• The Heritage Network
    • Resize:
    • A
    • A
    • A
  • Donate
  • Obamacare Has Arrived in the Supreme Court

    The National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) stole a march on the Obama Administration this morning by filing a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court appealing the 11th Circuit’s Obamacare decision.

    The Department of Justice (DOJ) had announced on Monday that it was not going to ask all 11 judges of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals to review en banc the August 12 decision of a three-judge panel of the 11th Circuit that found the individual mandate unconstitutional. This opened up a path to an appeal by DOJ to the Supremes.

    However, with this petition, the NFIB jumped ahead of Eric Holder’s slow-moving DOJ (which until Monday had done everything it could to slow-walk this case filed by 26 states and the NFIB). The NFIB is obviously not appealing the three-judge panel’s opinion about the unconstitutionality of the individual mandate. But the NFIB is appealing the portion of the panel’s decision that held that the unconstitutional individual mandate could be severed from the Obamacare legislation.

    The NFIB is asking the Court to overrule this holding, since “Congress itself deemed [the mandate] ‘essential’ to the Act’s new insurance regulations.” Given that the 11th and 6th Circuits have issued “directly conflicting final judgments about the facial constitutionality of [Obamacare’s] mandate,” the case is one that the Court should obviously take up given its interest in eliminating conflicting opinions in the courts of appeal.

    What also differentiates this particular case from the many other lawsuits that have been filed against Obamacare is the “all star” lineup of Supreme Court litigators that the NFIB and the 26 states have lined up to argue their case before the Supreme Court. It includes Michael Carvin, a former DOJ official who has argued (and won) numerous cases before the Court; Gregory Katsas, a former DOJ official who was a clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas; Kevin Marshal, another former DOJ official and Thomas clerk; Hashim Mooppan, a former Justice Antonin Scalia clerk; and Randy Barnett, a nationally recognized constitutional scholar and professor at Georgetown.

    The lawyers for the states include Paul Clement, former Bush Administration Solicitor General; Lee Casey, another former DOJ official who clerked for Alex Kozinski, who is now the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit; and David Rivkin, another Supreme Court litigator with wide experience in the government, including in the White House and the DOJ.

    The government lawyers in the DOJ’s Office of the Solicitor General who will be arguing the constitutionality of Obamacare will have their work cut out for them.

    UPDATE:  Following the track of the NFIB, the states have also just filed a petition for certiorari with the U.S. Supreme Court in the 11th Circuit case.  In addition to appealing the severability issue, the states are raising two other issues: (1) whether Congress exceeded its enumerated powers and violated basic federalism principles by coercing the states into accepting Obamacare requirements by threatening to withhold all federal funding under Medicaid, which is the largest single federal grant program to the states; and (2) whether Congress can treat sovereign state governments differently from any other private employer when imposing invasive mandates on how the states provide state employees with insurance coverage.

    SECOND UPDATE: The Obama DOJ just filed a petition seeking certiorari by the Supreme Court in the 11th Circuit Obamacare litigation, following on the heels of the NFIB and the states. DOJ is appealing the lower court finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional. DOJ also claims that the challenge to Obamacare is barred by the Anti-Injunction Act, a federal law that prohibits lawsuits trying to stop the assessment or collection of a tax. This despite the fact that Congress and the Administration said on repeated occasions that the penalty imposed by Obamacare for not purchasing insurance was a penalty and not a tax (and nine different courts have found it to be a penalty, not a tax).

    The Spanish version of this article can be found at Libertad.org.

    Posted in Obamacare [slideshow_deploy]

    287 Responses to Obamacare Has Arrived in the Supreme Court

    1. It's showtime!!! Let's end this beast right now.

      • AzDebi says:

        I pray that God will help these people do what is RIGHT! If this does not get overturned, we are DOOMED!

      • CraigJCasey says:

        TN. I wish The good, and Obamacare, but if they stricken the individual mandate, and the health insurance companies will go through death spiral (quicker) because they will still have to cover every individual that applies, regardless of health. So that Obama will get his single-payer, from lack of options that he created.

    2. Norm Blake says:

      The Obama administration is holding a death watch on the Supreme Court. When Obama gets to appoint another Justice to the bench, he will probably consider the deck stacked well enough that he's willing to take a chance with this issue. But he wants to play the game on a friendly court to avoid completely sacrificing his signature "accomplishment", Obamacare.

      • canton says:

        I think what you said is Obama is trying to get his health care in by default by stacking the
        Court in his favor. If that is correct and it is accomplished that means we will essentially be living in a
        Dick-Tator republic.

    3. sailordude says:

      Hallelujah! We finally get our day in court! I can't wait till this monstrosity gets shot down. Now the question is will Obama listen to the courts ruling? Oh you just know they will go down kicking and screaming and bits and pieces of this will still be getting cleaned out years from now.

