In what can only be characterized as a victory for the Obama administration, the Supreme Court handed down a 5-4 decision which basically upholds the The Affordable Care Act. Chief Justice Roberts wrote the majority decision and was the swing vote in the decision siding with the 4 left leaning justices. Conservatives.. do you feel betrayed by Roberts? Do you worry about what this might imply for future decisions from the Court?
sort by best latest
A sad day indeed. We sent a message in the last election and we will send another this election.
I wish you were wrong wayne but Roberts has blatantly neglected to protect the Constitutional protection of Americans and should be removed from office. This nation may well be headed for disaster if we don't change course. Time to pray hard!
In a way, this is hilarious. To actually put this law into affect they have to go and change the tax law, and my guess is the resulting tax law will be voted through Congress without being read. Funny in a sad sort of way.
It is indeed a very sad day, our freedom is at stake and has been for quite some time! The government can now compell us to buy thier lousy insurance, America has surcome to tyranny!
Do you prefer to give free healthcare to immigrants and "free riders"? Fyi: This bill does not affect you if you have medical insurance through your employer. It does not affect you if you have Medicaid or Medicaid.
That isnt going to happen and is an extreme exaggeration.! This bill is intended to be affordable hense the name "affordable care act". It is designed to specifically help those that are uninsured due to "preexisting conditions". Pls read the bill!
You'll be surprised when you read about RomneyCare.... It's shockingly similar to Obamacare!
There is a fundamental difference between RomneyCare and ObamaCare that should not be overlooked. RomneyCare is a State level care system. ObamaCare is a federal level care system. I believe Romney favors States choosing their own system.
You are severely mistaken my friend, the real issue is to uphold the 1st amendment which the court did.
Sure it did. You're right. A corporation, as a collective financial venture with the singular goal of making money for its investors, is entitled to all of the same rights as any citizen. That's just what Madison had in mind with the 1st Amendment.
Corporate personhood is "straw man" argument. The point is that speech not the speaker is what is protected by the first Amendment.