So Obamacare is in front of the Supreme Court this week. You know, Obamacare, the law the helpful "Democratics"
shoved down your throat passed with every Republican voting against.
That's right, all huge laws that effect the freedom of every single person in the country should pass on partisan votes right? Hey, majority rules, assholes. I think it passed the house by 12 votes ... out of 435. Can you imagine? Something this big being decided by a relative handful of morons -- probably lawyers? Unreal.
Anyway, Obamacare forces every individual to buy insurance (individual mandate.) And if you don't, there's a penalty. Ok, got that?
Obama felt so strongly about the issue that he even cut an ad attacking Clinton for her support of the individual mandate. "Hillary Clinton's attacking, but what's she not telling you about her health care plan?" the April 2008 ad asked. "It forces everyone to buy insurance, even if you can't afford it, and you pay a penalty if you don't." More here: (Gee, he sure makes that sound bad, doesn't he?)
Well, there it is, one of the hallmarks of the idiot-libs. Tell the sheep whatever they want to hear, get elected, and then start with the tyranny.
Yes, yes ... ever notice? Idiot-libs MUST always be telling you what to do. They must ALWAYS be
picking your pocket helping and "guiding" you to the new society they envision ... whether you want to go or not.
You'd think they would go and build their vision by themselves and then show everyone how great it is ... thereby luring new converts (and the concomitant monetary support) through the substance of their results. Yes, that would be logical ... but you'd be wrong. This is not how idiot-libs get money. Idiot-libs get money by using the power of government to take it off you, you greedy bastard.
So what about Obamacare? (I mean aside from the blatant hypocrisy Obama shows in the video.) You may recall from your school days that the federal government was designed to have very limited power. Why? Because the framers of the constitution KNEW there would always be
idiot-libs assholes who would steal your freedom if they could (for your own good of course.)
So they gave the government specific powers in the constitution. (Scholarly types call them "enumerated" powers.) And they reserved the rest to the states and/or people.
But Obamacare is a law that forces you to buy something you may not want ... just because you are alive. I don't agree that the government should be allowed to force you to buy car insurance either but at least you don't have to buy it if you don't own a car. Obama wants to force you to buy health insurance (but only if you're alive.) So the crux of the biscuit is this, if they can force you to buy something just because you're alive, then what limits are on the government? Answer? None.
Looks like we're not the only ones to see this. It seems the Justices in the Supreme Court have picked up on this. Tsk tsk, the idiot-libs were hoping the justices wouldn't notice ... drat the luck.
Justice Antonin Scalia asked the flailing Solicitor General Donald Verrillii: "Could you define the market? Everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli."
Chief Justice John Roberts queried: "So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services?"
Justice Samuel Alito jabbed: "All right, suppose that you and I walked around downtown Washington at lunch hour and we found a couple of healthy young people and we stopped them and we said, 'You know what you're doing? You are financing your burial services right now because eventually you're going to die, and somebody is going to have to pay for it, and if you don't have burial insurance and you haven't saved money for it, you're going to shift the cost to somebody else'. Isn't that a very artificial way of talking about what somebody is doing?"
Worst of all for Obamacare supporters, Justice Anthony Kennedy, always viewed as the swing vote on the court, sounded like one of the most sceptical of all. "The reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act," he said at one point. "In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. At other junctures he asked "Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?" and "So the Federal government says everybody has to join an exercise club?" More here:
Yes, in order for them to
twist use the commerce clause (an enumerated power) to justify their position, they must assume they have a right to create commerce out of thin air and then regulate it. That doesn't appear to be flying with the justices.