MeinRS6: That wasn't nearly as funny as watching Farklibs after Walker won.

Both sides are funny, so Sarah Palin is automatically president.

This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

Didn't the court rule in favor of States Rights and strike down a federal law? I thought they were for that.

i'm pretty sure we saw all of those opinions posted around fark yesterday.

Slaxl: I don't understand these people. They rationalise things like the patriot act, accept things like DHS and TSA, hell i've even seen violent thuggish behaviour by authorities defended, yet along comes a ruling about healthcare and it's worse than Sept 11th, it's fascism, it's communism, it's slavery, Obama needs to die, impeach everyone, the country is doomed.

What. The. fark!?

It goes far beyond mere ideological differences, they're so far removed from reality that they should be removed from the gene pool. Yeah I said it, they're scum, fark 'em - but don't let them conceive.

It's like a religion to these people, with Rush Limbaugh and FOX News as their preachers. And we all know how rational religion is.

You say you want a revolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
You tell me that it's evolution
Well, you know
We all want to change the world
But when you talk about destruction
Don't you know that you can count me out
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right

You say you got a real solution
Well, you know
We'd all love to see the plan
You ask me for a contribution
Well, you know
We're doing what we can
But when you want money
for people with minds that hate
All I can tell is brother you have to wait
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
Ah

ah, ah, ah, ah, ah...

You say you'll change the constitution
Well, you know
We all want to change your head
You tell me it's the institution
Well, you know
You better free you mind instead
But if you go carrying pictures of chairman MaoSarah Palin
You ain't going to make it with anyone anyhow
Don't you know it's gonna be all right
all right, all right
all right, all right, all right
all right, all right, all right

Slaxl: I don't understand these people. They rationalise things like the patriot act, accept things like DHS and TSA, hell i've even seen violent thuggish behaviour by authorities defended, yet along comes a ruling about healthcare and it's worse than Sept 11th, it's fascism, it's communism, it's slavery, Obama needs to die, impeach everyone, the country is doomed.

I would like to put forward a possible explanation for this phenomenon. Those who resent government oversight by, let's say, the EPA like to keep how they do a private matter. These people resent paying taxes because they see themselves as world organizations, beholden to no country, and the world's resources as theirs for the taking. Maybe these people have set up a giant marketing and propaganda machine to promote their authoritarian style of oppression. The Tea Party is the populist propaganda organ, the DHS, the TSA are reactionary opportunistic bureaucracies, the Hearland Institute and a hundred other so-called "think tanks" and "institutions" are the well-funded didinformation machine. Their enabling legislation like the Patriot Act are authoritarian entities built upon the fear of ignorant people who cannot comprehend what is going on and where their own interest lie. To them, Obamacare is anathema, because the corporate manipulators have told them that. Furthermore, under their prodding, legislators have so twisted this and other social agendas that they are unrecognizable even by those who do comprehend and those who do try to cause our government to further the cause of the people. Ignorance, propaganda, and unfathomable wealth. These are the tools that shape our laws in the 21st century. There is nothing but this to understand about it.

MeinRS6: If Obama goes down, .

Um, dude -are you sure you're not gay?

Some select samplings from a few facebook acquaintances. Behold, the DERP:

Fb1: POST OFFICE RUN BY FED GOVT = FAIL
Social Security = FAIL
Medicare = Fail
Deregulation of Utliities = Higher costs = fail
Federal Government run programs have ZERO positive track history, so how can anyone possibly think that the federal government, state or local could possibly even think they can run the health care program. Dumb asses!
Mandated healthcare = Fail

My comment: So we should remove all government controls over healthcare? No more board certification of doctors, nurses, or other providers? Remove all safety mandates for hospitals themselves? Abolish the FDA?

The issue here is NOT government-mandated or government-run healthcare. It's government-mandated healthcare COVERAGE.

If you chop off a finger, you're still free as an individual to NOT pursue medical treatment, even if you pay insurance. If you get an infection and die from it, hey, it's a free country, that's your right.

