See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Comments

1. #1
   On September 13th, 2011 at 3:47 pm, letget said:

   Can the SC fast track this if the states ask them to do so on bhocare? We have mixed messages from several judges on this and it needs to get resolved before the election.
   L

2. #2
   On September 13th, 2011 at 3:53 pm, DonkeyHoatie said:

   letget, they did, and the request was denied.

3. #3
   On September 13th, 2011 at 3:58 pm, letget said:

   On September 13th, 2011 at 3:53 pm, DonkeyHoatie said:

   Thanks, I didn’t know this. How, then would the SC deal with this? After 2012 when the thing is in effect?
   L

4. #4
   On September 13th, 2011 at 4:01 pm, Hangfire said:

   I don’t understand. I thought you HAD to be a flaming Liberal to be a federal judge.

   Is this one left over from the Reagan administration? How old IS Judge Conner?

5. #5
   On September 13th, 2011 at 4:06 pm, J.J. Sefton said:

   You can thank G-d, and George W. Bush, for this man’s appointment to the bench.

   Time to fast-track this to SCOTUS before the next election please!

6. #6
   On September 13th, 2011 at 4:08 pm, bjc said:

   *I think the SCOTUS is right to let these lawsuits work their way through the system, as long as there are no obvious delay tactics, and then hopefully in the spring of 2012 they will hear the case and Obamacare will be history.
   *However, it is imperative to get a true conservative in the White House and to flip the Senate in order to repeal this law in its’ entirety; The country will not survive it, let alone 4 more years of P-BO!

7. #7
   On September 13th, 2011 at 4:10 pm, txvet2 said:

   SCOTUS think that they can avoid being political by kicking this can down the road past the 2012 election. They can’t.

8. #8
   On September 13th, 2011 at 4:17 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

   Excellent. Continue to establish good precedent.

9. #9
   On September 13th, 2011 at 4:17 pm, J.J. Sefton said:

   On September 13th, 2011 at 4:08 pm, bjc said:

   Absolutely. If this monster is allowed to take root, whether King Putt is crowned again (Lord forbid) or not, it will be the end of this country as we have come to know it.

   This is the single most important law that must be passed (full repeal) or decision that SCOTUS will make in our lifetimes, and among the top 5 in the history of the country. It will define the nation from then on; a constitutional republic or some sort of socialist welfare state in decline.

10. #10
    On September 13th, 2011 at 4:22 pm, hawkeye54 said:

    You can thank G-d, and George W. Bush, for this man’s appointment to the bench.

    Time to fast-track this to SCOTUS before the next election please!

    You bet, because if Barky is re-elected, he may be in the position of replacing another couple of justices in the coming years.

    Between a second term of Barky and a Supreme Court with a makeup like that, it’ll all be over for us.

11. #11
    On September 13th, 2011 at 4:38 pm, Flyoverman said:

    Meanwhile, totally unreported tonight on the evening news.

    Crikets chirping….

    White House Already Spinning Feared New York Loss

12. #12
    On September 13th, 2011 at 4:47 pm, JT said:

    Overheard in the White House:

    Judgements, we don’t need to stinkin’ judgements.

13. #13
    On September 13th, 2011 at 4:53 pm, dan708 said:

    What will the Supreme Court’s decision be? It’s best to try and make that a moot point next year by voting in a wave of people who will repeal the law in its entirety.

    This is the thing that makes me nervous about Rick Perry; will he actually PUSH FOR THAT? He strikes me as a career politician who wouldn’t rock the boat.

14. #14
    On September 13th, 2011 at 4:54 pm, olsantaroy said:

    Lost count. Have there been only three decisions, seems like more.

15. #15
    On September 13th, 2011 at 4:57 pm, Paratus said:

    The longer Obamacare stands, it seems to me, the harder it will be to repeal.
    Put it in the hands of the SC, I suppose, and hope for the best.
    The commerce clause, to some, can mean just about anything the Feds want to regulate or better said control.

16. #16
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:03 pm, Speakup said:

    This health corruption law seems to be more of a hot potato scenario between the courts and the House, you take it, no, you take it, We don’t want it, you take it, Merry Thanksgiving, you keep it.

    Meanwhile the days click by and the closer we get to Obamageddon.

    The President must be laughing his *** off.

17. #17
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:03 pm, plymouthacclaim said:

    My waiver is Amendment 10. Stick that in your libturd pipe and smoke it.

