# Obama reaps victory as judges uphold health law



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Obama reaps victory as judges uphold health law
CBS News - ‎14 minutes ago‎ 








President Barack Obama addresses the Families USA 16th Annual Health Action Conference, in Washington, Friday, Jan. 28, 2011. Families USA is an consumer advocacy health care organization.
Related Health care law » United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit » 

In major test, appeals court upholds Democratic healthcare lawLos Angeles Times

Obama Health Care Law Upheld by US Appeals CourtABC News

B.S. This is pure crap and I hope the whole thing is repealed.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

> The administration asserted that this was a form of regulating commerce because a person's decision not to obtain health insurance imposes a cost on others who inevitably end up subsidizing medical care for the uninsured.


Talk about circular logic BULLSHIT!!!111111
So... because we are ALREADY forcing you to pay for people who are uninsured, we now have to mandate you all to have health insurance, so you don't have to pay for the uninsured? Are the people who believe this completely fucking retarded? I can't even fucking reformulate that stupidity into anything less stupid.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

How much longer ?...not much.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2011)

There won't be a victory for either side until this reaches the SCOTUS.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law

A federal appeals court ruled Friday that a provision in President Obama's health care law requiring citizens to buy health insurance is unconstitutional, but didn't strike down the rest of the law.
The decision is a major setback for the White House, which had appealed a ruling by a federal district judge who struck down the entire law in January. But given that other judges have upheld the law, this case is clearly headed to the Supreme Court, which will have the final say.
On Friday, the divided three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals sided with 26 states that filed a lawsuit to block Obama's signature domestic initiative.The panel said that Congress exceeded its constitutional authority by requiring Americans to buy insurance or face penalties.
"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority," the panel said in the majority opinion.

Read more: U.S. Appeals Court Rules Against Obama's Health Care Law - FoxNews.com​


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

Delta784 said:


> There won't be a victory for either side until this reaches the SCOTUS.


Now batting...


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Appeals court nixes part of Obama health law : 2011-08-12
Washington Times - ‎48 minutes ago‎ 








**FILE** In this file photo, President Obama signs the health care bill in the White House. (Associated Press) By Paige Winfield Cunningham An appeals court struck a blow to a controversial part of President Obama's health care law requiring ...

So that would make it sound like MA's law is also unlawful as it too has the same requirement.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Another judge strikes down US health care mandate
Chicago Tribune - ‎30 minutes ago‎ 








A federal judge in Pennsylvania said the insurance-buying mandate in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul in unconstitutional, the latest ruling over an issue likely to be taken up by the US Supreme Court.
Related Commerce Clause » Christopher Conner » Federal Government » 

District Judge Rules Against 2010 Health Care LawNational Journal

Pa. federal judge rules against insurance mandateCBS News

Highly Cited:Judge Invalidates Health Care Act's Insurance-Buying MandateBusinessWeek
From Pennsylvania:Pa. federal judge rules against insurance mandatePhiladelphia Inquirer


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

Can we get this to the Supreme Court already??


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Delta784 said:


> Can we get this to the Supreme Court already??


 As long as it gets there before ding dong can make any appointments I think we will be OK.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

CJIS said:


> As long as it gets there before ding dong can make any appointments I think we will be OK.


Agreed.

Can anyone recall a law in our history that was as despised and divisive as this one?


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Prohibition of Alcohol?


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

CJIS said:


> Prohibition of Alcohol?


You're a lot older than you look. :shades_smile:

At least that was a Constitutional Amendment, passed by the majority of state legislatures, the Congress, and signed by the President. This debacle was rammed down our throats, even after polling showed that 70%+ of people didn't want it, AND they skirted the vote by using reconsideration, even after Massachusetts, of all places, voted Scott Brown into office to block it.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Delta784 said:


> You're a lot older than you look. :shades_smile:
> 
> At least that was a Constitutional Amendment, passed by the majority of state legislatures, the Congress, and signed by the President. This debacle was rammed down our throats, even after polling showed that 70%+ of people didn't want it, AND they skirted the vote by using reconsideration, even after Massachusetts, of all places, voted Scott Brown into office to block it.