Likewise, someone who never paid a penny into any healthcare insurance can't decide the day before needing an appendectomy to buy a policy, just to be covered, and then drop it once they go home. Guess who gets stuck with the check? You and me.

Current state and Federal law compels healthcare providers to treat everyone without respect to their ability to pay. For those who don't have insurance and can't pay out of pocket, those costs are passed on to those who CAN pay in the form of higher medical expenses. Ever wonder why cotton swabs on an itemized hospital bill are $12 each??

You mentioned removal of government involvement in utilities led to higher costs. This was because an essential service which the vast majority of society cannot function without was reduced to a speculative commodity. Remember Enron? Remember staged rolling blackouts in California, designed just to drive up the cost of electricity and line speculators' pockets? That was a direct result of lack of government involvement.

Reply by Fb2 to Fb1's opening statement: I agree with all of this especially the last two parts ( i am a dumbass). Our federal government has no business deciding such things. this is a state level issue. Furthermore the fact that nobody in america wants to work and actually produce goods at the local level especially food means that we have a saturated corporate environment and a industrial vacuum. the founding fathers envisioned a series of self sustained local agrarian economies with only a few commodities being sold. Nowadays people in central kansas surrounded by 100,000 acres of wheat drive 100 miles to buy a loaf of bread from a bakery in KC. each generation has worked less than the generation before it and now people don't even want to change the oil in their own car because it is easier to just cruise through jiffy lube while some guy who doesn't even want to be there drains your oil and forgets to fill it back up before trying to charge $75. Social security has fell victim to increase in life expectancy,Fossil fuel energies are going to destroy the planet, the post office should only deliver handwritten letters where necessary and people should take care of themselves.

Me to Fb2 (comment subsequently deleted): Fb2, your children must really be optimistic about living and thriving in a society you describe as their future.

I was besumed by all the comments from die-hard Republicans at work here in defense contractor facilities yesterday.

"You know, in the last 4 years, this country has become more socialist."

"We should elected judges to the Supreme Court."

The real problem is that this was supposed to be Obama's Achilles Heel.

This is where they were expecting to break him and prove his presidency a failure, thereby assuring the White ('s only) House would be in Republican hands again.

They're shiatting themselves because it didn't work.

Of course, this reaction by the base was part of the calculation of the Puppetmasters from the first, so it's business as usual.

The argument I keep seeing is "My dad/grandfather/favorite uncle was in a VA hospital and it stunk, so why would you trust the government to run healthcare??"

MeinRS6: That wasn't nearly as funny as watching Farklibs after Walker won.

If Obama goes down, that will be a top day for comedy on Fark.

Walker winning meant that many Liberals were wrong on predicting the re-call.

Obamacare being upheld means:

1) Conservatives wrong about their prediction
2) Conservatives wrong about the Constitutionality of Obamacare

summary, it was a bigger farking deal

They had it in their hands. They were holding that beautiful football, with the words, "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" emblazoned on it in a beautiful gold print. They were standing at the one-yard line, and they were just waiting for the clock to run down.

And then Roberts blew the play dead.

Obama took the ball from them, and with his thumb, rubbed off the first two gold letters, and then held it high over his head, his face beaming with glee. The blue confetti flew into the air. It was supposed to be red. It was supposed to be red.

Chariset: The argument I keep seeing is "My dad/grandfather/favorite uncle was in a VA hospital and it stunk, so why would you trust the government to run healthcare??"

yes, dying in the street is much better than being cared for at the VA.

/this is what republicans actually believe.

mrshowrules: MeinRS6: That wasn't nearly as funny as watching Farklibs after Walker won.

If Obama goes down, that will be a top day for comedy on Fark.

Walker winning meant that many Liberals were wrong on predicting the re-call.

Obamacare being upheld means:

1) Conservatives wrong about their prediction
2) Conservatives wrong about the Constitutionality of Obamacare

summary, it was a bigger farking deal

I suspect that Roberts was worried about putting the perception of non-partisanship of the Court at risk. I suspect Scalia's tantrum over immigration policy increased the chances that Obomney care would be upheld.

FlashHarry: /this is what republicans actually believe.

