Yeah, all the smart people agree, Obamacare is just fine.

Um, that is except for some other smart people in the Supreme Court. They had some pertinent questions about the whole thing that the Obama administration didn't really have any answers for.

Smart people in the supreme court? Like the Justice whose wife lobby's against the ACA, yet refuses to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest?

It doesn't matter, because the Communist Democrats haven't gotten anything done since 2008 legislatively.

And the Muslim Republicans won't.

Unless you are a hardcore believer in Allah and are wearing your hajib right now, or dressed in your Communist uniform grey, you aren't being fooled by the political promises of either the Commie Dems or Muslim Republicans.

You are perfectly correct JoannaSmith1. Smart people really DO think that the new healthcare reform is just fine and dandy.

As for smart people on the supreme court asking questions........wasn't that what they are there to do before making any decisions???

And although most people want to repeal the healthcare reform, when asked about different parts of the act separately, approx. 80% like them. Go figure.

Ramboet: And although most people want to repeal the healthcare reform, when asked about different parts of the act separately, approx. 80% like them. Go figure.

Yeah. Too bad it's most likely unconstitutional. Go figure.

JoSmith1: So you have insight to the Supreme Court or are you just betting on the 5 conservative judges to vote based on their politics?

What parts and who was asked?

So you say Ramboet. Most people can find something they like, in just about everything. 72%, however, don't like Obama care, in it's entirety. Nice try.

I surely hope that Attorney General Holder did NOT say this:

FR --

"It falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that is is clearly constitutional," he writes.

A link to the letter might have been nice.

http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/tx/DOJ_letter.pdf

Essentially, the letter asks for deference to the judgment of Congress. This is the same thing that the Court gives agencies when judging the validity of regulations under the federal Administrative Procedure Act.

Courts get to decide how much deference to afford in particular situations. Generally, the Supreme Court affords "great weight" to the judgment of Congress because it is a co-equal branch.

So, essentially, the President was right, notwithstanding Marbury v. Madison, and I just got a cooling refresher on Constitutional law.

I would hate to see the Republicans on the Supreme court overturn the ACA but, if they do, it will fire up Democrats and Independents just like the colossal failure of G.W. Bush presidency did in 2008.

Be careful what you wish for Teabaggers. Heads I win, tails you lose.

From the Petulant President piece by John Fund ....

Since 1981, the Court has struck down 57 specific legislative acts of Congress, an average of two per year.

Fund also notes the distortion of facts by Obama (and noted by JAS1) by pointing out that the "strong majority of a democratically elected Congress" was actually a vote of 219-212 - the first major piece of legislation, (let alone that effects 1/6th of the economy), within memory to pass without a single vote from the opposition party.

In fact, it can said that the only thing bipartisan about the legislation was the opposition to it ... legislation that included every trick, a crime against against democracy, to pass.

Obama's boy stated the legislation was passed after "long and careful deliberation" ....

...... legislation that no one has even read in its entiriety?

It is amazing that libs here at FR even try to argue this ... even hardcore libs around the country were stunned by Obama's petuchlant attact on SCOTUS.

To asked to provide the letter is insult enough to Obama.

Almost amazing that the loons can't even see that.

I could go along with the idea that it is presumed COngress has done their due diligence regarding the constitutionality of a bill. HOWEVER, how many members of Congress actually read this bill? My guess is that a minority of members read the 2500 page bill. In that case, the presumption is not valid. IMO, the statements from the President made while SCOTUS was deliberating their decision is a blatant attempt to influence the court. Will it make a difference in the decision of the court? Nope. Might it make a difference to the electorate? Probably.

bryan e pa

If you are being fair across the board, on which of the judges should excuse themselves, why didn't you mention Elena Kagan?

If there are any that should be foremost in excusing themselves it should be Kagan.

That wouldn't help the DemocRATS, would it !

1. Being able to purchase "affordable" healthcare when you have a pre-existing condition.

2. Having children on the parents insurance.

3. Closing the donut hole loophole.

4. Stop allowing insurance companies to charge more to women.

Bob: Obama's boy stated the legislation was passed after "long and careful deliberation" .... legislation that no one has even read in its entiriety?

Obama's entire speech against the Supreme Court was one lie after another. Who ever let him go out and give that speech should be fired, but Obama is probably surrounded by "yes" men and women. Poor Jay Carney (press sec) has been trying to clean up the mess for days now.

Smart people in the supreme court? Like the Justice whose wife lobby's against the ACA, yet refuses to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest?

