Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 57

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

  1. #21
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    I’m Not Down on John Roberts

    Posted by Erick Erickson (Diary)

    Thursday, June 28th at 11:35AM EDT

    Having gone through the opinion, I am not going to beat up on John Roberts. I am disappointed, but I want to make a few points. John Roberts is playing at a different game than the rest of us. We’re on poker. He’s on chess.

    First, I get the strong sense from a few anecdotal stories about Roberts over the past few months and the way he has written this opinion that he very, very much was concerned about keeping the Supreme Court above the partisan fray and damaging the reputation of the Court long term. It seems to me the left was smart to make a full frontal assault on the Court as it persuaded Roberts.

    Second, in writing his case, Roberts forces everyone to deal with the issue as a political, not a legal issue. In the past twenty years, Republicans have punted a number of issues to the Supreme Court asking the Court to save us from ourselves. They can’t do that with Roberts. They tried with McCain-Feingold, which was originally upheld. This case is a timely reminder to the GOP that five votes are not a sure thing.

    Third, while Roberts has expanded the taxation power, which I don’t really think is a massive expansion from what it was, Roberts has curtailed the commerce clause as an avenue for Congressional overreach. In so doing, he has affirmed the Democrats are massive taxers. In fact, I would argue that this may prevent future mandates in that no one is going to go around campaigning on new massive tax increases. On the upside, I guess we can tax the hell out of abortion now. Likewise, in a 7 to 2 decision, the Court shows a strong majority still recognize the concept of federalism and the restrains of Congress in forcing states to adhere to the whims of the federal government.

    Fourth, in forcing us to deal with this politically, the Democrats are going to have a hard time running to November claiming the American people need to vote for them to preserve Obamacare. It remains deeply, deeply unpopular with the American people. If they want to make a vote for them a vote for keeping a massive tax increase, let them try.

    Fifth, the decision totally removes a growing left-wing talking point that suddenly they must vote for Obama because of judges. The Supreme Court as a November issue for the left is gone. For the right? That sound you hear is the marching of libertarians into Camp Romney, with noses held, knowing that the libertarian and conservative coalitions must unite to defeat Obama and Obamacare.

    Finally, while I am not down on John Roberts like many of you are today, i will be very down on Congressional Republicans if they do not now try to shut down the individual mandate. Force the Democrats on the record about the mandate. Defund Obamacare. This now, by necessity, is a political fight and the GOP sure as hell should fight.

    60% of Americans agree with them on the issue. And guess what? The Democrats have been saying for a while that individual pieces of Obamacare are quite popular. With John Roberts’ opinion, the repeal fight takes place on GOP turf, not Democrat turf. The all or nothing repeal has always been better ground for the GOP and now John Roberts has forced everyone onto that ground.

    It seems very, very clear to me in reviewing John Roberts’ decision that he is playing a much longer game than us and can afford to with a life tenure. And he probably just handed Mitt Romney the White House.

    *A friend points out one other thing — go back to 2009. Olympia Snowe was the deciding vote to get Obamacare out of the Senate Committee. Had she voted no, we’d not be here now


    I’m Not Down on John Roberts | RedState

  2. #22
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    I just got this email and I thought it was fitting....




    There's a lady I've known forever. She's very sick. On top of that, she's being abused by those to whom she has given everything..... Lies about her abound, and seem to come from all sides. Just breaks my heart. Seems there's nothing I can do alone but maybe, if we join in and lift her up together, we can heal her. She's well over 230 years old, but way too young to die.

    Her name is ' America '... And I love her and have always been proud of her.

    Take time to say a prayer for her - even if it is a short, simple prayer like, Lord, please heal our land. Amen.. Thanks.

    PLEASE KEEP THIS E-MAIL GOING.


    Have a wonderful 4th of July Everyone!!!

  3. #23
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    339
    Quote Originally Posted by MW View Post
    Have you already forgotten that Romney said he will repeal Obama Care?
    Oh right. Wonder how that will go during the debates when Obama uses RomneyCare against him in front of the American public. Would have been real nice to have a different candidate up against him to show the contrast...

    Also, why couldn't Romney come out like this when Obama made his illegal alien policy change or when the Court struck down three of the provisions in Arizona's law? Strong, firm, and decisive.

  4. #24
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want

    Thursday, June 28, 2012
    by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger
    Editor of NaturalNews.com (See all articles...)