Guess which party actually tried to strip VA funding increases out of a recent spending bill. Go on, guess. You better be sitting down for this one

markie_farkie: FlashHarry: /this is what republicans actually believe.

Guess which party actually tried to strip VA funding increases out of a recent spending bill. Go on, guess. You better be sitting down for this one

Well, DUH. Imagine how much the GOP could complain about how shiatty the VA is if they stopped spending money on it.

Lando Lincoln: They had it in their hands. They were holding that beautiful football, with the words, "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" emblazoned on it in a beautiful gold print. They were standing at the one-yard line, and they were just waiting for the clock to run down.

And then Roberts blew the play dead.

Obama took the ball from them, and with his thumb, rubbed off the first two gold letters, and then held it high over his head, his face beaming with glee. The blue confetti flew into the air. It was supposed to be red. It was supposed to be red.

I teared up a little. Beautiful.

Some pretty unhinged stuff in this thread too.

#11:

MeinRS6: That wasn't nearly as funny as watching Farklibs after Walker won.

If Obama goes down, that will be a top day for comedy on Fark.

MeinRS6: If Robert's hadn't made up his own argument(it's a tax), then he would have just rejected Obama's argument and the law would be unconstitutional. That's what this hinged on.

Made up? Did you even read the opinion? Clearly the rantings of a medication-addled Chief Justice...