    4. Mark says:

      Perhaps I'm not seeing it in the article….but the title suggests that the case "has arrived". Does that mean that the Court has accepted the case? I don't think we've actually heard from the court yet, have we?

      • rjwendell says:

        Not even in session yet. They will be determining over the next month the cases they will work on.

    5. aflemin3 says:

      Finding that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, although it would be welcome in itself, would nevertheless represent a hollow victory for the conservative cause if the Court does not embrace the States' arguments on severability. I am pleased that the NFIB has rightly focused on this critical issue.

    6. Bryan Young says:

      Can we be real here??? Who, in their right mind, believes that the Supreme Court will overturn ObamaCare? The Supreme Court has gotten so far away from the original concept of an overarching Constitutional watch dog, to nothing more than an extension of biased federal judge appointees by which ever acting president and congress decides should sit.
      Sadly they will never base their decision on the merits of the constitution, but solely on the premise of who appointed me and how can I massage my decision to meet their goals.

      • Dave Lee says:

        I do.

        Clearly no precedent for this abomination. If the Feds can madate that everyone buy a health insurance policy of a certain type, then is there any product or service that the Feds could NOT mandate people buy?

      • CraigJCasey says:

        Bryan, I agree 100%, however the appointees once approved are there for life, so they are free to NOT return the favor. How they rule is a huge wildcard. Remember Judges are supposed to be impartial right? Wrong. Judges are human like the rest of us, including Supreme Court judges.

        The problem is they shoot down the mandate, private insurance companies will go onto a death spiral and Obama will get his single-payer. If they approve the mandate, the libs will get there huge expansion of Medicaid. So Either Way, Obama wins. It's a stacked deck .www.cobrahealth.com/Obamacare.html

    7. Frank says:

      Bravo NFIB. It's obvious that Holder's DOJ wanted to slow roll this thing past the election. Now the ruling will come out right in the middle of it. Bravo.

    8. Ric says:

      Drop this ridiculously unconstitutional debacle NOW….

    9. robtri93 says:

      We can only hope and pray that the Supreme Court upholds the constitution by denying the legality of Obamacare.

    10. ghostsouls says:

      It's a sad thing to have to say this, but someone needs to keep a watch on the liberal leaning justices and who from the white house, or obama's administration all have "lunch" with. It would not be the first time obama has sent his trolls to go have"lunch" with people on his behalf, then deny it later.

    11. Ben Dover says:

      The Supreme Court will have to rule on the case so they can find out what's in the case.

      • OreBetts says:

        If I remember rightly, there were other things included in the healthcare bill that had nothing to do with health or healthcare…… Education…. Student Loans etc. I wonder if the Supreme will pick their way through and leave bits and pieces of stuff that had no business being in a bill concerning healthcare or if they would (hopefully) toss the entire bill.

    12. JohnK144 says:

      I'm so glad to see this case move to the Supreme Court, mostly for the constitutional issue, but also for the political implications. If the court finds the law unconstitutional, it will create a manic reaction from the administration. If by chance the court upholds the law, it will create a groundswell of of opposition from Conservatives and Independents alike.

    13. bob says:

      This should be a no brainer, the govenrment cannot mandate you buy anything and because obamacare does not have a severability clause, when SCOTUS shoots it down, the whole thing has to be scrapped. Then you will see companies hiring again.

    14. concerned taxpayer says:

      This case is huge and let's hope scotus prevails in overturning this monstrocity of a bill that came into law under questionable jaw dropping circumstances.

    15. Pompey says:

      ….if mandates are approved by the Supreme Court the federal government will instantly have dictatorial power over the lives of American citizens that would rival any power exercised by Communist China or the old Soviet Union over its citizens……

    16. Mike says:

      This should be a slam dunk for the Supreme Court to Rule against the Government. If the do not, the constitution of the USA is rendered null and void.

    17. the other ken says:

      Good luck, we are counting on you to win this case.

      • eric says:

        you might be but theres a whole lot of us who are gonna revolt if the right keeps trying to take away our health care. Dont for a second think there is only one side to this issue. I'm hoping and praying for a victory for Obamacare

        • DMJ says:

          No one is trying to take away your healthcare. Obamacare is not health care. It is only; about health insurance. Who says you can't pay for your own health care? Are you a child or are you an adult? Adults take responsibility for themselves.

    18. No_BS_Zone says:

      Please forgive my ignorance but does this REALLY matter? From what I have heard, possibly erroneously, but the Federal Government has already implemented some of the tax provisions in the bill. If this is the case can we realistically expect the US Government to track down the various taxpayers and grant a refund? I seriously DOUBT that!

      What can we realistically expect as an outcome?

    19. Jason G says:

      Love it! Down with Obamacare!!!