And like the Obama appointee, Elena Kagan, who, before her appointment to the SCOTUS, as solicitor general of the United States, headed up an office that formulated the Obama administration’s legal defense of the legislation, yet she refuses to recuse herself.

bob --

To asked to provide the letter is insult enough to Obama.

Oh, golly. To be asked by a completely biased Texas court to do something that the court didn't need and was only asked for only as an arrogant display of peacock feathers ... WOW

Actually, the insult to all of us was that the Justice Department answered the petulant demand.

cruzin --

the statements from the President made while SCOTUS was deliberating their decision is a blatant attempt to influence the court.

Oh, having a wife who takes large sums of money advocating on one side of this legislation -- that's somehow NOT an undue influence on the court?

Generally, the Supreme Court affords "great weight" to the judgment of Congress because it is a co-equal branch.

__________________________________________

AM: That's true as far as whether a law is "good policy" or "bad policy" and it's how the SC should view it.

They do not, and should not, afford "great weight" to the judgment of Congress or the President on whether a law is constitutional or unconstitutional. That is solely the SC's role and responsibility and as a co-equal branch, Congress and the President should respect that. That's where Barry was out of line telling the SC how it should do its job.

Well, if you've read the citations in the letter, you'll find that, actually, they do, in the sense that they try not to strike down more of any law than is absolutely necessary -- perhaps the President was trying to send a subliminal signal to the Court that they could sever the mandate if they wanted to.

You are correct, of course, that Constitutionality is purely a question of law, and as such, belongs to the courts to decide, as John Marshall declared in Marbury.

AM: -- perhaps the President was trying to send a subliminal signal to the Court that they could sever the mandate if they wanted to.

It looked more like Obama got a heads up on the Supreme Courts secret vote last Friday, and it wasn't in his favor. His speech wasn't for the Supreme Court members to consume, but was for the voters. He's setting himself up to run against not Romney, but the SC, Congress, Republicans, the Tea Party and anyone else he can blame for his failures.

Make no mistake, if Obamacare goes down, so does Obama. He spent two years pushing that legislation through in a partisan and backroom deal manner. To have a constitutional lawyer not get it right and have it thrown out as unconstitutional will be something Obama will not be able to explain away or blame on others. Why would anyone want to re-elect someone that makes such blatant and gross mistakes?

Don't look at me. I was against it in the first place.

Anna,

Couldn't refute or challenge anything other than to claim the Texas court is biased?

How week for an attorney .. or anyone really.

... perhaps the President was trying to send a subliminal signal to the Court that they could sever the mandate if they wanted to.

So now Obama, the Constitutional Genius, after sending his boy to public / legal ridicule in trying to defend this indefensible abortion ... is reduced to sending subliminal messages over severability?

The legal genius has never even heard of a severability clause ... he didn't even notice that the legislation didn't have this BASIC clause in it ... ya think that clause might have worked a little better, might have had a little more legal standing than Obama being reduced to sending "subliminal messages?"

What is this guy .... nothing but an out of his depth community organizer?

Holder does not have original thoughts.

he only thinks whatever obama wants.

http://nation.foxnews.com/thom-lambert/2012/04/05/former-obama-law-student-speaks-out

this is pretty funny...

bob --

The legal genius has never even heard of a severability clause ... he didn't even notice that the legislation didn't have this BASIC clause in it .

So he says. I say he did. The Senate bill was the one backed by the insurance companies, and in the Florida decision, the administration admits that without the mandate, the insurance companies didn't want the bill. Ergo, the insurance companies didn't want the severability clause.

See where this is going?

Quit while you're ahead, why don't you? I'm not arguing with you.

Well if the law was so good in the first place why did congress pass it in their lame duck session. Why couldn't they wait a month and let the incoming congress vote on it?

Because it didn't have a chance of passing the new congressmen that got swept into office pretty much running against the legislation. The people had spoken, but Obama decided he would ram the bill up the arse of the people.

Ergo, the insurance companies didn't want the severability clause.

So Obama built this around / upon direction of the "evil insurance" companies?

lol ... are they a new branch of the Federal Government that SCOTUS should know about?

Quit while you're ahead, why don't you? I'm not arguing with you.

Are you kidding me ...... This is too much fun torturing the smart lib.

Good for Holder, if for no other reason than reminding that federal judge of the importance of neutrality -- A federal judge referring to ACA as "Obamacare" -- Not acceptable.