##################################

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Com- merce Clause does not support the individual mandate, it is necessary to turn to the Government's second argument: that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress's enumerated power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8, cl. 1.
The Government's tax power argument asks us to view the statute differently than we did in considering its com- merce power theory. In making its Commerce Clause argument, the Government defended the mandate as a regulation requiring individuals to purchase health in- surance. The Government does not claim that the taxing power allows Congress to issue such a command. Instead, the Government asks us to read the mandate not as order- ing individuals to buy insurance, but rather as imposing a tax on those who do not buy that product.
The text of a statute can sometimes have more than one possible meaning. To take a familiar example, a law that reads "no vehicles in the park" might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so. Justice Story said that 180 years ago: "No court ought, unless the terms of an act rendered it una- voidable, to give a construction to it which should involve a violation, however unintentional, of the constitution." Parsons v. Bedford, 3 Pet. 433, 448-449 (1830). Justice Holmes made the same point a century later: "[T]he rule is settled that as between two possible interpretations of a statute, by one of which it would be unconstitutional and by the other valid, our plain duty is to adopt that which will save the Act." Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (concurring opinion).
The most straightforward reading of the mandate is that it commands individuals to purchase insurance.
32 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J.
After all, it states that individuals "shall" maintain health insurance. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(a). Congress thought it could enact such a command under the Commerce Clause, and the Government primarily defended the law on that basis. But, for the reasons explained above, the Com- merce Clause does not give Congress that power. Under our precedent, it is therefore necessary to ask whether the Government's alternative reading of the statute-that it only imposes a tax on those without insurance-is a rea- sonable one.
Under the mandate, if an individual does not maintain health insurance, the only consequence is that he must make an additional payment to the IRS when he pays his taxes. See §5000A(b). That, according to the Government, means the mandate can be regarded as establishing a condition-not owning health insurance-that triggers a tax-the required payment to the IRS. Under that theory, the mandate is not a legal command to buy insurance. Rather, it makes going without insurance just another thing the Government taxes, like buying gasoline or earn- ing income. And if the mandate is in effect just a tax hike on certain taxpayers who do not have health insurance, it may be within Congress's constitutional power to tax.
The question is not whether that is the most natural interpretation of the mandate, but only whether it is a "fairly possible" one. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, 62 (1932). As we have explained, "every reasonable construc- tion must be resorted to, in order to save a statute from unconstitutionality." Hooper v. California, 155 U. S. 648, 657 (1895). The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution. Granting the Act the full measure of deference owed to federal statutes, it can be so read, for the reasons set forth below.
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 33
OpOinpiionnioonf oRfOtBhEeRCTSo,uCrt. J.
C
The exaction the Affordable Care Act imposes on those without health insurance looks like a tax in many re- spects. The "[s]hared responsibility payment," as the statute entitles it, is paid into the Treasury by "tax- payer[s]" when they file their tax returns. 26 U. S. C. §5000A(b). It does not apply to individuals who do not pay federal income taxes because their household income is less than the filing threshold in the Internal Revenue Code. §5000A(e)(2). For taxpayers who do owe the pay- ment, its amount is determined by such familiar factors as taxable income, number of dependents, and joint filing status. §§5000A(b)(3), (c)(2), (c)(4). The requirement to pay is found in the Internal Revenue Code and enforced by the IRS, which-as we previously explained-must assess and collect it "in the same manner as taxes." Supra, at 13-14. This process yields the essential feature of any tax: it produces at least some revenue for the Government. United States v. Kahriger, 345 U. S. 22, 28, n. 4 (1953). Indeed, the payment is expected to raise about $4 billion per year by 2017. Congressional Budget Office, Payments of Penalties for Being Uninsured Under the Patient Pro- tection and Affordable Care Act (Apr. 30, 2010), in Selected CBO Publications Related to Health Care Legislation, 2009-2010, p. 71 (rev. 2010).
It is of course true that the Act describes the payment as a "penalty," not a "tax." But while that label is fatal to the application of the Anti-Injunction Act, supra, at 12-13, it does not determine whether the payment may be viewed as an exercise of Congress's taxing power. It is up to Con- gress whether to apply the Anti-Injunction Act to any particular statute, so it makes sense to be guided by Con- gress's choice of label on that question. That choice does not, however, control whether an exaction is within Con- gress's constitutional power to tax.
Our precedent reflects this: In 1922, we decided twochallenges to the "Child Labor Tax" on the same day. In the first, we held that a suit to enjoin collection of the so- called tax was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act. George, 259 U. S., at 20. Congress knew that suits to obstruct taxes had to await payment under the Anti-Injunction Act; Congress called the child labor tax a tax; Congress therefore intended the Anti-Injunction Act to apply. In the second case, however, we held that the same exaction, although labeled a tax, was not in fact authorized by Con- gress's taxing power. Drexel Furniture, 259 U. S., at 38. That constitutional question was not controlled by Con- gress's choice of label.