    (NaturalNews) Regardless of whether you agree with the fundamentals of Obamacare, the fact that the U.S. Supreme Court has now ruled the federal government has the power to tax Americans into mandatory purchases of private industry products means an end to economic freedom in America. Why? Because it hands the federal government the power to force the American people to buy anything the government wants or face tax penalties for refusing to do so. It is the equivalent of announcing a federal monopoly over all private purchasing decisions.

    "The Affordable Care Act's requirement that certain individuals pay a financial penalty for not obtaining health insurance may reasonably be characterized as a tax," wrote Chief Justice John Roberts, in his majority opinion. "Because the Constitution permits such a tax, it is not our role to forbid it, or to pass upon its wisdom or fairness."

    Thus, the government can force Americans to buy anything it wants by simply characterizing the forced payment as a "tax."

    Economic freedom crushed by Supreme Court
    This article is not an argument so much about Obamacare itself, by the way; it's a red alert about a fundamental loss of economic freedom -- a shifting of private purchasing decisions to Washington D.C. Now, buoyed by the passage of Obamacare, the U.S. government can (and will) create new mandates that, for example, would force Americans to buy all the following:

    • A new car each year from Detroit, in order to "boost the U.S. auto industry."
    • War bonds to "support the war effort."
    • A year's supply of vaccines.
    • Life insurance from the government's "approved" sources.
    • Lawn fertilizer (the "lawn health care mandate").
    • Intellectual property such as patented human genes already in your body.

    There is no limit to the reach of the Supreme Court's wild misinterpretation of the Commerce Clause, it seems. So now, all Americans can expect to get ready for the federal government to start laying out a long list of products and services we will all be taxed into buying from the crony capitalist buddies of those in power.

    Government hands economic monopoly to Big Pharma and the vaccine industry
    Perhaps the worst side effect is that Obamacare isn't really about health care at all. It's about protecting a Big Pharma monopoly over medicine; forcing consumers to buy into a system that offers zero coverage for alternative medicine, nutritional therapies, natural remedies or the healing arts.

    If Obamacare actually offered consumers a free market choice of where to get services, it would be a lot more balanced and effective. Instead, it forces consumers to buy into a system of monopoly medicine of drugs and surgery that would flat-out collapse if not for the monopolistic protections granted to the industry by the government itself.

    If given a free choice, most consumers prefer complementary medicine than straight-up "drugs and surgery" medicine, but complementary medicine isn't covered under Obamacare. The law is really just another corrupt, criminal-minded handout to the drug industry. And now, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Court, you can't even opt out!

    Abuse of power by the federal government knows no bounds
    That's the real kicker in all this: No more opting out of the private purchasing demands of the federal government! Americans are being pick-pocketed at an alarming rate, and it's only going to get worse now that this power has been unwisely handed to the federal government by a short-sighted Supreme Court.

    Because long after Obama is gone, other Presidents -- from any political party -- will abuse this precedent to force Americans into buying any number of products, services, or even intellectual property that we don't want. There is now no limit to what the federal government can force you to buy by calling it a "tax."

    Note, carefully, there is NO LIMIT to this "taxing" power. If you bring home a monthly paycheck of, for example, $3,000, the U.S. government can now mandate that you spend $2,999 of that on various products and services that it deems you must have "for your own protection." You no longer control your own take-home pay! The government can force you to spend it on things you don't want or even need!

    America, it seems, is starting to sound a whole lot like England under King George. Soon, we'll be living under our own modern Stamp Act from 1765, which eventually led to the American Revolution. Learn your history! As Wikipedia explains: (Stamp Act 1765 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

    The Stamp Act 1765 (short title Duties in American Colonies Act 1765; 5 George III, c. 12) was a direct tax imposed by the British Parliament specifically on the colonies of British America. The act required that many printed materials in the colonies be produced on stamped paper produced in London, carrying an embossed revenue stamp. These printed materials were legal documents, magazines, newspapers and many other types of paper used throughout the colonies. Like previous taxes, the stamp tax had to be paid in valid British currency, not in colonial paper money. The purpose of the tax was to help pay for troops stationed in North America after the British victory in the Seven Years' War. The British government felt that the colonies were the primary beneficiaries of this military presence, and should pay at least a portion of the expense.

