Obamacare Vs. Supreme Court

Red sonja

Wm. Hennessy Jr./CourtroomArt.com

“We have come a long way trying to KILL THE BILL since August of 2009, to no avail. It has continued to resurrect. We deemed the Health Care Bill immoral in July 2009 and have known of its pending economic doom for some time now. And yet the Bill hangs on like a nasty booger.” I wrote this on Friday, March 19, 2010 just days before it was signed into law.

The 2010 election was a loud and clear cry from the American people that ObamaCare was not only forced, but not embraced, by the mainstream. The result was a Republican majority in the House. Harry Reid was able to hang on to his seat, even with the high unemployment rate in his state of Nevada, leaving the Senate still under the control of the Democrats. We must not forget that ObamaCare was the driving force of the 2010 election and that it should still be a force in removing Obama from office.

Much has been speculated about the Supreme Court hearings of the last three days. The Obama Administration’s representative Stephanie Cutter bristled when asked about the possibility that the Affordable Care Act would be over turned. Actually she reminded me of an angry porcupine. The Affordable Care Act ruling will be of historic significance and will have a tremendous impact on our already polarized society. The Liberal media, before the ruling, is claiming that the Supreme Court Justices are just ‘political actors wearing black robes’. It looks like a new blame game is taking shape just in time for the November general election.

In 2010 Obama told the American people that his Affordable Care Act would give immediate tax credits to small businesses, that there would be no pre existing conditions, that insurance companies could not drop you if you were sick, that there would be no life time limits and that there would be ‘free’ preventative care. He further said that young adults would stay on their parent’s policy until the age of 26 and that seniors would receive $250.00 for prescriptions. On the other hand American Solutions, which is now defunct, explained that there would be half a trillion dollars in Medicare cuts, dramatic expansion of government, and raise taxes by more than 500 billion dollars and taxpayer funded abortion coverage and corrupt backroom deals to buy votes. It has been noted that the CBO underestimated the cost of the Affordable Care Act by over 100 billion dollars. And still the Liberal zombies follow Obama.

The audio arguments from March 26 – 28 are listed below so that you can personally listen to the Justices of the Supreme Court and the arguments of both Donald Verrilli, Jr defending the Affordable Care Act and Paul Clement representing the 26 states who are suing the Department of Health and Human Services. The Supreme Court ruling will not be announced until late June. In the meantime, we must seriously think about the consequences if the Affordable Care Act is upheld. It must then be repealed by congress but not having a majority in the Senate would be near impossible to pass. Or, shutter to think that Obama is reelected then ObamaCare is law forever! We must pray that the outcome benefits the American people.

Department of Health and Human Services v. Florida

JUSTICE SCALIA: The argument here is that this also is -- may be necessary, but it's not proper, because it violates an equally evident principle in the Constitution, which is that the Federal Government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers; that it's supposed to be a government of limited powers. And that's what all this questioning has been about. What -- what is left? If the government can do this, what -- what else can it not do?

JUSTICE KENNEDY: And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases, and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in a very fundamental way.

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: I think you're posing the question I was posing, which is that doesn't apply to a lot of what you're requiring people to purchase. Pediatric services, maternity services. You cannot say that everybody is going to participate in the substance use treatment market and yet you require people to purchase insurance coverage for that.

GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, Justice Scalia, what the -- two things about that. First, as it seems to me, what matters is what power Congress was exercising. And they were -- and I think it's clear that the -- they were exercising the tax power as well

JUSTICE SCALIA: You're making two arguments. Number one, it's a tax; and number two, even if it isn't a tax, it's within the taxing power. I'm just addressing the first.

GENERAL VERRILLI: What the President said –

JUSTICE SCALIA: Is it a tax or not a tax? The President didn't think it was.

GENERAL VERRILLI: The President said it wasn't a tax increase because it ought to be understood

MR. CLEMENT: And that’s exactly why I think it’s very important for this Court to think seriously about taking an unprecedented step of saying that the commerce power not only includes the power to regulate, prescribe the rule by which commerce is governed, the rule of Gibbons v. Ogden; but to go further and say it’s not just prescribing the rule for commerce that exists but is the power to compel people to enter into commerce in the first place.











Representing the 26 State suing the Department of Health and Human Services

Donald Verrilli Jr.
Representing the Obama Administration


Make sure to check out the comments on Facebook.


© 2015 TexasGOPVote  | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy