El Zorro opines and strokes his chin with contemplation. He frequently sees things more clearly than El Gringo Viejo and must counsel him and a wide number of fellow members of the resistance to the evil Captain Pasquale.....
He writes within this secret tranmission:
I have found the following at Read excerpts from the Supreme Court's majority opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act:
He writes within this secret tranmission:
I have found the following at Read excerpts from the Supreme Court's majority opinion upholding the Affordable Care Act:
"Because THE CHIEF JUSTICE finds the withholding—not the granting—of federal funds incompatible with the Spending Clause, Congress’ extension of Medicaid remains available to any State that affirms its willingness to participate. Even absent §1303’s command, the Court would have no warrant to invalidate the funding offered by the Medicaid expansion, and surely no basis to tear down the ACA in its entirety. When a court confronts an unconstitutional statute, its endeavor must be to conserve, not destroy, the legislation."
What gives the SC the obligation to conserve legislation as unconstitutional as this? Possibly a “knee jerk” reaction but this is in my opinion absolute bull c**p!
The link to the Detroit Free Press (good compost) exposes the Supreme Court as shallow. They seem to have concluded the mandate had to be a tax because it couldn’t be anything else. Now let’s argue that it can’t be a tax on the basis that it cannot be a tax. I do appreciate that they do want to preserve the integrity of the commerce clause but do not for the life of me understand how a tax to compel purchase of anything we do not want or need to buy is constitutional. The question is, "Do I want or need to buy it. If in the affirmative I willingly pay the tax, otherwise I don’t buy it and don’t pay the tax. Is that too simple? Maybe I am so beside myself I am not seeing something that should be obvious or maybe not.
As far as Medicaid the SC states that the feds cannot withhold Medicare funding or expansion thereof only if the States agree to participate in the ACA. What State is going to give up that funding or promise of expansion to opt out? Methinks not many.
The Supreme Court shirked it’s responsibility and dumped it into the lap of the States which the feds will control with withholding of other funds. It’s time to secede from the union of the several states. The Union needs Texas but Texas does not need the Union.
(Waiting to see what happens to Eric Holder.)
