate gun ownership?
LikeLike
The penalty for not buying insurance is a tax.
I assume the curious gun question is trying to make an association with taxing everyone to supply health care for all. If that is the direction of your implication then yes it would be mandated health care coverage. But that’s a whole other topic.
If you’re trying to link the tax penalty for not buying insurance to your gun question then it doesn’t really make sense.
LikeLike
As Prez, George Washington signed two mandates: one for gun ownership and one for health insurance. Really. I’ll paste a few links, but it’s an easy google or wiki check:
“The founding fathers passed several mandates. In 1790, the very first Congress—which incidentally included 20 framers—passed a law that included a mandate: namely, a requirement that ship owners buy medical insurance for their seamen. This law was then signed by another framer: President George Washington.”
“In 1792, a Congress with 17 framers passed another statute that required all able-bodied men to buy firearms. Yes, we used to have not only a right to bear arms, but a federal duty to buy them. Four framers voted against this bill, but the others did not, and it was also signed by Washington. ”
“in 1798, Congress addressed the problem that the employer mandate to buy medical insurance for seamen covered drugs and physician services but not hospital stays. . . .It enacted a federal law requiring the seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves. That’s right, Congress enacted an individual mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance. And this act was signed by another founder, President John Adams.”
http://blogs.desmoinesregister.com/dmr/index.php/2012/04/20/george-washington-signed-a-healthcare-and-a-gun-mandate-e/
LikeLike
Legally it isn’t a tax, though Obama has tried to argue it both ways, depending upon how it would benefit him in each argument. Neither way flew.
LikeLike
Actually pino, in briefs and oral argument, the Solicitor General DID argue it that way, not only that way, but he’s the one who handed Roberts the way out.
LikeLike
I say they go after the mandate….
Man…I hope I’m wrong and fool EVERYBODY and keep the whole darn thing!
LikeLike
From your lips to God’s ear.
LikeLike
I thought they would go 6-3 in favor of keeping ALL of it but after the Arizona and Montana decisions, I’m guessing 5-4 to keep everything BUT the mandate – thus screwing up the AHCA (unfunded) and Republican snipping at the rest of it over the next two years.
LikeLike
Now that they upheld it (albeit as a tax), Congress has scheduled a July 11 vote to overturn the whole thing. They never ever quit.
LikeLike
Also fatherkane . . . good call there!
LikeLike
Bless You Anon!
LikeLike
I’m one of the many here who hope to God that your limb is correct, Moe! If it gets struck down, then…it’s on to single payer, haha? I mean, that *would* be a tax 🙂
LikeLike
I see them striking down something …. I’m just not sure what and how much.
LikeLike
ARE YOU SMOKING POT AGAIN??????
LikeLike
I think you nailed it. You should have bet a beer or two Moe.
LikeLike
Thank you bruce!
LikeLike
Good call, Moe!
LikeLike
MY HAT IS OFF TO YOU MOE .YOU CALLED IT.WERE YOU SMOKING POT WITH ROGERS?
LikeLike
I was smoking with famous pot-head Barry Obama.
LikeLike
Of course, now the reaction by Romney et. al will be that now its clear we need a legislature and President to remove the abomination of Obamanation’s Obamacare.
LikeLike
😆
LikeLike
If the Supremes overturn the ACA, four justices appointed by Republican presidents will have voted in lock step with Congressional Republicans, not one of whom voted for the bill.
Not one single liberal justice voted to overturn.
But that’s okay when your guy wins?
LikeLike
Oh pino. that argument is eternal – this court – and the last few years of the Rehnquist court – has been mostly 5-4 on all big cases. Goes both ways.
LikeLike