I think what gets to me is a good majority of people that were very vocal in the beginning have since become silent. Even Mike Hukabee's Commercial I used to see no longer airs. It seems to be a thing of the age that people are very vocal in the beginning but then when it happens they just bend over and take it. There is only so much few people can do\say to get things fixed.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2011)

CJIS said:


> I think what gets to me is a good majority of people that were very vocal in the beginning have since become silent. Even Mike Hukabee's Commercial I used to see no longer airs. It seems to be a thing of the age that people are very vocal in the beginning but then when it happens they just bend over and take it. There is only so much few people can do\say to get things fixed.


Watch the Republican debates; every time one of the candidates mentions the repeal or emasculation of Obamacare, the crowd goes wild. There is still a very strong will of the people against the law, but everyone realizes nothing is going to change until the new President takes over in 2013, or the Supreme Court strikes it down.


----------



## ImperialGuard (Sep 14, 2011)

We already have to deal with the stupid mandated insurance in this state, what a joke it is.


----------



## cc3915 (Mar 26, 2004)

*Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court*

The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that it's going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obama's health reform law is constitutional.
The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election.

Read more: Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
​


----------



## Guest (Sep 27, 2011)

cc3915 said:


> The Obama administration chose not to ask the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to re-hear a pivotal health reform case Monday, signaling that its going to ask the Supreme Court to decide whether President Barack Obamas health reform law is constitutional.
> The move puts the Supreme Court in the difficult position of having to decide whether to take the highly politically charged case in the middle of the presidential election.
> 
> Read more: Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme Court - Jennifer Haberkorn - POLITICO.com
> ​


Does the administration know something we don't? I wonder if Obama is hoping that the USSC will find it unconstitutional, so that it will be one less thing the opposition will have in its quiver. He will be able to tell his peeps that he tried.

Sent from my ADR6300


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

USA Today


Groups Seek High-Court Review of Health Law Wall Street Journal - ‎30 minutes ago‎

WASHINGTON-Republican officials from 26 states and a small-business association on Wednesday asked the Supreme Court to consider their challenge to the Obama administration's health-care overhaul.
Related United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit » 11th Circuit » Allahabad High Court » 

Justices asked to accept key health care reform appealCNN

Obama's healthcare law appealed to top courtReuters

Highly Cited:Health reform lawsuit appears headed for Supreme CourtPolitico
In Depth:Judges strike down health insurance mandateAtlanta Journal Constitution


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Anyone who says they expect this to go one way or the other is full of sh*t or has no idea what they're talking about. There's much more at play here than simply the ideological split on the court. While the individual mandate is clearly unprecedented, it's also not such a huge stretch from Wickard, that other travesty of the New Deal court. Remember that conservative judges are the most likely to defer to the legislature, and the swing vote Justice Kennedy is a man who IMO is more concerned about history's opinion of him than correctly deciding cases and writing clear opinions. He could easily go either way on this under a host of differing rationales.

The other wild card is Kagan who may have to recuse herself as it was reported she worked on the Obamacare defense while Solicitor General. Having Kagan step down would give a gift to the court--in a 4-4 ties, the lower court ruling is affirmed without setting a binding precedent. That way the court could stay out of the mess and let it brew for a while longer. 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Feds Draft Basic Benefits Package Under Health Care Law










AP
June 30: U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius speaks at a round table discussion with area seniors on the benefits of the Affordable Care Act in Cincinnati.

WASHINGTON - The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Thursday.
The report by independent experts from the Institute of Medicine lays out guidelines for deciding what to include in the new "essential benefits package," how to keep it affordable for small businesses and taxpayers, and also scientifically up to date.
About 68 million Americans, many of them currently insured, ultimately would be affected by the new benefits package. That's bigger than the number of seniors enrolled in Medicare.

Read more: Feds Draft Basic Benefits Package Under Health Care Law | Fox News​


----------



## Guest (Oct 8, 2011)

kwflatbed said:


> WASHINGTON - The federal government is taking on a crucial new role in the nation's health care, designing a basic benefits package for millions of privately insured Americans. A framework for the Obama administration was released Thursday.


I'm quite satisfied with my private health insurance. I do not need or want a "benefits package" from the federal government.