Ramboet

4. Stop allowing insurance companies to charge more to women.

Ramboet, all the points you make are important, but item #4 above is mind-bending. Such blatant discrimination -- against 50% of the population, our mothers, sisters, wives -- is tolerated by our society because why? There's no other explanation than a Teapublican War on Women!

AM -- Agreed. If we had single-payer, none of these issues including employers would matter. And as pointed out many times, fixing the broken health care system also fixes the economy, because issues such as affordable access to contraception and the well being of a family are interlinked.

And a shout out to Derek:

On Wednesday, Reps. Jim Cooper and Steve LaTourette managed to put Simpson-Bowles to a vote before the House of Representatives. It didn't just fail. It got crushed. The final tally was 382-38. Twenty-two of the supporters were Chinese Communists, while 16 were Muslim Brothers. But overall, the rejection was overwhelming, and overwhelmingly bipartisan.

This was, of course, what Mao always complained would happen if they had listened to the pundits and brought Simpson-Bowles to a vote. The Muslim Brotherhood would reject it because it included $2 trillion in new taxes and $800 billion in defense cuts. The Chinese Communists would reject it because they weren't going to vote for a doomed proposal that included deep Medicare and Social Security cuts in addition to a large tax increase just to show how much they cared about deficits. Perhaps, with Mao leadership, the vote would have been less lopsided.

But Wednesday's vote — which considered a version of Simpson-Bowles with somewhat less in tax increases -- is at least suggestive evidence that Mao was right and the proposal would never have passed because, in the end, the problem with Simpson-Bowles wasn't that the Mao didn't say enough nice things about it, but that members of Congress didn't want to vote for it.

The above is from my favorite Wonk, Ezra Klein, who I hope will understand the purpose of butchering his analysis. Derek, so can we agree that there is a lesser of two evils, in which the Commie Dems are far better than the Muslims Brothers in that the Dems (use Socialists--Commie is to right-wing) and the president would like to find a compromise but can't because the Muslims Brothers are so puritanical?

Gloryhound-848713 -- The importance of fixing our broken health care system has been an issue for a long time and promoted by Republicans as much as by Democrats. After all the years of debate, and that long summer of Town Squalls, it was way past time to do something.

Why is it that conservatives want to keep rehashing crap like abortion, which was settled long ago? Why can't you people get the facts straight and move forward -- you know "progress?"

Has anyone ever known the 4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court to take a conservative view on a case brought to them ???? No , because THEY are the jurist who are political ideologues !!!!

Johnny N. -- Name a case in which the "4 liberal judges on the Supreme Court" were joined by Kennedy or one of the more conservative judges to overturn a century of precedent like Citizen's United, or ruled against the popular vote to elect a president, or found in favor of jails conducting strip searches even for a minor offense based on the premise that weapons and drugs are smuggled into jails in this way?

Come on! And I still don't have an answer from one single conservative about their view of Citizen's United. Do you like it, do you think it's a good thing?

AM -- Agreed. If we had single-payer, none of these issues including employers would matter. And as pointed out many times, fixing the broken health care system also fixes the economy, because issues such as affordable access to contraception and the well being of a family are interlinked.

True & AM.

I wholeheartedly agree. And if the people in this country lived with such a system for a year, 80% of them--including many of the right-wingers--would fight to the death not to give it up. One of the things no one mentions is how much less complicated your life is when you're not dealing with all the nonsense that accompanies the current for-profit system.

bob --

So Obama built this around / upon direction of the "evil insurance" companies?

Well, yes, he did. Or at least Congress did. And everyone knows that the President was involved all the way in the legislation.

In the decision quoted from below, the "defendants" are the Obama administration (i.e., Department of HHS and Department Justice, et al),

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/20110131VINSON_HEALTH.pdf

"I note that the defendants have acknowledged that the individual mandate and the Act’s health insurance reforms, including the guaranteed issue and community rating, will rise or fall together as these reforms “cannot be severed from the [individual mandate].”

....

“the defendants concede that [the individual mandate] is absolutely necessary for the Act’s insurance market reforms to work as intended. In fact, they refer to it as an ‘essential’ part of the Act at least fourteen times in their motion to dismiss.”

....

If, however, the statute is viewed as a carefully-balanced and clockwork-like statutory arrangement comprised of pieces that all work toward one primary legislative goal, and if that goal would be undermined if a central part of the legislation is found to be unconstitutional, then severability is not appropriate. As will be seen, the facts of this case lean heavily toward a finding that the Act is properly viewed as the latter, and not the former.

....