18. #18
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:12 pm, T-Bone said:

    One guy says it is. Another says it isn’t. Another says it is. Another says it isn’t. SCOTUS says they don’t want to solve the problem. WTF?

    How much do politics and personal agendas come into this? Sad.

    What is the truth anymore?

19. #19
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:18 pm, conservative hispanic said:

    It looks like SCOTUS will not be able to dodge this bullet, and they’ll have to rule on Obamacare BEFORE the election. Enough with the uncertainty. Obamacare might decide the election, one way or the other.

    Which will it be? Liberty, or slavery?

20. #20
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:38 pm, Blackstone said:

    Last week an appeals court in Virginia overturned a lower court judge and found the law constitutional

    Not true, Doug. From your link:

    “The judges said they could not rule on whether the mandate, due to take effect in 2014, was constitutional, but noted its importance and signaled apparent frustration that Virginia’s lack of standing prevented them from deciding the merits of the issue.”

21. #21
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:48 pm, happyscrapper said:

    It was my understanding that the SC would definitely be hearing this case in early 2012, definitely before the election. This must be resolved and they know it. If it is repealed, Obama is history. If it is not repealed, Obama is history. Yes, either way, he will go down in flames. He is toast. the vast majority in this country don’t want this horrible bill and don’t want Obama’s maxist policies either. The ONLY way this man will be re-elected is by fraud or martial law. If that happens, we will be in a civil war here and that should resolve it once and for all.

22. #22
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:57 pm, NJ-Aviator said:

    Hmmm…. Christopher Conner might be a potential Supreme court pick if his rulings are similar to this one. If Obama loses, there’s a decent shot that of the liberal judges will retire in the next four years. If one retires sooner…. block any appointment until Obama’s gone… and don’t allow a recess.

23. #23
    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:57 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:12 pm, T-Bone said:

    One guy says it is. Another says it isn’t. Another says it is. Another says it isn’t. SCOTUS says they don’t want to solve the problem. WTF?

    Reminds one of the Article II Section 1 issue, doesn’t it?

    One guy says Obama is eligible. Another says he isn’t. Another says he is. Another says he isn’t. SCOTUS says they don’t want to solve the problem. WTF?

    Barack Obama & E-Verify: SSA Record DOES NOT VERIFY

24. #24
    On September 13th, 2011 at 6:01 pm, letget said:

    I was watching Fox Cavuto and he had ‘the judge’ on to give his view on this. It seems that some running will do an eo to repeal bhocare. Well, according to the judge, it is law and an eo won’t un-do this? If this indeed fact, this needs to let the SC do this before 2012 to get this krap stopped. If they do side with America citizens?
    L

25. #25
    On September 13th, 2011 at 6:17 pm, sonerai32645 said:

    Sorry to say, I really think this law will stay. My dad was a doctor and Medicare and Medicaid put him out of business in 1966. I sudder what this goat rope type of law will do to all of us when it hits full time

26. #26
    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:19 pm, txvet2 said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 6:17 pm, sonerai32645 said:

    Sorry to say, I really think this law will stay.

    If we don’t win the Senate by a large margin, hold the House and win the Presidency, it will. Losing any one of the three will allow the more virulent parts of the law to take effect and after that it’ll more than likely kill the patient to remove the tumor.

27. #27
    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:19 pm, tre said:

    Obummer replied by jumping up and down and screaming, “I won! I can do whatever I want! How dare you defy me! ACORN is gonna hear about this!”

28. #28
    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:19 pm, txvet2 said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:19 pm, txvet2 said:

    That’s if SCOTUS doesn’t throw the thing out, of course.

29. #29
    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:26 pm, OK_Loyalist said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 6:01 pm, letget said:

    Michele Bachmann drove that point home very well last night in the debate. Looked for video in case anyone missed it, but not seeing it on YouTZube.

30. #30
    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:31 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    txvet2

    That’s if SCOTUS doesn’t throw the thing out, of course.

    All 4 conservative justices should vote against it.

    Sotomayor and Kagan are given yes votes, since there were put up by Barack.

    Ginsburg will probably vote for it just because it’s left-wing. Breyer may or may not do the same.

    Kennedy is the big question mark, but there seems to be a lot of precedent in favor of striking down Obamacare, even by some Clinton judges.

    For now I would expect a ruling of 5-4 or 6-3 against ObamaCare.

