OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE Options

[Tex]

I was hearing today that amid the giddyness of Republicans being able to overhaul the health care bill comes the sobering reality that plans are already underway to comply. The expense of complying, then changing to something new, could be a nasty little surprise to some folks.

Also

What does it say about an industry that is against a law that would dump millions of new paying customers in their laps?

[Balta1701]

I realize it can get tiresome to see folks like me say "imagine if a Democrat had done this," but once in a while, I think these comparisons have real merit.

Consider a hypothetical. Imagine if an important court case came before a federal judge nominated by President Obama and confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate. Then imagine we learned that this same judge owns part of a political operation that attacks the same law about which he/she was hearing arguments.

Making matters worse, that Democratic judge admits to having campaigned for the seat on the bench, earning it through 20 years of active service to the Democratic Party, helping the various campaigns of Democratic candidates.

And then to top it off, imagine if that judge's ruling, an obvious example of judicial activism, was premised on a bizarre legal analysis that no one of any ideology was prepared to defend.

Is there any doubt at all that, if this scenario actually happened, the right would be apoplectic? That the judge's name would be on every Fox News broadcast as an example of courts run amok? That we'd hear some congressional Republicans raising the specter of impeachment against that judge?

Link to commentary from a blog so Republicans should ignore this post.

[Jenksismybitch]

Link to commentary from a blog so Republicans should ignore this post.

If we want to continue to ignore the obvious here - he didn't strike the whole bill. He struck one portion of it, which IMO is the part that most fundamentally attacks a persons freedom (the right to not have the government tell them what they have to buy/not buy when it involves no one else but themselves). It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that liberals defend that portion of the bill, something they should be against 100% of the time. This just proves yet again that liberals will argue ANYTHING, including the opposite of their beliefs, when someone doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

And I love that simply because he describes it as "obvious judicial activism" that it MUST be true. GMAFB.

Let's call this what it is - someone is questioning the almighty Obama's agenda to have the government save society, so they're automatically part of a grand conspiracy of self-interested rich white republicans who have no concern for people but only for their pocketbook.

[Balta1701]

And I love that simply because he describes it as "obvious judicial activism" that it MUST be true. GMAFB.

Pretty much the definition of judicial activism is stepping out of precedent to overturn the will of Congress. This point of view, if adopted, would be an enormous overhaul of precedent; it would, as I understand it, basically decide that the 10th amendment now supercedes the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1. It could give any state that wants one a veto over federal legislation, whereas right now, the exact opposite is generally true.