The lack of a severability clause in this case is significant because one had been included in an earlier version of the Act, but it was removed in the bill that subsequently became law. “Where Congress includes [particular] language in an earlier version of a bill but deletes it prior to enactment, it may be presumed that the [omitted provision] was not intended.”

....

In other words, the severability clause was intentionally left out of the Act. The absence of a severability clause is further significant because the individual mandate was controversial all during the progress of the legislation and Congress was undoubtedly well aware that legal challenges were coming. Indeed, as noted earlier, even before the Act became law, several states had passed statutes declaring the individual mandate unconstitutional and purporting to exempt their residents from it; and Congress’ own attorneys in the CRS had basically advised that the challenges might well have legal merit as it was “unclear” if the individual mandate had “solid constitutional foundation.” See CRS Analysis, supra, at 3. In light of the foregoing, Congress’ failure to include a severability clause in the Act (or, more accurately, its decision to not include one that had been included earlier) can be viewed as strong evidence that Congress recognized the Act could not operate as intended without the individual mandate.

....

(Moreover, the defendants have conceded that the Act’s health insurance reforms cannot survive without the individual mandate, which is extremely significant because the various insurance provisions, in turn, are the very heart of the Act itself ....

(emphasis added)

So, what was your next question? Oh, yeah ...

lol ... are they a new branch of the Federal Government that SCOTUS should know about?

Actually, I think this particular SCOTUS knows all about the insurance companies.

Are you kidding me ...... This is too much fun torturing the smart lib.

Don't flatter yourself, Bobby. Or me, either. ;-)

Do submitters who keep saying no one has read the bill realize how stupid they sound?

Maybe there would be more info out there if the townhall disrupters hadn't been yelling so loud to hide 'what was in it'.

Patriot,

So even though the majority of American people had voted to change congress and opposed this bill it was right of Obama and the elected Democrats who were being given the boot by the people to do what the people had clearly said they didn't want in the election?

Here I thought our government was given their power by the people?

Oh yes blame the republicans or tea party for women having to pay a higher premium. You don't suppose it has anything to do with the higher average cost paid out in health care for women? The health care system was and still is under Obama care a for profit business. That means risk pools will be developed and people in higher risk pools will have to pay more. If they pick certain health conditions that are more prevelent in women than men they can still make women pay more on average, just now they have to hide it in 2500+ pages no one will ever fully read or understand.

Jack,

Problem is Obamacare is still a for profit system. The main thing it changes is they are now guaranteed to make money because you have to buy a policy from the insurance companies or you will be fined by the government!

DJfrom Spencer does it tell you anything that Texas has the next two cases on the SCOTUS docket this session. Texas vs the US just changes the body of the case under the same heading. Our Attorney General spends almost as much time in DC as he does in Austin. Eric Holder refused to allow Texas to implement the same voter ID law that SCOTUS ruled constitutional in Indianna. Eric Holder is a freaking bully and it may backfire on him because of his high handed use of the voting rights act the whole thing may be declared unconstitutional freeing 7 states from his control.

The full quote from the letter is "In light of the presumption of constitutionality, it falls to the party seeking to overturn a federal law to show that it is clearly unconstitutional." (citations omitted).

p.s. This is not the first administration to suggest limits in speeches on judicial review or authority of the court. Other including the Reagan Administration (which appointed Judge Smith) have done so. This is the first time in my memory that a panel has requested that the Government address such extrajudicial comments in a letter to the court. Amazingly, it is done by a panel composed of judges appointed by the other party.

I think its hilarious that you can't spell the word.

BTW: You may think its funny what the judge did but most people think it was pretty pathetic. This is someone who should be upholding the law but decides (in the middle of a hearing) to become political.

I think its hilarious that you can't spell the word.

_____________________________________

A little slow in recognizing sarcasm there Rambo??

Whenever lefty liberals do some thing I find hilarious, I always spell it Hillaryous.

Oops!! Sorry Joe........... you really are such a funny guy. Gosh!! you were so clever making up that hillaryous word and silly me just didn't see it. It went right over my head. Then again I am a democrat so obviously not smart enough to catch the hilarious joke. I'm sure you had all the republicans falling off their chairs laughing when they saw it though.

I promise I will remember to laugh next time.

Ramboet---and Joe wonders why none of the liberals here take him seriously.

Hey, Albany --

What do you suppose it cost you in taxpayer dollars for the Justice Department waste its time doing this silly "homework" assignment -- time it might be spending to track down and prosecute drug cartels and gun runners -- by having to respond to a demand from a Texas court that has no jurisdiction over this case to produce what amounts to a mini-brief on law that the court surely should have known, or should have been able to use their own law clerks to produce?

