E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSMake it 3-2 now for the administration in the health-care lawsuit-o-rama. “A federal judge on Tuesday threw out a lawsuit claiming that President Barack Obama's requirement that all Americans have health insurance violates the religious freedom of those who rely on God to protect them,” the AP’s Pickler writes. “U.S. District Judge Gladys Kessler in Washington dismissed a lawsuit filed by the American Center for Law and Justice, a Christian legal group founded by evangelist Pat Robertson, on behalf of five Americans who can afford health insurance but have chosen for years not to buy it.”
The New York Times says Kessler “became the third appointee of President Bill Clinton, a Democrat, to reject a constitutional challenge to the Affordable Care Act. Two other federal district judges, both appointed by Republican presidents, have struck down the law’s keystone provision, which requires most Americans to obtain health insurance starting in 2014.”
The Boston Globe’s editorial page: “Whatever ambivalence may have colored President Obama’s cautious response to uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt, Yemen, and Bahrain, he should offer full-throated support for Libyans who are risking their lives to shake off dictator Moammar Khadafy. Sad to say, Washington and certain European governments, avidly pursuing oil contracts and business deals, have curried favor with a “reformed’’ Khadafy over the past few years. But despite this new relationship, the United States shouldn’t hesitate to stand with protesters and against Khadafy’s all but unchanged regime.”
Leave a Comment:
Another right wing activist judge.
"Make it 3-2 now for the administration in the health-care lawsuit-o-rama"
isint it nice to know the POTUS considers constitutionality a game?
who the _______— voted for this clown?
Millions more Americans than who voted for the two biggest clowns, McCain/Palin.
Health Care for all. YES WE CAN, and YES WE WILL.
you pay for it, I won't.............
Yes you do! Either through your premiums or through taxes that support public hospitals for the dead beats that don't.
Job1
why not go get a job
or learn to read.. clearly you cannot do any research or you would shut up and sit down with these stupid comments of "yes we can" I could have also with both houses idiot...
no comment
In my opinion. It has been a quiet coalition of Hillary Clinton, President Clinton and President and first lady Obama pushing Democracy at every opportunity that has made people want democracy and the dreams that democracies make possible. Now that doesn't mean these democracies will favor the U.S.A.'s interests. I think they will do what is best for their countries, cultures and people. But they see a hope for the future and have ceased it for themselves.
Still holding hope that Wisconsin topples their new dictator soon. Dictator's don't compromise. They don't know what it means and need to be kicked out of office as soon as possible.
Walker should lay off those teachers............a report came out that 66% of 8th graders in Wisconsin can't even read at a 8th grade level and you want them to get paid more? bahaaaaaa, reward those that hurt our children. Is that the Progressive way? Just asking..........
Paul-Florida,
Did you happen to forget that most of our population doesn't read in the 8th grade level? I'm with you about reforming our teaching system. I have a lengthy post about it today but busting unions is not the answer. Sitting down with them, at the federal level, and standardizing education to weed out bad teachers and their supervisors is. I want states out of the education business and made a federal priority. Only then can we compete against Europe and the Orient. Without standardization in education you cannot weed out the bad educators.
What you wont read on state run media MSNBC:
Sometimes it's necessary to get out on the streets and "get a little bloody," a Massachusetts Democrat said Tuesday in reference to labor battles in Wisconsin.
Rep. Michael Capuano (D-Mass.) fired up a group of union members in Boston with a speech urging them to work down in the trenches to fend off limits to workers' rights like those proposed in Wisconsin.
Source please! Was it anyone important or another fired up citizen who happens to be a democrat. Much like Republicans who spout hatred, prejudice and pigotry and back it up with violence.
Did you try to look for it Anna?
"Capuano made his remarks before a crowd of union members in Boston, along with other members of the state's congressional delegation. Massachusetts has an influential union population that could loom large over the 2012 Senate race. Capuano is considering getting in that race to challenge Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA) next fall."
you all are killing this country
do you not see what they really want? do you not see or wonder why all politicians are some what wealthy?
Do you all not see we are the slaves and work for them, not them working for us?
