Obamacare upheld? Yawn!

Yes, I’m still here. Been far too busy with other matters to blog. With today’s SCOTUS ruling on Obamacare, I just had to quickly weigh in. No one should be surprised. Not with precedent in place. Just last November in the Susan-Seven Sky v. Holder decision, Conservative Judge Laurence Silberman upheld the individual mandate as applicable under the Commerce Clause. I made mention of it last year in the comments of a post when I predicted Obama would win the SCOTUS case today. Today, Chief Justice Roberts took the Social Security precedent route and ruled the individual mandate is just another tax which I discussed here as well.

That’s all we need to know. SS came about in the 1930’s advertised as not a tax. Without question it is just as Obamacare will be remembered as. Simple revenue producing tax redistribution schemes dressed up as a benefit to the American people. Romney claims his job on day one is repeal of Obamacare? Please! It’s here to stay folks.


4 thoughts on “Obamacare upheld? Yawn!”

  1. Damn!!! I thought you were dead. I should have known you were sitting back snickering at the rest of us who are still blogging as if we were making a difference. Glad to hear from you, my friend. I hope all is well.

    I thought America was seriously wounded when the Patriot Act was passed. Today’s decision by SCOTUS may end up being a fatal wound. It pisses me off that my grandchildrren will have to pay for the health care of baby boomers for the next thirty to forty years. That’s what they call social justice.

    Don’t be such a stranger.



  2. Good to hear from you. I think there is more to this than meets the eye. The more that people get into the actual decision, more is going to become clear. Roberts might just have been protecting the Constitution, and hurting Obama.

  3. I should have known you were sitting back snickering at the rest of us who are still blogging as if we were making a difference

    LOL! Don’t sell yourself short, my friend. It may be preaching to the choir for the most part, but that’s needed as well. Keep up the good fight!

  4. Thanks Matt. Got your site looking good. I think the Robert’s decision will be debated for many years to come. My first inclination is not good even if eventually costs Obama. He shouldn’t be redefining the definition of the word penalty. We all know it’s a tax, but he should have struck it down based upon the wording, not redefining the word to fit his decision.

Comments are closed.