    The Stamp Act met great resistance in the colonies. The colonies sent no representatives to Parliament, and therefore had no influence over what taxes were raised, how they were levied, or how they would be spent. Many colonists considered it a violation of their rights as Englishmen to be taxed without their consent -- consent that only the colonial legislatures could grant. Colonial assemblies sent petitions and protests. The Stamp Act Congress held in New York City, reflecting the first significant joint colonial response to any British measure, also petitioned Parliament and the King. Local protest groups, led by colonial merchants and landowners, established connections through correspondence that created a loose coalition that extended from New England to Georgia. Protests and demonstrations initiated by the Sons of Liberty often turned violent and destructive as the masses became involved. Very soon all stamp tax distributors were intimidated into resigning their commissions, and the tax was never effectively collected.

    Opposition to the Stamp Act was not limited to the colonies. British merchants and manufacturers, whose exports to the colonies were threatened by colonial economic problems exacerbated by the tax, also pressured Parliament. The Act was repealed on March 18, 1766 as a matter of expedience, but Parliament affirmed its power to legislate for the colonies "in all cases whatsoever" by also passing the Declaratory Act. There followed a series of new taxes and regulations, likewise opposed by the colonists.

    The episode played a major role in defining the grievances and enabling the organized colonial resistance that led to the American Revolution in 1775.


    Stay informed! FREE subscription to the Health Ranger's email newsletter
    Get breaking health news + a LIFETIME 7% discount on everything at the NaturalNews Store

    Learn more: Supreme Court's Obamacare decision hands federal government unlimited power to force you to spend 100% of your paycheck on things you don't even want




    Does the word re-peal sound about right??? Tax with no representation....
    Last edited by kathyet; 06-28-2012 at 01:56 PM.

  5. #25
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling

    Ron Paul on today’s Supreme Court decision:

    “I strongly disagree with today’s decision by the Supreme Court, but I am not surprised. The Court has a dismal record when it come to protecting liberty against unconstitutional excesses by Congress.

    “Today we should remember that virtually everything government does is a ‘mandate.’ The issue is not whether Congress can compel commerce by forcing you to buy insurance, or simply compel you to pay a tax if you don’t. The issue is that this compulsion implies the use of government force against those who refuse. The fundamental hallmark of a free society should be the rejection of force. In a free society, therefore, individuals could opt out of “Obamacare” without paying a government tribute.

    “Those of us in Congress who believe in individual liberty must work tirelessly to repeal this national health care law and reduce federal involvement in healthcare generally. Obamacare can only increase third party interference in the doctor-patient relationship, increase costs, and reduce the quality of care. Only free market medicine can restore the critical independence of doctors, reduce costs through real competition and price sensitivity, and eliminate enormous paperwork burdens. Americans will opt out of Obamacare with or without Congress, but we can seize the opportunity today by crafting the legal framework to allow them to do so.”


    Ron Paul on Supreme Court ObamaCare Ruling*|*Ron Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign CommitteeRon Paul 2012 Presidential Campaign Committee

  6. #26
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    SCOTUS & Eric Holder: Its political pimpin’ pimpin’, man!

    June 28, 2012 by ppjg

    Marti Oakley Copyright 2012- All Rights Reserved

    Note: I wrote this article last night in anticipation of what I was sure would be the results of SCOTUS….unfortunatley I was absolutely correct in my predicition on the outcome of Citizens v Obamacare. The Court voted to uphold this unconstitional assault on America. Just one more reason this court needs to be rendered defunct.

    __________________________________________________ __________________

    For a portion of this afternoon, I flipped back and forth between the tedious and twisted up oral arguments in the Supreme Court for and against Obamacare and the political pimping going on, on MSNBC about the pending vote of [contempt of congress] against Eric Holder, the US Attorney General. MSNBC is of course the lefts’ counter to FAUX News on the right, and these days has about as much credibility.
    Those magic black robes!

    I doubt there are any of us out here who think or believe that Obamacare is even remotely constitutional. Yet the Supreme’s and the attorney’s talked endlessly about whether or not the penalty tax was really a tax or just a penalty while every one of them knew it was a penalty tax meant to raise revenue and to coerce unwilling individuals into a system they don’t want to be a part of. Simply put: It is legislative extortion meant to raise revenue or, involuntary forced compliance which will also raise revenue.