    20. jack says:

      This case must be watched carefully.Will david, (they who opposes obama care)be able with one smooth stone, be able to slay Goliath of this artificial and usurpation of power?It is not a question of the INTENT of this mandate; certainly it is good if everybody had healthcare, the real question should be: is it right??? Surely it is good if everybody had a nice home to dwell in, with obamas logic, everybody MUST have a home. If so, how big? Where? etc. This court case should really be decided instantly by a well ordered mind, but it will not. choose not to purchase health care. It is MY choice.

    21. jack says:

      The government has no more right to demand healthcare or a home, any more than they have a right to command what COLOR car one drives. Oh wait, the verdict has not yet been given that all drive a GM car yet…The stage has long been set for these invasive traps: dui checkpoints where there is no probable cause, the mindless sitting at a red light at 5 am when there is no traffic for miles,the strip searching of innocent people, etc, all are part of an orchestrated attempt to frisk U.S. citizens of life aNd liberty. Watch the verbal machinery of the worshippers of Obama as they try to argue the fallacious correctness and necessity of government demanded healthcare. Once the gate of this road is opened, it will be a continual downhill spiral of degradation. By the way, I have solid employment, and I

      • eric says:

        but it does command you to have car insurance if you do drive so there.

        • DMJ says:

          No, the Federal Government does not command you to have car insurance. The states do, and only if you drive. Even if you do have car insurance, you can buy the bare minimum, liability. You do not have to have the Cadillac plan.

    22. Awakened says:

      The very civil peace rests upon the decision to be made by SCOTUS. I hope they find Obamacare unconstitutional on it's merits. If they don't, all bets are off. The government will have no boundaries any longer. From there, the road is dark.

    23. Obamaisatraitor says:

      Great news. Congress normally includes a clause in a bill which says in effect if one part of the bill is found unconstitutional the remainder of the bill goes in to law. In the case of Obamacare, this clause was intentionally removed from the bill. You can tell which judges DID NOT READ THE BILL to see this fact. Only the smart guys who are fighting Obamacare have pointed this out. The simple question is, if this is not found unconstitutional and thrown out, what CAN'T the government force us to buy. In 2011 and 2012 a lot of funding has already made its way through the House to create the bureaucratic monstrosity (200+ agencies). We need the Supreme Court to rule. Sadly, the administration will likely pass it as an executive order if it is ruled unconstitutional because they could never get it through Congress again. Democrats have controlled the Congress since 2007 and can't even pass a budget in three years which conveniently hides the implementation costs of Obamacare right now.

    24. jeffstevens says:

      NOW we're talking… I've got a whole new "Hero's List". Go get 'em, Tiger(s)! This country ain't dead yet! We can put down this stab at socilaized medicine. We can deregulate business. We can take the teeth out of the EPA. We can convince the banks that their path back to prosperity is to NOT to sit on the money BUT to lend it out. The damage this administration has done by its spending to mitigate the damage done by the spending by George Bush, can be reversed. WE CAN WIN!

    25. LeftCoastRighty says:

      Game on!

    26. Guest says:

      The original Legislation failed to include a Severability Clause , therefore let the whole bill go down. Besides, there are punitive taxes inside this bill, such as the Gov't taking a 3% tax from the sale of a person's home after 2012….We don't need this Bill, its punitive infringement into every aspect of our lives , more redistribution , and we don't need any more damage done to an already weak housing market.

    27. Jim says:

      I hope the judges use the law and not their activist ideals to come to a conclusion! IT is UNCONSTITUTIONAL FOR GOVERNMENT TO MAKE ME BUY ANYTHING!!!

    28. Pdaddy says:

      This isn't a question of constitutionality. Everyone knows it is not; especially the congress which is primarily made up of lawyers. The question is does the administration, the courts, and some of the members of congress acknowledge the constitution as being the supreme law of the land. That too is fairly obvious.

    29. Bill in Tennessee says:

      Hallelujah, it is PAST time to bring this to SCOTUS. One can only hope that the adults on the Supreme Court (and by that I discount Kagan and Sotomayor) will see how this bad bill conflicts with the Constitution at many different levels. I can't help but feel that — between Tea Party wins, Obama's failing poll numbers, and now Obamacare being given its proper judicial review — we are seeing the opening salvos of a revolution in this country, a tectonic shift back from the "progressive" abuses of the last few decades. I hope it is a shift that continues for the next 50 or 60 years, and that this country can once again regain its stature in the world and the Bright City on the Hill.

    30. Kris says:

      Good news! I'm surprised to hear that the White House isn't dragging its feet anymore. We need a ruling on this matter ASAP so that we know whether the Constitution is still a meaningful restraint on federal power. Or as Nancy Pelosi's press office put it after her "Are you serious?!" remark, does our government claim "essentially unlimited" power over us?

      It's also interesting to compare the ObamaCare supporters' constitutional argument to England's Declaratory Act of 1766, by which Britain claimed authority "to bind the colonies in all cases whatsoever". Back then, the colonists found it revolting.

    31. carmen says:

      smart move by the White House. They were sure a lost in the 11 circuit and did not want the bad publicity coming out on another lost.

