[Affiltavajefe]

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch...thcare-defense

The brief argues requiring insurance companies to cover everyone and banning them from charging sick people higher prices are regulations that the Constitution clearly protects. [Via the Commerce clause, this is track 1] The mandate, Justice argues, is a “necessary and proper” ["Necessary and proper clause" applies to regulations considered appropriate for Congress to carry out its constitutional functions, this is track 2] way to carry out those regulations without causing the cost of insurance to skyrocket.

[Gozmand]

How lovely that we have to depend on an unaccountable, unelected body of lawyers to save us from this particular piece of tyranny. Were it not so ridiculous, it might be funny.

[Hujkmlopes]

Necessary and proper.
Proper means following the strict limits set forth in the Constitution and not whatever some asshole in Congress thinks is proper for the furthering of the Progressive agenda.
Proper doesn't violate any provision in the Bill of Rights like the 10th Amendment.

And the commerce clause is for regulating commerce equally between the states.
Not between the people.

[251EPyso]

How lovely that we have to depend on an unaccountable, unelected body of lawyers to save us from this particular piece of tyranny. Were it not so ridiculous, it might be funny.

My thoughts exactly..

This is what happens when you shit on the Constitution for too long.. You develop a legal precedent for shitting.

Notice here, track 1 is already considered a legitimate function of Congress.. Regulating insurance companies is their business. Telling them what they must offer is considered legitimate, inter-state, or even intra-state, "commerce" and thus completely within the realm of Congressional authority.

Never mind that States have Governors and legislatures which are perfectly capable of dealing with this sort of thing.. and doing so Constitutionally. We have a precedent.. and the SC will surely not shoot down track one of this argument.

[bxxasxxa]

My thoughts exactly..

This is what happens when you shit on the Constitution for too long.. You develop a legal precedent for shitting.

Notice here, track 1 is already considered a legitimate function of Congress.. Regulating insurance companies is their business. Telling them what they must offer is considered legitimate, inter-state, or even intra-state, "commerce" and thus completely within the realm of Congressional authority.

Never mind that States have Governors and legislatures which are perfectly capable of dealing with this sort of thing.. and doing so Constitutionally. We have a precedent.. and the SC will surely not shoot down track one of this argument.

I want free rubber gloves.

[hexniks]

How lovely that we have to depend on an unaccountable, unelected body of lawyers to save us from this particular piece of tyranny. Were it not so ridiculous, it might be funny.

the elected body of lawyers we've put up aren't much to write home about, either.

[GWRIeEQp]

FIRE THEM ALL.

[mdUzAMbG]

Obamacare isn't going anywhere.

Best hope is a ruling that the mandate is unconstitutional, and that just fucks us worse.

[loginereQQ]

It's not a tax it's a penalty for failure to buy insurance. No wait it's not a penalty it's a tax. The flip flopping by the administration on that point alone should doom obamacare before the Supremes. That is if the members of the court are capable of using common sense and see the contradiction between the two statements made in support of obamacare by the democrats.

[Galvanoidum]

http://youtu.be/9ACgx2oDHAE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

IT'S A RACKET.

FIRE THEM ALL.



YOUR BODY WILL BE PUBLIC PROPERTY.

[inmeirulez]

YOUR BODY WILL BE PUBLIC PROPERTY.

Ms. Fluke's already is.

[Kotyara]

http://youtu.be/9ACgx2oDHAE
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



FUCK THAT GOD-DAMNED CUNT.

[Evelinessa]

"dual track"...



I'll bet.

[voksveta]

FIRE THEM ALL.

[Dr. Shon Thomson]

DUAL TRACK = FUCKED AT BOTH ENDS.

[Lillie_Steins]

uh, yeah.