STAY OUT OF MY LIFE, GO AWAY, AND READ THE 10th AMENDMENT!!!!!


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

when the hell is this going to the SCOTUS


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Los Angeles Times


Court Rules Health Law Is Constitutional Wall Street Journal - ‎32 minutes ago‎

A federal appeals court in Washington ruled Tuesday that a key piece of the health-care overhaul is constitutional, handing the Obama administration another legal victory ahead of the Supreme Court's likely consideration of the law.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Nothing but a bunch of Obama ball suckers.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Deseret News


Conservative Health-Care Split Offers Court a Path: Noah Feldman BusinessWeek - ‎1 hour ago‎

Nov. 14 (Bloomberg) -- What will the US Supreme Court do with the constitutional challenge to the health care law? Prediction, always a delicate business, is even harder when high-stakes politics affects a case.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law
Fox News - all 900 related »

It is happening.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

White House Eager for Health Care Law Ruling


Obama administration is confident the Supreme Court 
will deem sweeping health care overhaul constitutional

*Supreme Court to Hear Challenge to Obama Health Care Law*
*POWER PLAY: Supreme Court Could Help Obama by Hurting His Law*
*OPINION: What We Will Tell the Supreme Court About the Law*


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2011)

I think that even some of the liberal justices will join with a Court opinion that the mandate does not pass constitutional muster. A mandate such as this is reserved for the states and they would have to be comically stupid to try to write otherwise. But, then again, they are moonbats and can't help themselves.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

Every night Im praying for the health of every one of the conservative Justices....the others, not so much


----------



## Guest (Nov 15, 2011)

What will be the attempted end run around the inevitable ruling that deems Obamacare unconstitutional?

Executive order? Just ignore the ruling?


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Ignore the ruling I would say. I just hope the rulling is the right one.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

CBC.ca


Justices unlikely to have last word on health care The Associated Press - ‎4 minutes ago‎

WASHINGTON (AP) - President Barack Obama's historic health care overhaul divided the nation from the day he signed it into law, and that seems unlikely to change no matter how the Supreme Court rules on its constitutionality.


----------



## justanotherparatrooper (Aug 27, 2006)

Nice , Justice Kagan gets to rule on it and she was Obama's solicitor General advocating it...no conflict here folks, move along


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Politico


More Americans than not want health law repeal: poll Reuters - ‎2 hours ago‎

Opponents of the proposed health care bill are pictured during a rally outside the US Capitol Building in Washington, March 21, 2010.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Lawmakers, Broadcaster Request Camera in Courtroom for Health Care Hearing

WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. Charles Grassley and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi are joining C-SPAN's call to have cameras in the Supreme Court hearing room for the five-and-a-half hour arguments relating to the federal health care law. 
Grassley, of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday requesting that audio and video coverage be allowed in the landmark case.

Read more: Lawmakers, Broadcaster Request Camera In Courtroom For Health Care Hearing | Fox News​


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

I would watch it.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

MSP75 said:


> I think that even some of the liberal justices will join with a Court opinion that the mandate does not pass constitutional muster. A mandate such as this is reserved for the states and they would have to be comically stupid to try to write otherwise. But, then again, they are moonbats and can't help themselves.


I'm actually concerned about the exact opposite situation, the more conservative justices voting to uphold the individual mandate. Justice Scalia in particular has a lengthy track record of legislative deference.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

kwflatbed said:


> Lawmakers, Broadcaster Request Camera in Courtroom for Health Care Hearing
> 
> WASHINGTON  Republican Sen. Charles Grassley and House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi are joining C-SPAN's call to have cameras in the Supreme Court hearing room for the five-and-a-half hour arguments relating to the federal health care law.
> Grassley, of Iowa, the ranking Republican on the Senate Judiciary Committee, wrote to Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday requesting that audio and video coverage be allowed in the landmark case.
> ...


Why? So the media can take snippets out of context in order to portray the court as playing politics? No thanks.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Nov 21, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> I'm actually concerned about the exact opposite situation, the more conservative justices voting to uphold the individual mandate. Justice Scalia in particular has a lengthy track record of legislative deference.


