Capitol Hill Blue Forums Hot Topics & Breaking News News Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid'

It doesn't matter that it hasn't happened yet, because like that fictional asteroid, it will. I admit that people do not have health insurance who need it. But what this law suggests is that I should give up my freedom of choice and allow the government to impose its will upon me and my family with a theoretical limitless regulatory power. I am paranoid at times, but in this I am clear eyed and certain; if this is passed the government will find new and inventive ways to force Americans to purchase. What immediately comes to mind is wind and solar power, maybe the cell phone example that the Chief Justice brought up.

It doesn't matter that you believe it hasn't happened yet, because it actually has. The EPA is an all powerful entity who can destroy people at its whim, can create rules without input from Congress and can crush any industry it wants. But you believe that the Federal government wouldn't use that newly appointed power?

One more thing, this cuts both ways. Imagine, if you will, that the mandate is held Constitutional and a Republican as radical and partisan as Obama takes power with a friendly congress. I shudder to think of four more years of Obama, I shudder even more when I imagine four years of somebody like Rick Santorum. You might think it would never happen, but a well place scandal a month before the election would kill any sitting President, or another financial meltdown, or maybe some other unknown event that would turn the country off and put the challenger in office.

I place my trust in the people and do not trust the Federal government.


BTW:
Social Security is a pyramid scheme that if you or I tried to run one, with the same rules and payouts, we would be thrown in jail. The premise of more people were going die than collect was lost years ago and that makes the fund unsustainable.

NW,
We are talking about a very small percentage of the population. Also, if fearing the government ability to abuse power makes me self-centered, then I guess I am self-centered. It would only take a decision by my boss to make me unemployed and at my age it would be hard to find a job that even pays close to what I am earning today. Still, if it were all to happen, I would not place my trust in the government.

Find another way (I seem to remember having this conversation before). This one is unacceptable.

Stockholm syndrome
"In psychology, Stockholm Syndrome is an apparently paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm Syndrome."

27%... Say, isn't that the exact number of people who self-identify as Reeps? The same people who can't recognize that they are being screwed by the oil and insurance companies?

They are also NOT EXEMPT from exercising incredible power to alter American government policy based on it's dominate philosophical leaning.

Partisanship games in the Supreme Court is dangerous. But unfortunately, they are real. Decisions based on politics as we all know - distorts and/or circumvents the fundamental purpose of the Court's existence. To me...THIS IS STUPIDITY and HORRENDOUS DISHONESTY.

If Justices have as much trouble trying to interpret laws as they relate to the Constitution - as people trying to interpret religious doctrine...we are in a world of s***.

I thought it was interesting that some of the justices thought it was asking too much of them to read the law that they are deliberating on. While I see their point in not working it over in a "line item veto" fashion, they still need to read it. Who do they think they are, Congressmen?

LT...too much of a hassle.

The masquerade in this matter is: It's obvious that the Conservatives want the entire Act thrown out...not just the mandates.

There is a whole lot of stupidity going on - but not so much by Congress. It's the electorate who are stupid by not holding government accountable for their actions. The electorate need to let Congress know...if you don't know what the hell the full content of bills are (so we also know), which up for being enacted into law...then don't vote for them at all. In fact, don't create such complex bills to be enacted into law.

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!

The Justices on the other hand need to send Congress a message that says, "Tell us what the hell this law says before we even take on the challenge of deciding its constitutionality."

get your facts right at least

he was a farmer and was allocated 11 acres for wheat which he chose to ignore and planted 23 acres of wheat

one definition of farmer is one who makes a living growing crops or raising livestock ... i do neither but Filburn did

don;t confuse a Congressman with the SC ... it was the SC which expanded the definition of the commerce clause by laying it on Congress ... so if you think moonbats is the problem maybe you should be looking at the SC

The author of the article at this link provides as good a response as any to the inane, vacuous, and patently disingenuous argument that the ACA threatens our freedom and liberty.

Good God, Ma R there is so much rampant paranoia and downright inaccuracy in this last post it would take a tome the size of the now defunct Encyclopedia Britannica to catalog it all, much less refute it. Nonetheless, I will try a Cliff's Notes version of it, just so dispel the impression that I might agree with any of it, except this: "I place my trust in the people and do not trust the Federal government." I agree that you do, and how misplaced that trust is. After all, it was these people that installed the government you rail against...Well, I was wrong, I agree that what you propose is fiction, just like that asteroid.... and I accept your admission, that "I admit that people do not have health insurance who need it."In what way? You have lost no freedom of choice, and will continue to get whatever insurance your employer provides, although probably at a reduced cost, plus having he opportunity to ditch your employer's plan and get a new plan on an exchange market. How, exactly, is that limiting your choice, except in that fictional scenario you posit?
Again, a work of pure theoretical fiction, completely divorced from history, logic, or reality as it might be experienced by a normal human being not under the influence of psychedelic drugs....I'm sorry, I just about ruined my keyboard. There is nothing clear-eyed or certain except the apparent paranoia.
I don't know what the cell phone example the CJ came up with it, but there are plenty of science fiction authors from Philip K. Dick to Suzanne Collins that have dreamed up dystopian societies.... that are just as fictional, bizarre and unlikely.

ROFL. Seriously, Ma R. I really mean that. Seriously? The EPA is an all powerful entity bent on the destruction of industry? Any evidence of that? Any examples? Any fantasy scenarios where this has occurred?

- Now there you have a point, as we saw what GW Bush did with that authority for the first 6 years of his disastrous presidency - including the recession he gave to his successor. I happen to also agree that a Santorum presidency would make the Bush debacle measured by comparison. So there are some things that we agree on, except, of course, the object of your paranoia.

You may think that some of have swallowed the blue Kool-aide, but you are running the whole freaking Red Kool-aid stand!