    At one point, the argument from the bench was that Social Security was also a tax that everyone had to pay. Only that isn’t really true, and neither is it true in regards to Obamacare. I have no intentions of getting into this any further except to say that Obamacare is a direct assault on individual rights and is clearly unconstitutional from start to finish. Congress knew it when they passed it and the president knew it when he signed it into law. The Supreme’s also know this and I can hardly wait to hear the convoluted rationale to be given to explain why they did not declare the entire mess unconstitutional. But I have no doubt that they will uphold this unconstitutional assault on the public.

    I consider this to be Citizens v Obamacare opinion which will rival the Citizens v United for position #1 on the greatest failures of this court to defend and protect the Constitution for the people of the United States.
    About those talking heads at MSNBC….

    Coinciding with tomorrow’s decision on the Obamacare assault, the House of Representatives will vote on holding Eric Holder, Attorney General of the United States, in contempt of congress. According to those at MSNBC, this is unheard of and should never happen. I disagree. I also take great issue with the false position that it is the result of a witch hunt, as MSNBC claims that Holder was in no way connected to, had any knowledge of and did not participate in the ATF’s Fast & Furious gun running scam.

    My first question would of course be: And how do you know that when congress has not been able to find that out? How could the hosts on MSNBC have definitive proof that Holder was totally in the dark? The answer is: They ain’t got a clue! No one does!

    The issue with Mr. Holder is NOT whether or not he was remotely involved, it is, his refusal to submit documents demanded by a government committee charged with investigating Fast & Furious so that a determination could be made. But according to those at MSNBC Holder ignored those document demands because the names of informants could be revealed or something really, really bad could happen if the committee members saw what really happened and who was involved. And whomever was involved caused the president to issue what is in effect, a get out of jail free card, to protect Holder from exposure.
    It’s Pimpin’! Pimpin’, Man!

    Through various evening programs, MSNBC vacillated between how awful, terrible, unheard of and catastrophic it would be for a government official to be held in contempt……….maybe really meaning held accountable and not allowed to be above the law? Again, I disagree.

    The broadcasts got progressively more inflammatory, with the hosts each speaking about the NRA as if it was some black ops group that had infiltrated the government and had taken hostages. The liberal lacing of the phrase [conspiracy theory] was injected throughout the broadcasts. Yeah! that must be it! It’s just one of those darn conspiracy theories! oooohhh!

    Then of course, Arizona was brought into the mix and the MSNBC crew repeatedly cited them for having the most lax gun laws in the states. Later they were showing a count of how many gun shops there were in Arizona, and ending with a claim that 85% of all guns used by the cartels come from the US. There were even alleged reports from ATF agents who were prohibited from making arrests of suspected criminals buying guns for running in Mexico, in Arizona. It was enough to bring you to tears once you wiped the vomit off your chin while it left you wondering…..

    What the hell do gun laws in Arizona and the number of gun sellers in Arizona, have to do with the AG refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation???

    But then Ed Schultz landed the coup d’ gras……..asking Rep. Cummings (D-MD) if it was race based.

    Yup! Ed! That is probably all this is about. It couldn’t possibly be about the possible collusion of the AG with the ATF to buy up guns and [walk them into Mexico] to arm criminals and cartels in order to somehow trace them through Mexico and connect them to crimes along the border so that the statistics from that could be compiled. Anyway that was the first excuse given when they got outed.

    It’s probably just that Eric Holder is a black man and Ed did everything he could to coax Rep. Cummings into taking the bait. Much to his credit, he did not.

    This was all preceded by Chris Mathews earlier in the week repeatedly trying to invoke race as the cause of the contempt action to divert attention away from the actual issue of Holder refusing to cooperate with a congressional investigation.

    Here’s another question that keeps popping up:

    If Holder was not involved, doesn’t know anything, had no knowledge of Fast & Furious, what documents could he possibly possess that he is now refusing to hand over to congress?
    Tomorrow! Tomorrow! You’re only a day away!

    So Thursday June 28th is a sort of milestone day for the country. The Supreme’s will most likely issue another opinion that will have nothing remotely constitutional contained in it. I guess it matters not. There will be few if any out here who will be able to make heads or tales of what will likely be one of the most convoluted, twisted up, ambiguous and unreadable opinions to come out of this court. And that’s saying something, considering what has passed as opinion historically.

    The vote will be taken on Eric Holder’s contempt of congress. It won’t succeed and even if it did it is the Justice department that would decide whether or not to make a case out of it. That would be the same Justice Department that Holder heads up. What do you think the chances are of that happening? (Stop laughing!)