Not when it concerns legislative interference with the Constitution (D.C. vs. Heller). Also, I don't think Scalia has forgotten Obama trying to lecture the justices at the State of the Union Address last year.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

I havent had health ins in about 3 months since the State cancelled it. What legal problems am I facing for not having it in Ma?


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

I just looked at my state return that we filed for last year. According to the instructions you won't have a penalty if your income is less than 150% of the federal poverty level (which looks like it's about $16k for a single person). If it is more than that; then, it depends on if you had insurance for part of the year and a few other questions.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> Not when it concerns legislative interference with the Constitution (D.C. vs. Heller). Also, I don't think Scalia has forgotten Obama trying to lecture the justices at the State of the Union Address last year.


Respectfully, that's apples and oranges. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power; the 2nd Amendment is a rights provision. Not all provisions of the constitution are created equal when it comes to how much congress may infringe on them.

The essential argument here is whether the government has the power to mandate individuals buy health insurance. While that may seem like an infringement of rights on it's face, the legal argument concerns only the federal government's power. The main reason the distinction is important is the level of scrutiny and deference the government then applies to the law at issue. With the commerce clause, little scrutiny and much deference is given; when dealing with rights the inverse is true.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> Respectfully, that's apples and oranges. The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power; the 2nd Amendment is a rights provision. Not all provisions of the constitution are created equal when it comes to how much congress may infringe on them.
> 
> The essential argument here is whether the government has the power to mandate individuals buy health insurance. While that may seem like an infringement of rights on it's face, the legal argument concerns only the federal government's power. The main reason the distinction is important is the level of scrutiny and deference the government then applies to the law at issue. With the commerce clause, little scrutiny and much deference is given; when dealing with rights the inverse is true.


10th Amendment.....if someone can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it gives power to the federal government to force citizens to buy an expensive product for their entire lives, I'd love to see it.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

I've never seen that part either. Then again though there is other stuff that we have that was never in there either though that does not make it right.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> 10th Amendment.....if someone can show me anywhere in the Constitution where it gives power to the federal government to force citizens to buy an expensive product for their entire lives, I'd love to see it.


I'm in agreement with you there Delta, but I believe only the Commerce Clause issue is being raised on the Supreme Court appeal.

An individual liberty argument has been raised by libertarian legal scholars like Randy Barnett and Richard Epstein, but failed to get any significant traction in the lower courts.

Wickard v. Filburn is the current outer limit of the Commerce Clause. If you don't think there were some rights infringed in that case, you need your head examined. Unfortunately, it's still good law and the jump to the individual mandate, while unprecedented, isnt a big one.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> I'm in agreement with you there Delta, but I believe only the Commerce Clause issue is being raised on the Supreme Court appeal.
> 
> An individual liberty argument has been raised by libertarian legal scholars like Randy Barnett and Richard Epstein, but failed to get any significant traction in the lower courts.
> 
> ...


I know there's a bunch of circuit court decisions being appealed.....who is taking the lead for the good guys?

Also, can the SCOTUS rule on an issue not raised at the hearing? For example, if the argument is the Commerce Claus, could the court say "Notwithstanding the Commerce Clause, the law in invalidated by the 10th Amendment"?


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> I know there's a bunch of circuit court decisions being appealed.....who is taking the lead for the good guys?
> 
> Also, can the SCOTUS rule on an issue not raised at the hearing? For example, if the argument is the Commerce Claus, could the court say "Notwithstanding the Commerce Clause, the law in invalidated by the 10th Amendment"?


They can but usually refrain from doing so as a matter of judicial restraint.

The problem with the 10th Amendment augment is that it only applies where the Commerce Clause ends. If The Court finds the mandate a valid exercise of interstate commerce, the power is thus considered delegated to Congress and the 10th Amendment is not implicated.

If you were going to argue an individual rights infringement, there are better avenues than the 10th Amendment IMO--5th Amendment substantive Due Process for instance.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Guest (Nov 22, 2011)

OfficerObie59 said:


> The problem with the 10th Amendment augment is that it only applies where the Commerce Clause ends. If The Court finds the mandate a valid exercise of interstate commerce, the power is thus considered delegated to Congress and the 10th Amendment is not implicated.


I know I'm a literalist when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, and I thus consider the Constitution to be superior to the Commerce Clause; unless the Constitution specifies that the federal government has the power to force citizens to buy something, then they don't have that power, and the matter is referred to the states and to the people.


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

Delta784 said:


> I know I'm a literalist when it comes to Constitutional interpretation, and I thus consider the Constitution to be superior to the Commerce Clause; unless the Constitution specifies that the federal government has the power to force citizens to buy something, then they don't have that power, and the matter is referred to the states and to the people.


Er...the Commerce Clause is in the Constitution...

The Commerce Clause is an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3). The clause states that the United States Congress shall have power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." It's a power delegated by the states to the Federal Government via the states ratification of the Constitution.

In constast, the 10th Amendment states that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the states by the Constitution are reserved, respectively, to the states or the people. (The 10th Amendment was written to dispell the notion that there are implied powers of Congress not specifically enumerated in Article 2 and subsequent amendments.)

There's the rub. If the Court decides Congress can require your participation in the market as a valid regulation of interstate commerce because your decision to not be insured may have an effect on such commerce, they would be exercising power pursuant to a power granted to the federal government--the 10th Amendment only applies to powers not granted to the Federal Government.

Read the summary of Wickard: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn The legal debate will hinge on whether like Wickard, ones refraining from participation in the market could be such a substantial effect on interstate commerce that Congress has the ability to regulate it. In Wickard, a farmer grew more wheat than allowed by a Federal Government New Deal programs' quota designed to increase wheat prices. Filburn's argument was that the amount he overgrew was only intended to be used on his own farm to feed his livestock. The Supreme Court ruled that he still violated a law that was a valid as an exercise of Congress' ability to regulate interstate commerce. Why? The court said that, first, Filburn would have had to otherwise purchase the wheat he overgrew on the open market and second, while his actions alone may not have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, if you aggregated the effect over all farmers who wished to grow wheat for use only on their farms, the effect would be substantial.

That will be the healthcare argument: that your lack of obtaining health insurance will possibly have detrimental effects on the market in the aggregate if you and everyone like you gets sick without health insurance. The part that's unprecedented is that Filburns act of growing wheat was an affirmative one, whereas you need do nothing more than park your ass on you couch and watch TV for the next three years to be in violation of the mandate. It punishes the pure inaction of not buying something, whereas Filburns affirmative action allegedly caused him not to buy something. Not big leap, but an unprecedented one nonetheless.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

how fucking whacked is this country when they take farmers to court for growing too much wheat ?

so if people opt out of osama's social medicine there won't be enough money to pay for his legions of welfare cheats and this is what the constitution protects ?


----------



## OfficerObie59 (Sep 14, 2007)

pahapoika said:


> how fucking whacked is this country when they take farmers to court for growing too much wheat ?


And that was in 1942.

The video below was jsut posted this morning and discusses this very issue. Prof. Tribe and Paul Clement are as good debaters as any. The part of Clements argument starting around 28:00 "thought expieriment" is beautifully made.

Fourth Annual Rosenkranz Debate: RESOLVED: Congress Acted Within Its Authority in Enacting the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Event Audio/Video » Publications » The Federalist Society


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Washington Times 
*Obama administration defends law on health care*
Detroit Free Press - ‎40 minutes ago‎

By Greg Stohr The Obama administration defended the 2010 health care law and its requirement that people obtain insurance, telling the US Supreme Court on Friday that the measure addressed a "crisis in the national health care market.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

*States oppose Obama healthcare Medicaid law*
Reuters - ‎1 hour ago‎

By James Vicini | WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Twenty-six states challenging President Barack Obama's sweeping healthcare overhaul filed a US Supreme Court brief on Tuesday arguing the law unconstitutionally expands the Medicaid program for the poor and ...


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Politico 
*Supreme Court won't hear arguments demanding Kagan's recusal from health care case*
Washington Post - ‎41 minutes ago‎

WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court won't hear arguments from a conservative watchdog group that wants Justice Elena Kagan disqualified from deciding the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's national health care overhaul.


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/wh-...sue-forcing-catholics-act-against-their-faith

*Wow.....*


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Washington Examiner 
*Why repeal key health care component?*
Politico - ‎28 minutes ago‎

A partisan House voted on Tuesday to repeal one of the most important components of our effort to provide long-term health care to the nation's senior population and people with disabilities.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Christian Science Monitor 
*Blunt amendment brings culture wars to Congress*
Christian Science Monitor - ‎14 minutes ago‎

The Blunt amendment would attach a provision to a key highway bill that would let employers opt out of a new federal health-care mandate for their employees if they have religious objections.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

USA TODAY 
*Obama Rallies Support for Health-Care Overhaul Ahead of Supreme Court Case*
Bloomberg - ‎59 minutes ago‎

While Supreme Court justices weigh the fate of the 2010 health-care overhaul late this month, the White House will help coordinate efforts to showcase the law's most popular provisions outside the court to blunt relentless Republican attacks.


----------



## SgtAndySipowicz (Mar 17, 2008)

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/whi...er-vigil-for-obamacare-outside-supreme-court/

*Shouldn't this read "White House holding vigil for redistribution of wealth".....?*


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

USA TODAY 
*Supreme Court dives into health care debate*
USA TODAY - ‎8 minutes ago‎

By Brad Heath and Richard Wolf, USA TODAY WASHINGTON - The Supreme Court opened three days of historic oral arguments on the fate of President Obama's health care law by skeptically questioning whether an 1867 law should bar them from even considering ...


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

CBS News 
*What's it like in line outside the Supreme Court?*
CBS News - ‎38 minutes ago‎

Kathie McClure, left, and Monica Haymond nap outside the Supreme Court building (Credit: CBS News) (CBS News) On the first day of the Supreme Court's oral arguments on President Obama's health care bill, approximately 20 people waited in line for ...


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Los Angeles Times 
*Supreme Court greets healthcare mandate with skepticism*
Los Angeles Times - ‎28 minutes ago‎

Justice Anthony Kennedy, seen as a possible swing vote, says the insurance mandate is 'concerning,' a troubling development for President Obama's healthcare law.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

Supreme Court justices are divided over whether all, some or none of Obama's health law should stand if the individual mandate, a critical part of the law that would require Americans to purchase insurance, is struck down.


*POWER PLAY: Big Trouble for Obama if High Court Creates Zombie Health Law* | *VIDEO: Court Ready to Pull Plug?*
*OPINION: 5 Reasons ObamaCare is Already Good for You* | *Reid: President Could Weather ObamaCare Ruling Either Way*
*uReport: Protesting the Health Care Law? Send Us Photos or Videos*


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

ABC News 
*SCOTUS-ACA Watch: Well, That Was Interesting*
Boston.com - ‎28 minutes ago‎

Some thoughts after three days of oral arguments before the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS) on the Affordable Care Act (ACA). First, we don't know what the full Court will do, and no one does.


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

It's going to get tossed like a jalihouse salad.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Justices to meet for secret vote on health care law*

While the rest of us have to wait until June, the justices of the Supreme Court will know the likely outcome of the historic health care case by the time they go home this weekend.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Obama Warns Court on Health Law*



_AP_
Confident federal health care overhaul will be upheld by Supreme Court, President Obama warns the 'unelected group of people' against overturning law, employing his strongest language yet.


*Howard Dean: Individual Mandate 'Not Really Necessary'*
*OPINION: Three Strikes and You're Out on Health Care, Mr. President*


----------



## 7costanza (Aug 29, 2006)

Man this guy loves demonizing people..first the oil industry who he then punished them with a ridiculous moratorium. Then Ins companies, then wall st now hes trying to make SCOTUS the bad guy when they shoot his mistake down. Next Al Sharptongue will be leading a protest outide their homes.


----------



## CJIS (Mar 12, 2005)

Washington Times 
*Obama flunks constitutional law*
Washington Times - ‎1 hour ago‎

For someone who once taught classes at a law school, President Obama doesn't seem to know much about the powers of the Supreme Court.


----------



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Study Claims ObamaCare Would Explode US Deficit*

Conservative economist says health care law will add billions to deficit, a claim the White House denies

*VIDEO: $500M Set Aside to Enforce ObamaCare? *


----------

