My post on our Facebook page against the Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare

[Chaim Ben Pesach]

בס''ד

Here is my post:

"The disgraceful Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare means that America will become a socialist nation next year if Barack Hussein Obama is reelected, G-d forbid. If Obama is reelected, America will no longer be a great nation."

http://www.facebook.com/welcomeback/requests/#!/pages/Romney-or-Obama-Join-the-debate/311901338901011

[muman613]

בס''ד

Here is my post:

"The disgraceful Supreme Court ruling on Obamacare means that America will become a socialist nation next year if Barack Hussein Obama is reelected, G-d forbid. If Obama is reelected, America will no longer be a great nation."

http://www.facebook.com/welcomeback/requests/#!/pages/Romney-or-Obama-Join-the-debate/311901338901011

You are 1000% right about this Chaim. Everyone I speak to cannot believe that the court allowed this kind of socialist coercion to go on. The government has no place sticking its nose into the health of the citizens of this country. The fed has surely overstepped its Constitutional mandate. There should be a storm of protest against this but the media is bending the populace over in order to insert the feds rod into our lives.

[Ithaca-37]

There were a couple excerpts of Roberts' decision posted on line, and lots of commentary.  Some are calling this a hidden victory, given that Roberts did not invoke the Commerce clause but cited taxation.  And I found it interesting that Roberts wrote something to the effect of 'It's not my job to protect the public from its own stupid financial choices in elected officials.'

But I get cold comfort from the bit about the Commerce clause, or in Roberts essentially saying that the public is free to financially enslave itself to the Feds.  As for the Commerce clause vs taxation, now the government can just impose a tax on anybody who refuses to (say) buy a Government Motors car.  Frankly, that's even more open to abuse than the Commerce clause now, thanks to Roberts.  Second, plenty of Americans are perfectly willing to enslave themselves and their neighbors to the Federal government, financially and otherwise.

37

[Rubystars]

now the government can just impose a tax on anybody who refuses to (say) buy a Government Motors car.

They'll impose a tax on people who want to drive "gas guzzlers" and basically force people to buy those hippy hybrids.

[Maimonides]

There were a couple excerpts of Roberts' decision posted on line, and lots of commentary.  Some are calling this a hidden victory, given that Roberts did not invoke the Commerce clause but cited taxation.  And I found it interesting that Roberts wrote something to the effect of 'It's not my job to protect the public from its own stupid financial choices in elected officials.'

But I get cold comfort from the bit about the Commerce clause, or in Roberts essentially saying that the public is free to financially enslave itself to the Feds.  As for the Commerce clause vs taxation, now the government can just impose a tax on anybody who refuses to (say) buy a Government Motors car.  Frankly, that's even more open to abuse than the Commerce clause now, thanks to Roberts.  Second, plenty of Americans are perfectly willing to enslave themselves and their neighbors to the Federal government, financially and otherwise.

37

There is no victory for conservatives here. It is a defeat, and we are on the highway to hell!