Wake the he!! up and stop pointing fingers... it has been all the past presidents since Kennedy... including your great Obama.. now get off his sac and really pay attention and do you research not listen to MSNBC or FOX.. do it for your self.. or is this just a site for the lazy scum that lives off the system.. lazy in being can't do research for your self....?????
hatred that the right throws around is very comical
Did you all forget about the Bush days
of course facts don't resonate with the democrats... just theories, assumptions and lies... Please tell me why it is so bad for public workers to pay for a little more of their pension and or healthcare.. all of us real workers that work in the private sector pays for a good portion and some of us don't get nice pensions.. we have to fork over and hope the market doesn't collapse on us... how is that fair when we pay for the public sector to do work for us and then still pay for their healthcare and pension? what happened to the Great one's (the Lie Obama) comment "put skin in the game"? what us the private sector again and again??? not the unions or public workers that get crap for free, can't be fired (man looking at porn all day for years making over 100,000 a year in government) and get to hold a company hostage until they get what they want, not deserve..... what is wrong with you people?
When President Obama signed ObamaCAre into law last March, Vice President Joe Biden called it a "big f#*&ing deal." The Democrats promised it would create jobs and control costs. One year later, does that rhetoric still hold?
In selling the health care takeover, Obama repeatedly pledged, "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away, no matter what." But the government's regulatory burdens and perverted incentives to businesses have prompted many of the nation's largest companies and small businesses to talk of dropping their employee coverage.
Less than a month before ObamaCare was signed, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi proclaimed the $1 trillion bill that would be a boom for the economy, saying it would create 4 million jobs -- 400,000 almost immediately.
President Obama promised his health care bill would be deficit neutral. But the administration's Medicare actuary Richard Foster estimated health care spending will increase $311 billion over the next decade because of the new law.
Subscribe to Townhall Magazine today and get Sarah Palin's new book FREE!
Townhall Magazine's cover story, "Un-Happy Anniversary: ObamaCare One Year Later," exposes the lies and subterfuge involved in the passage and implementation of ObamaCare.
What we know one year later is that President Obama's signature issue has been filled with unwelcome surprises, broken promises ad unintended consequences (beyond the change in House majority). Chief among those unfulfilled goals was the new law would control costs and increase choices. It has thus far done the opposite.
During his 2008 campaign, Obama vowed to not increase taxes on Americans earning less than $250,000, but ObamaCare includes more than 20 tax hikes.
The Congressional Budget Office, using the administration's ridiculous numbers, estimated ObamaCare would reduce the deficit by $143 billion. but more a realistic report from the House Budget Committee exposed the CBO's nonsense, showing that the law will actually add more than $700 billion to the deficit over 10 years.
Townhall
Isn't it wonderful that Obama and the democrats are using the HCR as a game keeping score, even when the law suit has nothing to do with the other 4 challenges to the law. The 4 other law suits was based on the commerce clause, this one on religious freedom. Instead of cheering a lame a$$ ruling the Obama administration should join the 26 states and ask the supreme court to take up the case under Court Rule 11. Let's get this damn thing over with once and for all.
After all, only teachers are responsible for reading levels.
You obviously don't believe that parents bear any responsibility or duty to their children to excel in their studies.
Scott-46170
"Must reading for conservatives" - Rush Limbaugh
www.townhall.com
Not biased at all huh! You're a moron
"A third federal judge, Clinton-appointee Gladys Kessler, has now upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act and in her opinion, which you can read right here"
Finally.
New premises that we have to work with.
1) Any action that can affect current or future economic action can be regulated.
2) Inaction counts as action.
Oh, so many new legal actions.
3) Having children affects future economic action.
Abortion may be declared illegal at the federal level through the Commerce Clause as economic action.
Not even the most fun one though... remember inaction = action.
Women can be forced by Federal law to have a minimum of three children for population growth purposes. Choosing not to have children is the same economic choice as choosing to have children; and any economic choice may be regulated by the Federal Government.
Given that all possible economic action may be regulated, and inaction is action; the government can force women to have more kids... right?
In what way would that be inappropriate, or require anything this ruling doesn't provide?