    I think I’ll sleep late tomorrow.




    SCOTUS & Eric Holder: Its political pimpin’ pimpin’, man! « The PPJ Gazette




    [bAnd the assault on our way of life and freedoms go on, are we awake yet[/b]
    Last edited by kathyet; 06-28-2012 at 02:51 PM.

  7. #27
    Senior Member oldguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,208
    The America people need a win, we're being abused by an out of control government, by CEO's who outsource and ship jobs to China and other countries who use children for slave labor, yes, America needs a win and it's long overdue, today IMO the "Court" spit in America's face giving more power to those out of control, but we must vote them out of office in Nov., if not then I'm not sure my country can be saved.
    I'm old with many opinions few solutions.

  8. #28
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    Obama basks in the glow of court victory
    By Amie Parnes and Jonathan Easley - 06/28/12 12:43 PM ET

    Basking in an enormous political triumph, President Obama on Thursday hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling on the healthcare law as “a victory for people all over this country.”

    Declaring that the “highest court in the land has now spoken,” Obama said the 5-4 decision by the high court reaffirmed a fundamental principle that “no illness or accident should lead to any family’s financial ruin.”

    The stunning news provided a much-needed boost for the White House ahead of an election that many expect will go down to the wire. White House aides said the decision — brought with the help of the unlikely ally Chief Justice John Roberts — reaffirmed their long-held belief that the law was constitutional.

    Speaking in the East Room a little more than two hours after the decision came down, Obama acknowledged talk about the decision will center on “who won and who lost,” but said that “completely misses the point."

    While he conceded that the debate over the health law has been “divisive,” he reiterated once again that he didn’t pursue the law because it was “good politics.”

    “I did it because I believed it was good for the country,” he said.

    Obama strongly defended the mandate to have insurance, which the Supreme Court upheld under Congress' power to levy taxes, and jabbed at GOP rival Mitt Romney for signing a law as governor that included a similar requirement.

    “People who can afford health insurance should take the responsibility to buy health insurance,” Obama said, noting the mandate had previously enjoyed support from both parties, “including the current Republican nominee for president.”

    A few minutes before Obama spoke, Romney vowed to act to repeal the law as president, calling it a “job killer.”

    “What the court did not do on its last day in session, I will do on my first day if elected president of the United States,” Romney said in Washington while standing against a backdrop of the Capitol dome. “What the court did today was say that ObamaCare does not violate the constitution. What they did not do was say that ObamaCare is good law or that it’s good policy.”

    “ObamaCare was bad policy yesterday. It’s bad policy today,” Romney added. “ObamaCare was bad law yesterday. It’s bad law today.”

    The Obama campaign returned fire, accusing Romney of attacking a law that he helped set the model for as governor of Massachusetts.

    “Romney has run away from his accomplishment in Massachusetts, callously promising to repeal national reform and 'kill it dead,' " Obama campaign manager Jim Messina said in a statement. “He owes the American people a clear, non-parsed explanation of why he believes his decisions in Massachusetts are wrong for the country, and exactly what he would do to help the American people get the healthcare they need.”

    White House aides were careful not to spike the football, though they expressed confidence it would help propel Obama to a second term.

    “We said it was constitutional and we were right,” one White House aide said. “That’s all there is.”

    One former senior administration official added that the decision — which many believed was unlikely to go in their favor — is exactly what the Obama campaign needed as the president gears up for the fall campaign.

    “This is exactly the boost of confidence that the president needs,” the former senior administration official said.

    The former official predicted that the high court’s decision would “change the polling” about the law.

    “This has always been about getting the independents, and I think if you’ve got John Roberts saying this is constitutional, that will provide a huge sustained gust of wind in the sails of the campaign,” the former official said.

    As the decision came down Thursday, some White House staffers gathered in press secretary Jay Carney's office with the door closed in what aides quipped was their "war room." The press office was virtually deserted as people awaited word on the Supreme Court’s decision.

    Obama had been scheduled to be in the Oval Office when the decision came down. But a few White House reporters were temporarily held near Carney's office as Obama apparently made his way from the residence to the West Wing.

    It was unclear how Obama received the news of the ruling.

    During his remarks, Obama vowed to work together to improve upon the law. But, even as the House threatened to repeal the law on Thursday, he said the nation can’t afford to “refight the political battles” from two years ago.