We have similarly held that exactions not labeled taxes nonetheless were authorized by Congress's power to tax. In the License Tax Cases, for example, we held that federal licenses to sell liquor and lottery tickets-for which the licensee had to pay a fee-could be sustained as exercises of the taxing power. 5 Wall., at 471. And in New York v. United States we upheld as a tax a "surcharge" on out-of- state nuclear waste shipments, a portion of which was paid to the Federal Treasury. 505 U. S., at 171. We thus ask whether the shared responsibility payment falls within Congress's taxing power, "[d]isregarding the designa- tion of the exaction, and viewing its substance and appli- cation." United States v. Constantine, 296 U. S. 287, 294 (1935); cf. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U. S. 298, 310 (1992) ("[M]agic words or labels" should not "disable an otherwise constitutional levy" (internal quotation marks omitted)); Nelson v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 312 U. S. 359, 363 (1941) ("In passing on the constitutionality of a tax law, we are concerned only with its practical operation, not its definition or the precise form of descriptive words which may be applied to it" (internal quotation marks omitted)); United States v. Sotelo, 436 U. S. 268, 275 (1978) ("That the funds due are referred to as a 'penalty'
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 35
OpOinpiionnioonf oRfOtBhEeRCTSo,uCrt. J.
. . . does not alter their essential character as taxes").7 Our cases confirm this functional approach. For ex- ample, in Drexel Furniture, we focused on three practical characteristics of the so-called tax on employing child laborers that convinced us the "tax" was actually a pen- alty. First, the tax imposed an exceedingly heavy bur- den-10 percent of a company's net income-on those who employed children, no matter how small their infraction. Second, it imposed that exaction only on those who know- ingly employed underage laborers. Such scienter require- ments are typical of punitive statutes, because Congress often wishes to punish only those who intentionally break the law. Third, this "tax" was enforced in part by the Department of Labor, an agency responsible for pun- ishing violations of labor laws, not collecting revenue. 259 U. S., at 36-37; see also, e.g., Kurth Ranch, 511 U. S., at 780-782 (considering, inter alia, the amount of the exac- tion, and the fact that it was imposed for violation of a
separate criminal law); Constantine, supra, at 295 (same). The same analysis here suggests that the shared re- sponsibility payment may for constitutional purposes be considered a tax, not a penalty: First, for most Americans the amount due will be far less than the price of insur- ance, and, by statute, it can never be more.8 It may often
------
7 Sotelo, in particular, would seem to refute the joint dissent's conten- tion that we have "never" treated an exaction as a tax if it was denomi- nated a penalty. Post, at 20. We are not persuaded by the dissent's attempt to distinguish Sotelo as a statutory construction case from the bankruptcy context. Post, at 17, n. 5. The dissent itself treats the question here as one of statutory interpretation, and indeed also relies on a statutory interpretation case from the bankruptcy context. Post, at 23 (citing United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996)).
8In 2016, for example, individuals making $35,000 a year are ex- pected to owe the IRS about $60 for any month in which they do not have health insurance. Someone with an annual income of $100,000 a year would likely owe about $200. The price of a qualifying insurance
36 NATIONAL FEDERATION OF INDEPENDENT BUSINESS v. SEBELIUS
OpOinpiionnioonf oRfOtBhEeRCTSo,uCrt. J.
be a reasonable financial decision to make the payment rather than purchase insurance, unlike the "prohibitory" financial punishment in Drexel Furniture. 259 U. S., at 37. Second, the individual mandate contains no scienter requirement. Third, the payment is collected solely by the IRS through the normal means of taxation-except that the Service is not allowed to use those means most sugges- tive of a punitive sanction, such as criminal prosecution. See §5000A(g)(2). The reasons the Court in Drexel Furni- ture held that what was called a "tax" there was a penalty support the conclusion that what is called a "penalty" here may be viewed as a tax.9
None of this is to say that the payment is not intended to affect individual conduct. Although the payment will raise considerable revenue, it is plainly designed to ex- pand health insurance coverage. But taxes that seek to influence conduct are nothing new. Some of our earliest federal taxes sought to deter the purchase of imported manufactured goods in order to foster the growth of do- mestic industry. See W. Brownlee, Federal Taxation in America 22 (2d ed. 2004); cf. 2 J. Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States §962, p. 434 (1833) ("the taxing power is often, very often, applied for other purposes, than revenue"). Today, federal and state taxes can compose more than half the retail price of cigarettes,
------
policy is projected to be around $400 per month. See D. Newman, CRS Report for Congress, Individual Mandate and Related Information Re- quirements Under PPACA 7, and n. 25 (2011).
9 We do not suggest that any exaction lacking a scienter requirement and enforced by the IRS is within the taxing power. See post, at 23-24 (joint opinion of SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., dissenting). Congress could not, for example, expand its authority to impose crimi- nal fines by creating strict liability offenses enforced by the IRS rather than the FBI. But the fact the exaction here is paid like a tax, to the agency that collects taxes-rather than, for example, exacted by De- partment of Labor inspectors after ferreting out willful malfeasance- suggests that this exaction may be viewed as a tax.
Cite as: 567 U. S. ____ (2012) 37
OpOinpiionnioonf oRfOtBhEeRCTSo,uCrt. J.
not just to raise more money, but to encourage people to quit smoking. And we have upheld such obviously regula- tory measures as taxes on selling marijuana and sawed-off shotguns. See United States v. Sanchez, 340 U. S. 42, 44- 45 (1950); Sonzinsky v. United States, 300 U. S. 506, 513 (1937). Indeed, "[e]very tax is in some measure regula- tory. To some extent it interposes an economic impediment to the activity taxed as compared with others not taxed." Sonzinsky, supra, at 513. That §5000A seeks to shape decisions about whether to buy health insurance does not mean that it cannot be a valid exercise of the taxing power.
In distinguishing penalties from taxes, this Court has explained that "if the concept of penalty means anything, it means punishment for an unlawful act or omission." United States v. Reorganized CF&I Fabricators of Utah, Inc., 518 U. S. 213, 224 (1996); see also United States v. La Franca, 282 U. S. 568, 572 (1931) ("[A] penalty, as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act"). While the individual mandate clearly aims to induce the purchase of health insurance, it need not be read to declare that failing to do so is unlawful. Neither the Act nor any other law attaches negative legal consequences to not buying health insur- ance, beyond requiring a payment to the IRS. The Gov- ernment agrees with that reading, confirming that if someone chooses to pay rather than obtain health insur- ance, they have fully complied with the law. Brief for United States 60-61; Tr. of Oral Arg. 49-50 (Mar. 26, 2012).