    32. Spock says:

      Kagan needs to step down for this!!! she help write the law!!!

    33. amamagrizzly says:

      Let us pray that OBamacare will be disintegrated…. and the USA and the Constitution wins. I have faith that the Supremes will do just that!

    34. chaz54 says:

      Come on SCOTUS. Do your job. Do not sit on the bench and make new laws, look at this mandate that was shoved down our throats and throw it out.
      You do this SCOTUS and we witll throw out obama/biden in Nov '12….the perfect trifecta!!!

    35. sprdthewrd says:

      Justice Sotomayor MUST recuse herself. She has conflicting interests in this case as former Solicitor General for the Obama Administration

    36. docsyracuse says:

      Dr. Howard Dean told his party the individual mandate would be a problem. They didn't listen. And now he is proven right.

    37. Revolution will occur once ObamaCare is imposed upon the good people of the United States of America. Illegal aliens will be given free health care whereas bonafide citizens will be denied. All levels of government will need to be razed in order to reaffirm the rights given by the Constitution.

    38. Uncle Sam says:

      Will Sonia Sotomayor recuse herself?

    39. HRMan says:

      All right! Lets get this show on the road and make a decision…one way or another! I think the resolution of the matter will not only have a profound impact on what type of government we citizens are wiling to put up with, but will serve to define what type of country we really are.

    40. DonM says:

      Since the Constitution gives the federal government no power over medicine, Obama care is unconstitutional on its face.

      The legality doesn't mean much. The federal government has no enumerated powers over Education, Labor, Agriculture, Labor, Housing and Urban Development, or Health and Human Services. If legality meant anything, the departments would be defunded today, employees would be fired, legislators who voted to fund them would be jailed, lawyers who represented them would be disbarred. Employees would have their wages subject to clawback, and the tax payers would be paid damages.

    41. Ralph Gizzip says:

      Will Justice Kagan recuse herself from hearing this case? After all, she was Obama's legal counsel during its creation. We mustn't have the appearance of a conflict of interest now, can we?

    42. Neo says:

      Here's hoping the Supremes put an end to this monstrosity know as Obamacare before it does any more damage to the country.

    43. Posting this in honor of my late father who worked for the NFIB for many years. Dad, your work is paying off :)

    44. Barry says:

      Kudos to the NFIB for taking the initiative that the DOJ refuses to take! It's about time someone sped this process up a bit. The Supreme Court must decide this in the new session starting next week. Of course a decision won't be announced until next summer, but that's right before the party conventions and later the actual election in Nov. God bless America!

    45. johnrae says:

      Bring it!

    46. Guest1 says:

      This atrocious law has to go. Pelosi was correct in saying that the bill will have to be passed to see what is in it. Which is totally ridiculous!! Now that it has been passed, some of the things in the law are just such an invasion of privacy by the feds that it just cannot stand. Come on supremes…kill this law!!

    47. Out with Obama says:

      Let's roll!! In order for this country to get back on track we must undue the devastating policies and legislation that has been inflicted on this country by the Charlatan of Chicago. Revolking the affirmative action president's key legislative achievement (Obamacare) is a great start.

    48. Dryden01 says:

      Hopefully the Obama Administration will not come to the conclusion that the agricultural community is threatened unless we are forced to buy broccoli.

    49. Bob says:

      Elena Kagan should recuse herself as per Federal statute 28 U.S.C. 455. If she does not this warrants her impeachment.

    50. Alan says:

      Here's where the SCOTUS gets payback for the President's scolding comments at the State of the Union Address. All they have to do is refuse to hear the case. Probably won't happen, but it will sure be interesting to see if they do.

    51. flashprism says:

      I am anxious to see this piece of socialist garbage thrown in the trash. What a legacy this fool will have if in fact, as I hope, it is found unconstitutional. He has shoved this down our throats, shut down offshore drilling, allows the EPA to run wild with non legislative mandates, threatens the job producers with confiscation of their incomes and then doesnt understand why unemployment is so high.
      Immature and totally unsophisticated is the child leader and his supporters. I hope we can make it till November of next year when a real leader with common sense will take charge. This will be anyone of the current republicans via for this fools Job!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    52. PittsburghRogue says:

      i hope this is heard before the elections, it will certainly be the final nail in the Obama Re-election coffin. Freedom will prevail!

    53. TomTurkey says:

      At this point, is there anything that can be done about getting Obama's recent appointees to SCOTUS to recuse themselves from hearing and judging this case?

    54. JLL says:

      As long as Justice Kagan, recuses herself for being intricately involved in crafting the defense of Obamacare while serving in her role as Solicitor General under Pres. Obama, liberty should get a favorable ruling by the Supremes.

    55. Chuck47 says:

      The court will deem this monstrosity unconstitutional one month before the 2012 election sealing the fate of the democrat party.