Maybe you should take the absurdity of the whole thing up with that court.

Your pal, Cordelia.

Correction -- the Texas court did have jurisdiction over a case covering a small piece of the ACA, but NOT the mandate issue that is currently in front of the Supreme Court.

My question for Albany stands.

Joe wonders why none of the liberals here take him seriously.

____________________________________

Steeler: I really couldn't care less if FR lefty liberals "take me seriously".

What do you suppose it cost you in taxpayer dollars for the Justice Department waste its time doing this silly "homework" assignment

________________________________________

AM: I'll bet it was less than 5 minutes worth of Barry's recordbreaking deficit spending spree or 10 minutes worth of interest payments on the national debt.

And after Barry ridiculously said overturning Clunkercare would be "unprecedented", when the SC has overturned many laws over the years, does raise the question of whether or not Barry and the Justice Dept have taken a new position on settled precedents.

LoL We learned in law school that taking new positions on settled precedents is what you do when you've got nothing else and you see that the whole thing is about to collapse inward on you.

Yeah, I'm worried.

Where is the "settled precedent" that Congress can force an individual to buy a product from a private company ? Seriously, you can masturbate your words all day long if it makes you happy, but that's the core of why the issue is before the Supreme Court.

Obamacare was horrid legislation from the start and was squeezed through Congress with every trick, bribe, kickback and lie possible. Furthermore, it does nothing to reduce health care costs in this country which was supposed to be the core of its purpose.

Sorry people, health care is not a "right". It involves personal choices, personal responsibilities and personal payment. Federal mandates will only make it worse.

Compare this:

jim-1455434

Sorry people, health care is not a "right". It involves personal choices, personal responsibilities and personal payment.

to this:

"People were saying that the health care law was socialism. However, if you vote against an individual mandate, you're essentially saying that you the individual are not responsible for your health and instead it should be left up to the state. They [Democratic leaders] never effectively made that point, that the mandate empowered the individual more than the state. It really hurt us," he said.

And explain the difference. I guess the Dems should have hired jim to argue for them - Ha! Now run along and make sure you have emissions tests for you vehicle, car seats for your kids, insurance to drive, and all the other things government doesn't make you buy.

For a long time right wing wackos were screaming to see obama's college records/grades! With his recent unwarranted attacks on the Supreme Court I now recognized that we should all be asking to see these records!!!

Obama is in crisis mode, and Holder, the criminal from fast and furious, etc would say anything to keep his job and stay out of jail! How can anyone still believe anything that comes out of those two mouths?

No this is the way Holder thinks. Eric holder has stated that discrimination can NOT happen to a White person. He has also stated tha HE will not allow HIS justice department to file any case in which a White person is the victim. Since when did the US Department of Justice become one mans property. He has also stated he can't file against his people in the case involving the New Black Panthers intimidating elderly voters. He is a racist bully using the justice department to futher his own ends.

Mmmmm ..... I don't think so, Lumbergh.

Hey Nutjob 1. Now that he is finished with this, perhaps he can draft of letter to the parents of Brian Terry apologizing for the murder of their son due to his incompetence.

Eric Holder has dirty hands with the Fast and Furious program and still refuses to supply legally required records to Congressional investigators in spite of subpoenas. He does whatever Obama desires with no respect to the law because he feels he is above the law.

That's fine and dandy.

The burden of proof is on you.

Go.

These so-called people that haven't read the law seems to have an awful lot to say about it. Doesn't that seem weird to you?

Doesn't change the 5-4 ruling against.

rambotic

I would be willing to wager that the great Obama hasn't even read the Obamacare law. You are just one of the many Obama trolls that defend anything that Obama and the DemocRATS lie about. The DemocRATS claim that their so smart, but the American citizens can see through this wall of BS !

OK lawdog...........$10,000.

If the people who voted for the law couldn't be bothered with reading it---i.e. doing their jobs for which they are well-compensated, including health care----whose fault is that?

OK rambotic

Hook your boy up to a lie detector and lets ask him some questions.

It seems funny that you would sell him out for only $10,000.

LOL

Hey rambo so who was it that took the oath to uphold the constitution and who was that either flunked out or got a degree from harvard in constitutional law that the people cannot verify, and if judged unconstitutional by the SCOTUS who is it that attempted to pass a law to force individual citizens of the US to buy a product or pay a fine. If we needed our POTUS to issue traffic citations we would have bought him a uniform. I don't see barry wearing a uniform do you, all I see is an empty suit.