31. #31
    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:39 pm, txvet2 said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:31 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    For now I would expect a ruling of 5-4 or 6-3 against ObamaCare.

    Reason #1 why Obama can not be re-elected and given the opportunity to appoint another SC justice.

32. #32
    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:54 pm, happyscrapper said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:39 pm, txvet2 said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 7:31 pm, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    For now I would expect a ruling of 5-4 or 6-3 against ObamaCare.
    Reason #1 why Obama can not be re-elected and given the opportunity to appoint another SC justice.

    If this is brought to the SC in early 2012, as I have heard, then our biggest worry will be any “accidents” that happen to any of the conservative SC judges. They should get body guards and be closely watched until this issue is resolved. I am convinced that the regressives would resort to that kind of action to get their agenda through. Their past actions are proof that they will stop at nothing. If ANYTHING happens to one of those judges, there will be hell to pay, believe me. They may try it anyway…what do they have to lose?

33. #33
    On September 13th, 2011 at 8:01 pm, T-Bone said:

    The worst part about Obamacare isn’t even the law itself. It is the process that was used to enact it. Lies, deceit, political payoffs, passing it without even knowing what was in it, etc.

    It is political arm twisting that resulted in a very bad bill that doesn’t fix anything except to start us on the path to a one payer system of Universal care which was the whole intent anyway.

    Dems couldn’t be honest about that because they know the country would not accept it. So they lied and cheated to do it. Bad. Very bad.

    When a really bad process is validated, it sends a message that nothing is safe from corruption, political payoff, and idiocy.

34. #34
    On September 13th, 2011 at 10:26 pm, Blackstone said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 8:01 pm, T-Bone said:
    The worst part about Obamacare isn’t even the law itself. It is the process that was used to enact it. Lies, deceit, political payoffs, passing it without even knowing what was in it, etc.

    And my favorite part: being in such a mad rush to pass it even though it wouldn’t take effect till 2014.

    What’s even more infuriating, though, is that so few Republicans were willing to call the Democrats out on that very point and publicly and relentlessly demand an explanation for that.

35. #35
    On September 13th, 2011 at 10:29 pm, BK said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 5:03 pm, plymouthacclaim said:

    My waiver is Amendment 10. Stick that in your libturd pipe and smoke it.

    Nope. If you follow the court rulings, they’ve basically interpreted the 10th amendment to mean “the federal government cannot become a totalitarian state, but the individual states can!”

36. #36
    On September 14th, 2011 at 12:23 am, txvet2 said:

    On September 13th, 2011 at 10:29 pm, BK said:

    Nope. If you follow the court rulings, they’ve basically interpreted the 10th amendment to mean “the federal government cannot become a totalitarian state, but the individual states can!”

    Maybe I’m missing your point, but this seems over the top. The states are required to comply with the US Constitution, as well as their own.

    While each of the 50 states has its own constitution, all provisions of state constitutions must comply with the U.S. Constitution.

37. #37
    On September 14th, 2011 at 5:43 am, 123upnorth said:

    If social security has been deemed essentially unfundable, why would anyone think that having the government run and control the nation’s healthcare system is a good idea?

    What will happen when so many of the 18-64 demographic hits seniorship? When the public system gets backlogged, and the traditional market forces that current exist are non-existant, who will get treatment and who won’t. Will Americans accept a Canadian style healthcare system where some procedures receive more funding than others? Will Americans accept waiting lists for treatment that exceed one year?

    Sarah Palin was so right when she referenced Death Panels in her reaction to Obama’s attempted control of America’s healthcare economy.

    I would love to see a presidential ticket of Palin and Ron Paul. I know, I know, not going to happen, but it would be nice.

38. #38
    On September 14th, 2011 at 10:49 am, Straight_Talk_Luigi said:

    happyscrapper

    If ANYTHING happens to one of those judges, there will be hell to pay, believe me. They may try it anyway…what do they have to lose?

    After OKC and 9-11, I would hope that even the dysfunctional federal government would figure that one out.

39. #39
    On September 14th, 2011 at 1:08 pm, Blackstone said:

    On September 14th, 2011 at 5:43 am, 123upnorth said:

    I would love to see a presidential ticket of Palin and Ron Paul. I know, I know, not going to happen

    Mainly because the two of them would have irreconcilable differences over foreign policy and wartime measures.