Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (493405)	6/29/2012 11:05:31 AM
From: Jorj X Mckie	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793903

I remember reading a couple of months ago that obamacare was safe in the SC because the SC justices wouldn't want to go down in history as the people who struck down the signature legislation of the first black president. I didn't believe it back then. I believe that may be the case now. The court should have ruled on the law that was in front of them. That's their job. Their job isn't to have some political or judicial gambit or to try to make some sort of statement. Even if obama didn't sell it as a tax, everyone knew it was a tax. So we didn't gain any political capital by having the SC call it a tax. What we lost is that the SC has denied that their are limits on the powers that the government can usurp. The SC has denied the raison d'etre of the founding of the United States. The reason it should have been overturned is very simple; the Constitution does not give the federal government the power to provide healthcare insurance to every citizen. The right can try to spin this as a win all that they want. But in much the same way that obamacare was known to be a tax, we know that we lost.

To: MulhollandDrive who wrote (493405)	6/29/2012 11:23:39 AM
From: MrLucky	2 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793903

<"this" is no game> I share your view. I find it difficult to grasp the reasoning of Roberts given what has happened to America in the last three years. Additionally, I never fully understood Bush nominating Roberts for the Chief's job. Although I should, since Bush was our 'compassionate conservative" president. Perhaps, since he screwed up with Harriet Miers, he did not want to fight for a real Chief Justice such as Scalia or Thomas. The reasoning Bush gave us in his autobiography was that he was very impressed with Robert's leadership ability and his skill in convincing his colleagues through persuasion and strategic thinking. If Romney wins, we will still have the issue of a weak republican leadership in both Houses. America's citizens face interesting times. I hope they stay awake long enough to cast their votes this Fall using at least some of their God-given intellect.