    56. rockyroad says:

      Taxing to pay for medical insurance is constitutional but mandating you buy anything from a private company is not. What is next? You are told to buy solar panels for the good of us all or electric cars or millions of items deemed to be good for the welfare of society just does not hold water in a land of the free!

      • Darren says:

        Taxing to pay for medical insurance is NOT constitutional….it is not the governments job to help or provide anything for the people except defense from other countries, roads and infastructure! Social security was unconstituional just like Perry implied.

    57. mb7725 says:

      Well its about time !!!!! Lets hope the Supremes see the urgency and fast track this. Or better yet rule on it next August or Sept. I just dont see any way this can be upheld.

    58. mellers43 says:

      Wow… the "Moment of Truth"! Will we remain a representative democracy, or become another third world socialist state on the crap heap of history. I pray to God they get it right.

    59. brotherska says:

      The Obama Administration should have examined the Barbados model – Universal and unlimited health-care with a parallel private sector solution without a health insurance mandate. Holder has family links to Barbados and could have advised the Administration.

      Deliberation was needed. Rushing such important legislation was bound to have unintended consequences.


    60. TomTurkey says:

      At this point, is there anything that can be done to get Obama recent appointees to SCOTUS to recuse themselves from hearing and passing judgement on this case?

    61. Rich Mathews says:

      Good team for the states and NFIB. I hope they are heard before the end of this year but, if not, there is plenty of time before the next election in 2012. Of course E. Holder and B. O. will do everything they can to delay and stall a ruling until after the 2012 elections. My bets are on the supremes finding this unconstitutional…

    62. Tango says:

      No matter how you attempt to interpret the Constitution, there is no requirement that the price of citizenship is the purchasing of any product or service. Even using the broadest interpretation of the so called commerce clause there is no way this can hold up. Article 1 Section 8 To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several states and with the Indian tribes. That is the commerce clause, now if you look at the meaning of the word regulate, To adjust to a specification or requirement, to bring order or authority. Commerce; Business, engagement, trade, marketing. So what Congress is charged to do is bring order and to make regular, trade within the country and with foreign nations. So someone now wants to tell me the Framers were dreaming about Health Care. Our Founders believed in individual Freedom, They did not believe in a tyrannical government that forces it people to become subjects of the elite or ruling class. Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence, … We hold these truths to be self evident that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these right governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. We all need to realize that our freedoms do not come from the government, they are not granted by Obama or Reid or any politicians. Our Freedoms come from our humanity, every American was free from his or her first breath. To be forced into purchasing any product or service because someone in the government says so flies in the face of the words of Thomas Jefferson. Our Freedoms were not granted to us by our government, they come from our Creator, or if you prefer your humanity.

    63. Obama care is an abomination. FREEEEEDOOOOM!

    64. @nauthizjane says:

      Now, let's hope the Supreme sees it as the monster it is, sucking this nation dry, killing our jobs and threatening this nation's freedoms. We all want health insurance but Obamacare will cripple this nation and end up providing rationed care. That truly is a death panel in the bill and this new find where all of America has to send our health history into the government is an Orwellian nightmare.

    65. DavidC99 says:

      This could be the beginning of the end of Obamacare. May the law be struck down quickly after due process.

    66. Bob Forsberg says:

      Sotomayor has already decided the case for ObamaCare, that i'm sure was a pretext for her nomination. Hopefully the remaining Justices can approach the Obamination with an open mind.

    67. Heebie says:

      Lets pray that the supremes do the right thing and deem Obamacare unconstitutional. If not, the government can tell us to buy anything they deem important for the overall "health" of the nation. We would have to buy green cars, meat only twice a week, no sugary soda, no cigarattes, no alcohol, (it would be neverending) and we could all kiss our freedom goodbye.

    68. Bella says:

      The time for prayer starts now. Justice Kennedy is the swing vote. If they only do their jobs and uphold the Constitution this will be overturned.

    69. Pilot.Dave says:

      I sure hope the court can render an opinion based solely on the merits and not on political concerns. Given that the newest member has never served as a Judge in any court and has never litigated a single case in civilian court outside of Law school, I am not optimistic this will happen.

    70. Ozark_Lee says:

      Genius, a great tactical move.

    71. Mike F says:

      What! The administration talking out of both sides of it's mouth? Unheard of! It's severable, it's not severable. It's a tax, no it's a fee. Come on! Sort this out and kill Obamacare once and for all!

    72. Repealit says:

      All that legal firepower to address Justice Kennedy… he must feel flattered.

    73. RandyBob says:

      I have high hopes that the Supreme Court will strike down Obamacare in its entirety. That would save us the time and effort to see that it is repealed in 2013.

    74. Guest says:

      Doesn't matter who argues the law for either side on this case – it's going to come donw to the political leanings of the Supreme Court…very sad indeed

    75. FMO says:

      So will his former Solicitor General, Sonia Sotomayor, recuse herself?