    Instead, he urged lawmakers to focus on the economy, which he called, the “most urgent challenge of our time”

    "It's time for us to move forward,” he said. "Today, I'm as confident as ever, that when we look back 5 years from now, or 10 years from now, or 20 years now, we'll be better off."
    — This story was last updated at 1:39 p.m.

    Obama basks in the glow of court victory - TheHill.com

  9. #29
    Guest
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    9,266
    5 Unelected Judges Seal the Fate and Future of 310 Million Americans
    posted on June 28, 2012 by Gary DeMar


    If Congress does not repeal ObamaCare, America will never be the same.

    While the court’s healthcare decision was unconstitutional, illogical, and borderline insane, it wasn’t surprising or unexpected given past decisions.

    Like John Roberts who voted with the four liberal members of the court to uphold the individual mandate, it was Justice Owen Roberts (1875-1955) who sided with the liberals to uphold FDR’s social welfare programs. “This sudden switch by Justice [Owen] Roberts was forever after referred to as ‘the switch in time that saved nine.’” John Robert’s vote puts him in equally bad company.

    The court ruled decades ago that employees and employers could be forced to pay into a new system of wealth confiscation called Social Security. Many employees do not know that employers are forced to pay half of what they pay — 6.14 percent. Your employer is forced to pay for your retirement. If it’s OK for the government to force him to pay for something, then how can we argue that it’s wrong for the government to force us to pay for something?

    In 1973, in the infamous Roe v. Wade pro-abortion decision, seven justices ruled that women could kill their pre-born babies. That’s 50+ million pre-born babies in 39 years. If it’s OK to kill pre-born babies, what’s wrong with a tax to force people to pay for healthcare?

    Then there was the 5-4 Kelo v. City of New London (2005) decision. The court ruled that it was constitutionally permissible for local governments to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. This ruling violated the eminent domain provision embedded in the Constitution. If it’s OK for the government to take your property because it needs more tax revenue, then what’s the problem in forcing people to get healthcare or be fined?

    With the upholding of the individual mandate based on convoluted constitutional logic, John Locke’s life, liberty, and property protections have been wiped out by judicial fiat by five unelected judges.

    Thy name is tyranny!

    Who gets elected in November becomes all-important. Many people don’t like Romney, but at this point in time he’s our only hope in getting freedom-denying ObamaCare repealed. So let’s double down and get busy changing the face of Congress and sending Obama packing.

    Read more: 5 Unelected Judges Seal the Fate and Future of 310 Million Americans - Godfather Politics

  10. #30
    Super Moderator Newmexican's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Heart of Dixie
    Posts
    36,012
    GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare

    June 28, 2012



    Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell, head of the Republican Governors Association, said states should wait until the election before implementing Obamacare in hopes Mitt Romney will win and kill the reforms. (Photo by Win McNamee/Getty Images)

    Paul Bedard

    Washington Secrets

    The Washington Examiner @SecretsBedard


    Republican governors are planning to ignore the Supreme Court's decision Thursday to uphold Obamacare hoping that the issue will drive voters to dump President Obama in favor of Mitt Romney who has vowed to kill the Affordable Care Act.

    After the decision, the Republican Governors Association said that nothing should be done by the states until after the election, a clear signal that they believe a GOP president, House and Senate will kill the health care reform pushed through by Democrats and opposed by Republicans.

    RGA Chairman Bob McDonnell said, "Today's ruling crystallizes all that's at stake in November's election. The only way to stop Barack Obama's budget-busting health care takeover is by electing a new president. Barack Obama's health care takeover encapsulates his presidency: Obamacare increases taxes, grows the size of government and puts bureaucrats over patients while doing nothing to improve the economy."

    The Virginia governor, who is on Mitt Romney's list of potential vice presidential candidates, added, "By replacing Barack Obama with Mitt Romney, we will not only stop the federal government's healthcare takeover, but will also take a giant step towards a full economic recovery."

    Other governors have urged a similar strategy. Scott Walker, the newly re-elected Wisconsin governor, said that he won't put into place any elements of Obamacare until after the election. Other governors are taking a similar position.

    GOP governors vow to ignore Obamacare | WashingtonExaminer.com
    Support our FIGHT AGAINST illegal immigration & Amnesty by joining our E-mail Alerts at https://eepurl.com/cktGTn

Page 3 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •