SCOTUS job is to determine whether what Congress does falls in line with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Overturning something for missing that mark is hardly the end of the world as we know it. Of course the left always cheers when the court makes up a living Constitution to justify whatever the left supports, but if it affirms gun rights as an indivdual right, not a collective one, the world is over.

Tomorrow could go either way. The court has historically been reluctant to limit the power of the Congress with regard to commerce, and seems to understand that, as the unelected branch, they should limit themselves. Still, the case rests on the incredibly stupid idea that health insurance is a unique product in the marketplace, unlike any other, so can't be treated like any other. If you buy that lie, then there is no limit on the Congressional power, from forcing you to buy vegetables (better health=lower insurance costs!) to buying a Volt (smaller cars=less greenhouse gas=better health=lower insurance costs!).

I know which way I wish they vote, but if a court can allow a Kelo vs New London, ie the theft of peoples property on the basis of higher tax collections=improvement in the "public good", they can vote for anything.

How can a person love healthcare in their own State but hate it for the other 49? Romney loves the individual mandateI don't! I'd rather have universal health care.

www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/the-daily-...

news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-pushe...

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_insurance_m...

Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

SCOTUS job is to determine whether what Congress does falls in line with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Overturning something for missing that mark is hardly the end of the world as we know it. Of course the left always cheers when the court makes up a living Constitution to justify whatever the left supports, but if it affirms gun rights as an indivdual right, not a collective one, the world is over.

Are you thinking about those pesky amendments such as: the 13th, the 14th, the 15th and the 24th? (Now the NRA is vowing to grade any democrat who votes against railroading Holder.)

Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

Tomorrow could go either way. The court has historically been reluctant to limit the power of the Congress with regard to commerce, and seems to understand that, as the unelected branch, they should limit themselves. Still, the case rests on the incredibly stupid idea that health insurance is a unique product in the marketplace, unlike any other, so can't be treated like any other. If you buy that lie, then there is no limit on the Congressional power, from forcing you to buy vegetables (better health=lower insurance costs!) to buying a Volt (smaller cars=less greenhouse gas=better health=lower insurance costs!).

I know which way I wish they vote, but if a court can allow a Kelo vs New London, ie the theft of peoples property on the basis of higher tax collections=improvement in the "public good", they can vote for anything.

I guess good health is not important to those who think they're superman.

Hello,

While I am interested in this *decision and I am for health care for all but *this plan is bad and needs to go down. Looking back I remember how the Dems tried to force this before Christmas. I remember Nancy Pelosi's commit. Just the way this was handled upsets me. They had to get it through before the Lame duck congress--and now we wait. We can do better.

love

Jun 27, 2012 -- 11:07AM, voice-crying wrote:

Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

SCOTUS job is to determine whether what Congress does falls in line with the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. Overturning something for missing that mark is hardly the end of the world as we know it. Of course the left always cheers when the court makes up a living Constitution to justify whatever the left supports, but if it affirms gun rights as an indivdual right, not a collective one, the world is over.

Are you thinking about those pesky amendments such as: the 13th, the 14th, the 15th and the 24th? (Now the NRA is vowing to grade any democrat who votes against railroading Holder.)

No. Those amendments were duly voted on in the manner proscribed by the Constitution. Roe v Wade, was not.

Jun 27, 2012 -- 10:19AM, aarroottoonn wrote:

Tomorrow could go either way. The court has historically been reluctant to limit the power of the Congress with regard to commerce, and seems to understand that, as the unelected branch, they should limit themselves. Still, the case rests on the incredibly stupid idea that health insurance is a unique product in the marketplace, unlike any other, so can't be treated like any other. If you buy that lie, then there is no limit on the Congressional power, from forcing you to buy vegetables (better health=lower insurance costs!) to buying a Volt (smaller cars=less greenhouse gas=better health=lower insurance costs!).

I know which way I wish they vote, but if a court can allow a Kelo vs New London, ie the theft of peoples property on the basis of higher tax collections=improvement in the "public good", they can vote for anything.

I guess good health is not important to those who think they're superman.
I don't think I am Superman, nor does anyone I know think that way. Healthcare has little to do with good health, rather the opposite, though there are certainly exceptions such as vacinations.