    76. mark says:

      and the walls, come tumbling down

    77. Lynda says:

      It won't do any good since he has put in place his own PERSONAL SUPREME COURT JUSTICES on the bench!

    78. kennyg7 says:

      This should be fun watching O and the dem.s squirm when the individual mandate gets struck down and they try to save the rest of their medical control law. I don't think the insurance componies are going to be very happy, not getting the new costumers that they need to cover the cost of the goverment on their back.

    79. I think it really comes down to what side of the bed Justice Kennedy will wake up that morning.

    80. JRC says:

      Lets get on with the repeal!!! Woo Hoo! (in my Homer Simpson voice)

    81. Mark Muller says:

      and the walls come tumbling down

    82. JO JO says:

      We already know how this will go down.

    83. asdfasdf says:

      There was one?

    84. nobama2012 says:

      HC NEEDS REFORM…but NOT this FORCED BILL…time to kill it and start over…otherwise it will kill itself…it is an unsustainable hou$e of card$…and soon will come tumbling down around American's ears….

    85. tymtrvlr says:

      America will get to see how American the supreme court is, if they allow the obamacare debacle to even see a shred of the light of day, Americans will know that the U.S.Constitution is lost. If what they decide is determined by foreign law, policy, un charter. We will have to rise up against the tyranny of the court, and return our rule of law back to the U.S. Constitution. I do not trust the scotus, Clarence Thomas, yes, he is a man of honor, character, and dignity, the others are political hacks, especially obama's 2 clowns. Roberts knew or should have known obama was not a legitimate candidate, yet he swore obama into office ( twice ). We have seen first hand the tyranny of marxism as it has circumvented our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, writing policy/legistlation without qualifying or validating it with the Constitution, they have made a shambles of our government, they have shown their true colors, they are liars, deceivers, and parasitical cheats, leeches of the worse kind by every definition.

    86. Guest says:

      I think it is the opponents of the PPACA that have their work cut out for them. The DOJ could have asked for the so-called en banc hearing to delay a ruling by the Supreme Court. The failure to do so indicates that the government is confident that it’s going to prevail in the Supreme Court and would like to have a decision sooner rather than later

    87. JohnDave says:

      I pray the SC finds it unconstitutional. Full blown implementation would ruin the U.S. quicker than the
      Traitor/Liar/Poser/Socialist-in-Chief has been able to do up until now.

    88. mz_az says:

      This should be put to a vote by citizens of the United States of America. Why should we depend on what 3 judges vote on or even the 12? They surely don't have our interests at heart. They sit there deciding who gets what when they have a nice LARGE income and a great retirement. Our LAWS need to be upgraded.

    89. Damn_Lucky says:

      I pray that the Justices have Constitutional wisdom to come to the right decision.

    90. Darkwolfe says:

      Time to cut that Obamanation of a law away from the throat of the country.

    91. The_Heraclitus says:

      I predict a 5-3 decision to find unconstitutional.

    92. Bill Brouse says:

      Didn't Sotomayor help draft the original Obamacare legislation prior to being appointed to the supreme court? If so, she needs to recuse herself for conflicts of interest should this be brought infront of the court. But given how the manchild POTUS and his corrupt adminw orks.. who wants to make a bet they will try and force this through like they have with everything else and ignore the rule of law?

    93. Ronnie Ray says:

      Pakistan and iran have snll nukes. but pakistan has a stockpile of nuclear weapons, and al-kaeda also taliban have stolen close to two-thousand shoulder hear seeking missils that will and is capable of taking down our jets.We need to go ahesd and have war and use limited nukes and take out pakistan and afhganistan to end this hell.

    94. Bjk says:

      Anthony Kennedy basically gets to decide if the American Experiment of freedom can continue.

    95. American Patriot says:

      Thank You Founding Fathers…The United States Constitution, which you
      wise men penned 200 years ago will shut down the attemped Marxist
      takeover of our wonderful FREE Nation…And Thank You GOD.

    96. stopthe says:

      And so another Titanic piece of welfare-statist utopian legislation, not even read or understood by many who voted for it, runs up against the iceberg of constitutionality. May the Supremes save us from this unwanted intrusion into our lives. Sink it!

    97. Danny Ross says:

      False Headline. The case is not at the Supreme Court until and unless they agree to hear it.

    98. MICHAELNLA says:

      Ya don't have to be a constitutional scholar to know that it is unconstitutional to force citizens to purchase medical insurance. And don't give me that "well, you have to purchase automobile insurance"…you only have to purchase automobile insurance if you are going to drive a vehicle.

      NOBAMA 2012

      "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."
      Winston Churchill

    99. Puzzled says:

      Has the ACLU weighed in on Obamacare? It would seem they would be the first to criticize anything that forces people to buy a product.

    100. joe grassley says:

      There are two issues here: 1) can an individual be forced to purchase a product that the Government decides we MUST buy and 2) what is the meaning of "severable"?