I'll say it again.

6-3 in favor of it.

Because I have read it, and it makes it a taxes issue :) Which congress has the sole authority to regulate and implement.

Well I may not have read all 2700 pages of that document but at the time of the vote according to my senator she hadn't been allowed to either. And I have investigated it. And from what I have found out 7 sections of the bill scared me to death. Is that how they plan to cut costs by finally letting us read it? And if it is implemented quite a few states that will be required to increase their medicaid rolls while having all medicaid funds pulled from their states because parts of the bill violate their state constitutions. But the citizens will still have to pay the same amount in medicaid funds so the rest of you can get the benefits. Real good deal some of you will have there. Congress made very sure to say it was not a tax. Why because if they had called it a tax they would all have lost their cushy jobs. It is a penalty because they wanted it that way.Bill goes into law I refuse to obey it. Hey Holder want my address.

Obama has no respect for the constitution. Why should he have any for the Supreme Court or "the people"?

That same 72% of percent of the people wanted the public option or single payer. However, you know who fought that plan.

That is absolutely not true, Job1. When polled, single payer, better described as, "fully government controlled health care", was in the high 30's and not 72%, as you claim. Again, most people are smart enough to know that the Federal government can't manage anything, much less something in the magnitude of health care.

Job1,

There were plenty of dems fighting this as well and took a hard hit in 2010 elecitons for there willingness to go against the will of the people. It will show again in 2012.

That is absolutely not true, Job1

Yes it is true. A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June of 2011.

Go to youtube and find Obama vs Obama on Healthcare. They used his own words and have him arguing both that the bill is constitutional and that it is unconstitutional. Using talking heads in front of pictures of SCOTUS. All the while he campaigned against Hillary he said the individual mandate was unconstitutional.

Obama refereed to himself as "a constitutional law professor," most famously at a March 30, 2007, fundraiser when he said, "I was a constitutional law professor, which means unlike the current president I actually respect the Constitution. However, Obama’s title at the University of Chicago was "senior lecturer" and not "professor."

After promising to get rid of the patriot act in his campaign he then signed it twice, then signed the NDAA and HR347. If you take this into consideration it makes you wonder if the sole purpose of his studies of the constitution were to figure out how to destroy it.

You...are saying he's not a professor, but a senior lecturer?

That is just another example of Obama contradicting Obama. LOL !

This is one of my favorite President Obama quotes:

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America's debt limit is a sign of leadership failure. It is a sign that the US Government cannot pay its own bills. It is a sign that we now depend on ongoing financial assistance from foreign countries to finance our Government's reckless fiscal policies. Increasing America 's debt weakens us domestically and internationally. Leadership means that, "the buck stops here.' Instead, Washington is shifting the burden of bad choices today onto the backs of our children and grandchildren. America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better."
~ Senator Barack H. Obama, March 2006

^^^^my favorite too

obama was considered a constitutional law professor at the university of Chicago law school. Pathetic that he still does not know the constitution. What kind of education did his students get?

Mark - a better one than you.

You want him to recuse him self, but not Kegan?

Update:

That is absolutely not true, Job1

Yes it is true. A new study by SurveyUSA puts support for a public option at a robust 77 percent, one percentage point higher than where it stood in June of 2011.

Reuters poll march 29. 44% favor the law..

Judge Smith is not a member of the Supreme Court and will have no part in their decision making process.

It is interesting that it was hard to find anything about this issue on MSNBC to comment about it. It was buried.

I think most supporters of Obama are embarrased about this "foot in mouth" fiasco.

It is indeed interesting that you completely misrepresent what was actually said. Go collect your paycheck for polluting this website.

Wherre were you when the Bush admin was wiretapping us citizens without warrants?

Liar. You are already a dyed in the wool TP Republican and you are propably getting paid to post this garbage.

By 'ballsie' do you mean someone who would deliberately lie about what was said?

Please see entry #9 by DemoScout. He was right on and not at all ballsie.

Do you get paid by the entry, or the number of misrepresentations and outright lies you can cram into an hour?

Johnbarker, I am not an expert on the healthcare care law, but then no one that passed it is an expert. They have no idea what all was in the bill. Even pelosi stated that "we have to pass it to know what is in it". But, I have read enough about it to know that the bill is a disaster. If you ever want, I can give you the reasons. I have posted the reasons, before.

What bothers me is that neither of you understand it or have read it, and yet you label it as a complete disaster? What's wrong with this picture? You are arguing from a position of ignorance.