Judge rules Obamascare unconstitutional.

[sandie]

Originally Posted by coadie

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-04/p..._s=PM:POLITICS

And she was appointed and confirmed...why?

Wish I could split on nearly 50% of my work and still get paid...for life...no matter what! What a racket!

[Ferd]

QUESTION FOR BARON!!!!

As I understand this, the dems failed to add a rider to the bill that states if any part of the bill is deemed unconstitutional, the rest of the bill remains in effect.

is that true?

[Ferd]

The important thing to remember is this ruling simply gets the bill closer to the Supreme Court where it will really be decided.

and at the end of the day, it is very likely that Anthony Kennedy will be the sole judge that matters.

Dear Lord, keep him alive and keep him in a "right" frame of mind! LOL

[Baron1710]

Originally Posted by Ferd

QUESTION FOR BARON!!!!

As I understand this, the dems failed to add a rider to the bill that states if any part of the bill is deemed unconstitutional, the rest of the bill remains in effect.

is that true?

"Obamacare has no severability clause. [What]That means is that if any one part of Obamacare is found unconstitutional, then the entire law might be thrown out in court by a single decision. It doesn’t mean that it would definitely happen, but it might."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/...#ixzz186j7vJgZ

[Sam]

Originally Posted by Ferd

The important thing to remember is this ruling simply gets the bill closer to the Supreme Court where it will really be decided.

and at the end of the day, it is very likely that Anthony Kennedy will be the sole judge that matters.

Dear Lord, keep him alive and keep him in a "right" frame of mind! LOL

but it will probably be two or three years before this thing ever gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, if it ever does.

[coadie]

Originally Posted by Sam

but it will probably be two or three years before this thing ever gets to the U.S. Supreme Court, if it ever does.

They can call for an expedited hearing. Granny standing in her bath robe waiting for a refill on her meds is a picture I have in my mind. Her doctor is cutting her off because of "reimbursement" issues.

[Jermyn Davidson]

Originally Posted by Baron1710

He owns stock in a company that is a consulting firm that has nothing to do with the case he heard.

Selectively choosing the clients of the consulting firm is a bit misleading. They exist to help organizations make theirpresence known and solicit money on the web. organizations like:

George Mason University
Homeownership Alliance
National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund
National Organization on Disability
National Pork Producers Association
National Realtors Association
Northern Virginia Urban League
Oregon Restaurant Association
Saint Luke's Hospital
Small Business Survival Committee
The Reform Institute (headed by John McCain)
United Cerebral Palsy Association
U.S.O.
West Virginia Breeders Classics

This company does not benefit in anyway from his ruling. He does not control the company, he made investments in a company (the claims that he owns substantial interest seem misleading as well) that has a broad range of interest. Considering the complaint being made against him he would have to withdraw from every case involving restaurants, hospitals, institutions of higher learning, small businesses, politics, law enforcement, pigs, disability, etc.

Thanks for clearing this up for me.

I do feel better now.