      On part one: The answer is clearly "NO" to us having to buy insurance and that's what the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled and that's exactly how the Supreme Court will rule. Why, you ask? Because if we can be forced to buy Government mandated insurance then we're on the slippery slope downward wherein this same Government can then mandate we buy "anything". They could even mandate buying a Chevy over a Ford or pick other winners and losers in business and this is NOT within the Governments constitutional ability to dictate. The Supreme Court will not allow the Government to force a product on us…..not OBama care and not anything else.

      Second issue is "severability" meaning the bill is all or nothing. The bill as passed by the Congress was non-severable. This means if the mandate to purchase insurance is declared unconstitutional (as the 11th Circuit declared), normally the entire bill is rendered illegal but, the court also ruled that it is severable meaning parts of it can go forward. It was appealed to the Supreme Court by business groups who want the Supreme Court to not only ratify the courts ruling on the declaring illegal the "purchase mandate" but to also declare the bill "non-severable" because of the way the Congress passed it. Declaring it "non-severable" means the entire bill gets thrown out if one provision is thrown out. Thankfully Nancy Pelosi, who told us "we need to pass this bill so people can see what's in it", also failed to read it…..otherwise they would have seen the lack of the words "this bill is severable" in it. Next time, Nancy, read your own bill BEFORE you pass it in the dark of night…..

      • Vote forthenicetie says:

        Look at all the General Motors government advantages and Ford Motor Company must now remove its advertising. Get used to it.

      • Maryrose says:

        Excellent Joe! They railroaded us!

      • garryp says:

        The bill was not 'passed' by congress but slithered through with a "a rare parliamentary procedure". Look it up

      • Sasha says:

        I live in California and the government forces me to buy car insurance. And I also lived in Hawaii where I was also forced to buy Insurance. I dont understand your reasoning.


    101. GregBarton says:

      Sounds like the fix is in.

      We will still finish the job Nov 2012.

    102. Ernie Hernandez says:

      The Supreme Court will ultimately with a 5-4 ruling declare the law unconstitutional!

      • Thomas McCarr says:

        The ruling will be 5 – 3 because Sotomayor has ruled on Obama care in the past when she was a circuit judge and therefore must recuse herself from the deliberations

      • JRausta says:

        Given Justice Kagan's involvement with the law, shouldn't she recuse herself?

    103. bread says:

      Good thing the Obama regime had the foresight to stack the Supremes for just this very event. Back scratching time.

      • kevin says:

        The "foresight"? Too bad that he only fills vacancies rather than packs the court with extra justices. FDR already tried that.

      • AndyMo says:

        In a sane world, Kagan would recuse herself since she was heavily involved in crafting a legal defense of Obamacare. In a sane world.

        • nonequity says:

          And in a sane world, Clarence Thomas would recuse himself because his wife is an anti-health care act lobbyist, and he profits directly from ruling against this law. In a sane world.

        • Terry says:

          There is little if anything sane about this administration

      • twoX4 says:

        Kagan was attorney of record for Obammy in a couple of his court cases to hide his birth certificate. Clearly there is a conflict of interest here big time in lots of ways. Since the other one Sotomayor was picked by him also maybe they should just both have to recuse themselves. If they don't and the court upholds this law it will look bad for all of them. Like the Supreme Court is helping to ram this law down our throats also. Who can we trust?

      • Mike says:

        you are so right about stacking the court. and the last one that was appointed ,helped write this peice of trash. So what do you think the vote will be.

    104. JGo2 says:

      I assume Elena Kagan recuse herself, having done some work on it earlier in the O administration.

      I don't have the particular case in front of me, but if I remember correctly, the DOJ argued in front of a different circuit court that an en banc hearing was not necessary, therefore arguing the opposite in this instance would have got them laughed out of court; hence the delay tactics as they had no argument.

      • Libtard says:

        There's already been some squirming that she "kept things separate"– however, emails obtained thusfar are that she was ACTIVELY involved in promoting the healthcare legislation while working in the White House.

        What the lefties are going to try to do is get Clarance Thomas to recuse himself– because his WIFE works for an organization that is against the legislation. There has been no precedent for a judge to recuse himself because of positions a spouse has taken.

      • BIL says:

        I wouldn't be on EK recusing herself. I don't believe the left is that scrupulous. I mean, what are they going to do? Impeach her ? SURE.

        But I cannot see how they can rule it separable. Even the defending attorneys used the inseparability to try to uphold the law. And SCOTUS is not being asked about constitutional, so I believe Obamacare is kaput.

      • jeff says:

        Of course she won't..

        Of course she won't..

        That would require honor and honor is not a liberal virtue. In fact, they despise honor and consider it a foolish weakness.

        Like the leftist who ranted against the Minister condemned to death in Iran for not renouncing his faith, calling him "stupid." Read that again, no complaint against the government of Iran for religious persecution, he preferred to ridicule the man sentenced to death.