Lando Lincoln: They had it in their hands. They were holding that beautiful football, with the words, "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" emblazoned on it in a beautiful gold print. They were standing at the one-yard line, and they were just waiting for the clock to run down.

And then Roberts blew the play dead.

Obama took the ball from them, and with his thumb, rubbed off the first two gold letters, and then held it high over his head, his face beaming with glee. The blue confetti flew into the air. It was supposed to be red. It was supposed to be red.

Brilliant!

MeinRS6: mrshowrules:
2) Conservatives wrong about the Constitutionality of predicting Robert's vote on Obamacare

FIFY

If Robert's hadn't made up his own argument(it's a tax), then he would have just rejected Obama's argument and the law would be unconstitutional. That's what this hinged on.

We'll see how things pan out in future elections, revisions to Obamacare, and court rulings. Yesterday was just a start. Either way, Obamacare is just another lib social program that will cost way too much and be full of FAIL.

The law was and is Constitutional. Didn't you hear the ruling? It doesn't get bumped up to the ultra-super-Supreme court. Reality doesn't change just because you wish it.

propasaurus: #11:

MeinRS6: That wasn't nearly as funny as watching Farklibs after Walker won.

If Obama goes down, that will be a top day for comedy on Fark.

Yesterday's ruling is what Obama might call a learning moment. An opportunity for Conservatives to prepare for an even greater failure.

I love that last one:

FTA: Someone got to Roberts. I bet they got to him and told him he has to vote this way or members of his family - kids, wife, parents, whoever - were going to be killed.

Later this afternoon, it's going to come out that Roberts was coerced. ... the whole story will come out, Roberts will issue his REAL opinion, and Obama and Axelrod will be taken away in handcuffs.

Yeah, I'm sure the "REAL" opinion will come out and Obama will go to jail. Lol.

markie_farkie: To take a familiar example, a law that reads "no vehicles in the park" might, or might not, ban bicycles in the park. And it is well established that if a statute has two possible meanings, one of which violates the Constitution, courts should adopt the meaning that does not do so.

Roberts seems smart. He demonstrates how, by precedent, is compelled to interpret it as a tax. I'd like to compare that with Thomas' and Scalia's opinions.

Hehe...Pence is always good for something utterly ridiculous and insulting.

MeinRS6: It was "made up" in the sense that it was not what government's attorney argued before the court.

From the opinion:

The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution.

MeinRS6: mrshowrules:
2) Conservatives wrong about the Constitutionality of predicting Robert's vote on Obamacare

FIFY

If Robert's hadn't made up his own argument(it's a tax), then he would have just rejected Obama's argument and the law would be unconstitutional. That's what this hinged on.

We'll see how things pan out in future elections, revisions to Obamacare, and court rulings. Yesterday was just a start. Either way, Obamacare is just another lib social program that will cost way too much and be full of FAIL.

So much butt-hurt. Republicans will never repeal it, because once people learn from experience that it isn't a communist gay sharia takeover of everything it will become as untouchable as Social Security.

markie_farkie: MeinRS6: It was "made up" in the sense that it was not what government's attorney argued before the court.

From the opinion:

The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution.

Which it doesn't.

vpb: So much butt-hurt. Republicans will never repeal it, because once people learn from experience that it isn't a communist gay sharia takeover of everything it will become as untouchable as Social Security.

With the hysteria over anything Obama does or touches, I'm not quite so hopeful.

markie_farkie: MeinRS6: It was "made up" in the sense that it was not what government's attorney argued before the court.

From the opinion:

The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution.

You do know that he ignores facts that prove him wrong -in every case he will keep farking that chicken.

Facts-Schmacts I've got chickens to fark.

MeinRS6: It was "made up" in the sense that it was not what government's attorney argued before the court.

That's not particularly important. It's the Court's job to answer the questions put before it. The arguments are there to help the Court in answering those questions...but, the Court is not limited to ruling on whether they find the written or oral arguments persuasive. The ruling may be based on the theories presented by the parties...or, it might be based on something else entirely.

In any case, the Court rules on the legality of the law itself rather than on the arguments used to defend/undermine the law.

You might want to put some creme on that.

markie_farkie: Furthermore the fact that nobody in america wants to work

I've seen this type of comment before, sometimes worded as "if we give people welfare, they'll just sit on their asses and work"

Thing is, if you ask these people why they don't do that, or, in the case of your friend, ask "why do you work if nobody wants to?" it always turns out they mean "everyone else".

MeinRS6: markie_farkie: MeinRS6: It was "made up" in the sense that it was not what government's attorney argued before the court.

From the opinion:

The Government asks us to interpret the mandate as imposing a tax, if it would otherwise violate the Constitution.

I understand the procedure. Do you understand what the gov't was arguing though? Did you read what Ginsberg wanted? That was a bridge too far for Roberts, so he went with the out and not their main argument.

I wonder how long Farklibs' love affair with Roberts will last. Probably not a second longer than the next time he doesn't side with the libs on the court.

You are aware that Obamacare was ripped off wholesale from the GOP, yes? And that most every provision in it was lifted directly from Romneycare?

MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: You are aware that Obamacare was ripped off wholesale from the GOP, yes? And that most every provision in it was lifted directly from Romneycare?

I'm aware that that is one of many lib talking points. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.

Only to highlight you're trying real hard to steer the conversation away from facts that are inconvenient to your derp.

MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: You are aware that Obamacare was ripped off wholesale from the GOP, yes? And that most every provision in it was lifted directly from Romneycare?

I'm aware that that is one of many lib talking points. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.

I just wanted to see how in touch with reality you really are before I even bothered talking to you.

If you believe Obamacare differs significantly from Romneycare, can you highlight the important differences? Because I don't see many of import.

Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: You are aware that Obamacare was ripped off wholesale from the GOP, yes? And that most every provision in it was lifted directly from Romneycare?

I'm aware that that is one of many lib talking points. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.

I just wanted to see how in touch with reality you really are before I even bothered talking to you.

If you believe Obamacare differs significantly from Romneycare, can you highlight the important differences? Because I don't see many of import.

Tyranny is OK at the state level if the state's Constitution allows it.

Romney wants both the "moral" and legal arguments. But he's only entitled to one.

Diogenes: Marcus Aurelius: MeinRS6: Marcus Aurelius: You are aware that Obamacare was ripped off wholesale from the GOP, yes? And that most every provision in it was lifted directly from Romneycare?

I'm aware that that is one of many lib talking points. I'm not sure what that has to do with what I posted.

I just wanted to see how in touch with reality you really are before I even bothered talking to you.

If you believe Obamacare differs significantly from Romneycare, can you highlight the important differences? Because I don't see many of import.

Tyranny is OK at the state level if the state's Constitution allows it.

Romney wants both the "moral" and legal arguments. But he's only entitled to one.

My point was going to be that Obamacare is based on legislation originally produced by Republicans. So if you really hate Obamacare, you should put the blame where it belongs: squarely on the GOP.

Marcus Aurelius: My point was going to be that Obamacare is based on legislation originally produced by Republicans. So if you really hate Obamacare, you should put the blame where it belongs: squarely on the GOP.

GOP history only goes back to January 2008. Before that, it's all myths and legend.