Andrea Tantaros was ecstatic about the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. But she, clearly, isn't happy about today's decision upholding the Affordable Care Act!!!
"Water boy for the welfare state," Oh, snap!!! But seriously, awwwww.........
Do you like this post?
Ema Nymton commented
2015-06-26 10:23:27 -0400
· Flag
.
One has to be aware of the consequences.
The Republican’T Party has been going out its way to mis-read/re-interpret written USA documents to change the laws (2d Amendment original-ism doctrine to allow civilian gun ownership etc.).
Now that this tactic did not work on the ACA, the Republican’Ts will go back to trying it another way.
So here is a way that they will eventually try:
Article II Section 1 (reads in part)
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”
Well re-read the opening, No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President!
The Constitution is clear,“At the time of the Adoption!!” The Constitution was adopted in 1789! Does this not show that, as Mr Obama admits to being born in Hawaii in 1961, he was not a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution?!!!
Poof. No more President for Mr Obama, no more ACA!!!!
(This is meant to be a gloating tongue in cheek attempt at humor. But it is clear that the Republican’T Party will be finally reduced to going this route to destroy President_Obama.)
.
.
.
Thanks Obama …
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
One has to be aware of the consequences.
The Republican’T Party has been going out its way to mis-read/re-interpret written USA documents to change the laws (2d Amendment original-ism doctrine to allow civilian gun ownership etc.).
Now that this tactic did not work on the ACA, the Republican’Ts will go back to trying it another way.
So here is a way that they will eventually try:
Article II Section 1 (reads in part)
“No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;…”
Well re-read the opening, No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President!
The Constitution is clear,“At the time of the Adoption!!” The Constitution was adopted in 1789! Does this not show that, as Mr Obama admits to being born in Hawaii in 1961, he was not a Citizen of the United States at the time of the adoption of this Constitution?!!!
Poof. No more President for Mr Obama, no more ACA!!!!
(This is meant to be a gloating tongue in cheek attempt at humor. But it is clear that the Republican’T Party will be finally reduced to going this route to destroy President_Obama.)
.
.
.
Thanks Obama …
Ema Nymton
~@:o?
.
Joseph West commented
2015-06-25 22:02:26 -0400
· Flag
Well, to be honest, the suit should have NEVER made it to SCOTUS in the first place. In what freakin’ reality does anyone think that a few words—taken out of context—should be enough to undo a contract or piece of legislation?
I’ll guarantee you that CONservatives would scream bloody murder if a liberal/progressive decided to take some law passed by GOP teabaggers and sought to overturn it because they found a simple passage and chose to pull it out of context.
Of course, Roberts and Kennedy might have been a touch more willing to side with the plaintiffs if the GOP in Congress had managed to produce even the slightest hint of something that would REPLACE the ACA so that it didn’t hurt the people who most depend on it. But, it’s so much easier to call for overturning a law than it is to work towards replacing it.
Or, maybe Roberts and Kennedy decided to follow the law (as they’re supposed to do—according to CONservatives) instead of “legislating from the bench” (as Scalia’s dissent would have done). Any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you that you simply do NOT do what the plaintiffs did; otherwise, there’s no law at all that could survive a court challenge (unless, of course, you find a corrupt, partisan judge willing to put “party above the law”).
I’ll guarantee you that CONservatives would scream bloody murder if a liberal/progressive decided to take some law passed by GOP teabaggers and sought to overturn it because they found a simple passage and chose to pull it out of context.
Of course, Roberts and Kennedy might have been a touch more willing to side with the plaintiffs if the GOP in Congress had managed to produce even the slightest hint of something that would REPLACE the ACA so that it didn’t hurt the people who most depend on it. But, it’s so much easier to call for overturning a law than it is to work towards replacing it.
Or, maybe Roberts and Kennedy decided to follow the law (as they’re supposed to do—according to CONservatives) instead of “legislating from the bench” (as Scalia’s dissent would have done). Any lawyer worth his or her salt will tell you that you simply do NOT do what the plaintiffs did; otherwise, there’s no law at all that could survive a court challenge (unless, of course, you find a corrupt, partisan judge willing to put “party above the law”).
Gary Oliveira commented
2015-06-25 20:29:14 -0400
· Flag
And it goes on and on, all the right-wing stoogs hated the ruling. Even though this ruling saved health care for 8 million Americans, they do not give a damn, they just wanted the court to rule against Obama to make him look bad for political reasons.
truman commented
2015-06-25 15:26:53 -0400
· Flag
Punch Tantaros will recommend laying a fist into those Repug turncoats Roberts and Kennedy.
The three blind mice dissenters—-Scalia, Thomas, Alito—-should be ashamed of themselves. Their political agenda dictates their decisions. They are legislating from the bench once again.
The three blind mice dissenters—-Scalia, Thomas, Alito—-should be ashamed of themselves. Their political agenda dictates their decisions. They are legislating from the bench once again.