Perfect.

No harm no foul

Actually, I had a state rep give me a call to ask about a few pieces of legislation, and he is a "D", so they aren't all bad.

Obamacare is ruled unconstitutional because a government cannot force insurance onto someone. WTF?!?!

Last time I checked, anyone with a mortgage needs homeowners insurance by law. Not only that, but ALL homeowners are forced by the state government to have insurance in many states whether or not they're paying on a mortgage. Furthermore, I don't seem to remember it being an option to NOT have car insurance (unless you're an illegal alien of course). When will these laws get struck down as an assault to your constitutional liberties?

This is bullschit. Fvck T-bagging activist judges. Fvck the hypocrisy of the Faux Newz crowd.

The Judge used Obummers own words against him.

In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, arguing that there are other ways to tackle health care short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.

Obummer would fck up a wet dream.

McMahon - "Last time I checked, anyone with a mortgage needs homeowners insurance by law."
This is not the case in Washington State. It's a lenders requirement not a law. Lenders only require fire insurance to protect the collaterol for the loan. If you own a rental, it's all you need as the contents aren't the owners.

Suck it McMoron. :>)

States can place requirements on you the federal government can't. Car insurance is an example, as we are required to purchase it to drive on public roads in Washington, but it is a state requirement not federal. The feds have gotten around this for years by requiring the states to do XXX or loose federal funding for XXX. ( 55 speed limit a good example or loose highway funds ) Had the health care bit required states to do XXX or loose federal Medicaid / Medicare funding it would have moved on down the road. It is the Federal government requiring you to purchase insurance that it ran amuck as they can not require you to purchase a product. If they had done single pay ( tax ) as in Soc Sec ( tax ) ect all a go but the key is they tax you and then provide the service. Also the lack of the little clause that says if one part is unconstitutional the rest stands alone ( usually done ) is missing, otherwise the judge would have only struck the mandatory purchase bit.

I assume ........... hell I don't know why the D's didn't put it in except they would not have had the votes. Don't know.

Link to a reasonable read on the thing with a little history

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...ections_opinion

oh well

Well, it's been two days, and I'm still waiting for the right wingers here to spaz out about that "activist" judge subverting the will of the people...the majority of the people want it, the majority of the House voted for it, and a super majority of the Senate voted for it.

Where's that righteous indignation that you usually have for those activist judges, legislating from the bench, in situations like these?

Yeah, that's what I thought...next time you want to say it about a ruling you don't like...shut the fukk up.

Fish on...

Todd

If it was so great, why did the Dems abandon this during the mid terms? Because the polls showed the public was against this at the rate of 60-70%..prolly just a Fox Poll though.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that ‘if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
_________________________

Interesting comment, but in now way related to the U.S. Constitution. Pure activist judge.

Discuss away...just don't call the judge an "activist judge who legislates from the bench" when you don't agree, and shout the ruling from the rooftops when you do agree, when the only difference between what the two judges did...is nothing, except you agree with one, and not with the other.

Where are all those "activist judge" haters? Come on, don't make me search for all of you in the archives...man up and admit that you are one of them!

Fish on...

Todd

Chuck be glad yours is 490 my went from 700 to 900 so we now have about the same coverage as you, for around 500..

So, what you're saying Chuck...is that he's not an activist judge legislating from the bench...because you agree with him.

Right?

That's my point...if it was something you supported (along with the majority of Americans, the House, and the Senate), you'd be screaming your head off at that "activist judge legislating from the bench"...

Not really expecting any consistency, just taking a moment to point out the inconsistency so, like I said...the next time something comes down the pike that you don't agree with, and you want to yell "activist judge!"...you can STFU.

Fish on...

Todd

I"m with ya Chuck but I want to know how you really feel?

The point some seem to miss is, it really doesn't matter what a judge thinks about the legislation, whether it raises or lowers your cost, whether it’s good or bad, what someone may have said about it, or any other considerations other than the constitutionality of the legislation.

They should throw it to the SCOTUS ASAP and see where the chips land and go from there. Does it have to go to the CA first?

Yes, it will have to make it through the Courts of Appeals first...don't be surprised that this is getting decided just as the 2012 Presidential race is really starting to heat up...Justice Kennedy should be thinking hard, he'll be the one casting the fifth vote to either uphold or strike it down...

Fish on...

Todd