Judge uses Obama’s words against him

Gunner

Potential Star
Registered
Laying the bait. Watch the pounce of the village idiots


http://www.washingtontimes.com/
r2386914024.jpg


Judge uses Obama’s words against him:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: DUMB AZZ


<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/EoSnqofelsQ" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>



In ruling against President Obama‘s health care law, federal Judge Roger Vinson used Mr. Obama‘s own position from the 2008 campaign against him, when the then-Illinois senator argued there were other ways to achieve reform short of requiring every American to purchase insurance.

“I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, ‘If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,’” Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page ruling Monday.

THANK YOU OBAMA FOR STATING THE OBVIOUS. THE VILLAGE IDIOTS WILL DEFEND HIM ANYWAY

Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.

The footnote was attached to the most critical part of Judge Vinson‘s ruling, in which he said the “principal dispute” in the case was not whether Congress has the power to tackle health care, but rather whether it has the power to compel individual citizens to purchase insurance.

Judge Vinson cited Mr. Obama‘s campaign words from an interview with CNN to show that there are other options that could pass constitutional muster including then-candidate Obama‘s plan.

During the presidential campaign, one key difference between Mr. Obama and his chief opponent, then-Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, was that Mrs. Clinton‘s plan required all Americans to purchase insurance and Mr. Obama‘s did not.

Congress eventually included the individual mandate in the bill it passed, and Mr. Obama signed that into law in March. Since then, he and his administration have defended its constitutionality, arguing the mandate is the linchpin that brings in more customers to insurance companies, which in turn allows those companies to expand the availability and lower the cost of coverage.

Much of Judge Vinson‘s ruling was a discussion of how the Founding Fathers, including James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, saw the limits on congressional power. Judge Vinson hypothesized that, under the Obama administration‘s legal theory, the government could mandate that all citizens eat broccoli.
SOUNDS FAR FETCHED BY THIS AN EXCELLENT POINT.
White House officials said that sort of “surpassingly curious reading” called into question Judge Vinson‘s entire ruling.

“There’s something thoroughly odd and unconventional about the analysis,” said a White House official who briefed reporters late Monday afternoon, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/7AOJBiklP1Q" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>
 
Last edited:
<iframe title="YouTube video player" class="youtube-player" type="text/html" width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/LgQUhDHP7UI" frameborder="0" allowFullScreen></iframe>




obamacare1.jpg
 
Don't we mandate that everyone "buy" housing for prisoners? Aren't we all mandated to buy B22 bombers that kill innocent children?

The list goes on and on. There's plenty which Americans are required to buy; they just generally receive nothing tangible for their purchases.
 
So let me get this straight, somehow this judge doesnt know the difference between campaigning and actually winning the presidency then telling your opponent to hop on, and the judge thinks there is not going to be some compromise when they finally get it straightened out....

not for nothing but, is this judge the village moron.... you do know a lot of judges pay for their seats.... not saying he did, just saying...

just because you have the title of juge dont mean you earned it..

Hello Hillary is now in Camp Obama, she does have a say in what goes down being the secetery of state, and from the begining Obama said, he will make mistakes and be willing to listen to all sides, which he has done....

He passed healthcare and at the end of the day, it aint going anywhere....

folks need to get over the fact that a black man is getting things done....
 
NO MANDATE: COSTS WERE OFFSET BY FORCING THE MARKETS TO COMPETE AGAINST A PUBLIC OPTION

MANDATE: COSTS ARE OFFSET BY PROVIDING THE MARKETS WITH A LARGE POOL OF CUSTOMERS

If we had a public option, there would be no mandate. But noooooo ya'll let the GOP and insurance companies kill that idea :smh:
 
NO MANDATE: COSTS WERE OFFSET BY FORCING THE MARKETS TO COMPETE AGAINST A PUBLIC OPTION

MANDATE: COSTS ARE OFFSET BY PROVIDING THE MARKETS WITH A LARGE POOL OF CUSTOMERS

If we had a public option, there would be no mandate. But noooooo ya'll let the GOP and insurance companies kill that idea :smh:

True but don't let treacherous Democrats who are bought and paid for by health insurers, like Ben Nelson and Independent Joe Lieberman, who wouldn't support anything until it was watered down as much as possible.
This is a political decision more than based on any constitutional grounds and that's what the Republicans were hoping for: one of the many, many judges appointed by Reagan/Bush/Bush II to find against the reform measures.

Still waiting on a Republican alternative. They didn't like insurance reform with a public option. They didn't like it without. They don't like the mandate, even though it's their idea. They don't like rescinding the health insurers anti-trust exemptions. They don't like expanding Medicaid to people 55 and older.
So what do they like?
 

i was against it once i found out that there would be a mandate w/o a public option.
 
Im personally against a government mandate to purchase anything,

but I also understand politics, and the fact that we have three branches of government that are ALL run by money regardless of the party affiliation

The public option was the best for the majority of the population, but there is value in the bill that was passed

The smarter thing to do imo, is to IMPROVE it, where it has issues, dont repeal it and start all over for goodness sake...
 
Back
Top