      • Soljerblue says:

        EK will not recuse herself. The liberal left has no honor, no ethics, no fixed moral guideposts. She's one of them. Case closed.

        However — there's an upside to this. If EK is clearly tied to the promulgation and passage of the law, and gets away with non-recusal, there should be no valid case, despite the left wing screamers, for Mr. Justice Thomas to step down.

    105. FinbarOS says:

      Unconstitutional! NEXT!!!!

      • Daneel says:

        The Constitution has NOTHING to do with it, think of it as a feel good fairy tale…that's how the Supremes view it, that's how the federal government views it. Another way to look at it, from THEIR perspective, is as a piece of clay…for them to mold into ANY SHAPE that suits them….I've got a bad feeling that Obamacare will be declared "legal" and the republicans will FEIGN an objections to this The Constitution has NOTHING to do with it, think of it as a feel good fairy tale…that's how the Supremes view it, that's how the federal government views it. Another way to look at it, from THEIR perspective, is as a piece of clay…for them to mold into ANY SHAPE that suits them….I've got a bad feeling that Obamacare will be declared "legal". The republicans will FEIGN an objections to this travesty of justice to mollify their supporters, who NEVER seem to GET what's been a clear pattern of behavior for DECADES, but that’s ALL they’ll do.The top of the food chain in the US has become greed unbound…they view morality and ethics as obstacles to their "progress".travesty of justice to mollify their supporters, who NEVER seem to GET what's been a clear pattern of behavior for DECADES.The top of the food chain in the US has become greed unbound…they view morality and ethics as obstacles to their "progress".

    106. jlburdge says:

      BRING IT ON……………

    107. Tim Benner says:

      I'll take odds 5 to 3 that the Supreme Court will accept NFIB appeal and denign the anticipated DOJ appeal. LOL

    108. no-duh says:

      I am unclear on the connection between Obamacare and global warming but I'm sure there must be one…

      • Farm Boy says:

        I think the connection is that they are Bush's fault. Isn't everything?

      • brad says:

        warm gas emissions.

      • Seraphim says:

        The connection is all the hot air Obama and the libs spewed concerning this healthcare debacle. Add to that, the heat generated by angry Americans who got slammed with this unwanted cost, and the heat generated by both the brains of the people trying to justify this thing according to the so-called "Commerce Clause" in the 14th amendment, and finally the heat generated by the crossed eyes of people like me who don't see in the 14th amendment one single solitary comment that has anything to do with commerce or any authority the federal government has to make me or any American buy anything at all, especially overpriced health insurance.

        I guess Al Gore should be factoring in all THAT extra CO2 – oh, wait, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas – but everyone exhales water vapor, which is actually the No. 1. greenhouse gas. So we have a bunch of hot, sticky, humid air coming out of Washington… No wonder they call part of it "Foggy Bottom"…. :)

      • BIL says:

        It's BUSH's fault.

      • willys36 says:

        The connection is obvious. Goerge Bush.

      • IVillageIdiot says:

        The connection = BOTH ARE WRONG

      • mike says:

        Democrates. that is the connection, and greed.

    109. Pony Runner says:

      26 states filed a lawsuit against ObummerCare? Doesn't exactly sound like a mandate from the people does it? It is SO great that Congress has exempted itself from said program along with 111 exemptions so far given out to Obama supporters. Do as I say not as I do – you sheep.

      Hopefully this all-star team will dismantle Holder and his team in court and show the country just how inept they really are.

      • Commonsensus says:

        Do you misinterpret everything? These were 26 state Republican AG's………it has absolutely nothing to do with the people otherwise it would have wound up as a vote up or down item on ballots next November. Don't allow the wishes of a few AG's cloud your mind. They would like nothing more than to have the HealthCare bill thrown out….but more importantly they do not wish it to go forward and be a success. Inside you know this.

    110. Bob says:

      I don't see how Obamacare can hold up in court. First, there are the obvious reasons:
      - It doesn't apply to those in power in government. (even after they leave government?)
      - There are over a thousand (and still growing) organizations who are exempted from Obamacare… some with questionable ties.
      - The costs that are projected now to implement Obamacare are much higher than originally projected, with the projected quality of the healthcare diminishing.
      - How could Congress, as Nancy Pelosi stated, "pass the bill to see what's in the bill"?.. which I would consider gross incompetence and a dereliction of duty and Obamacare should have been thrown out (as well as Nancy) because of that.

      I consider Obamacare a threat to my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. Since some of the long term health care provisions are being possibly taken off the table ( are these death panels for real?), bureaucratic management of my personal health, and the ability of the government to raid my bank accounts for fees… right now we are talking about $1000,… Federal Income Tax was initially 1%. Nothing like keeping people's healthcare hostage to keep them in line. Obamacare, in my opinion, is designed to provide more power over people than to help them with healthcare.

    111. Troy says:

      If the Supreme Court rules that Obamacare and the individual mandate is unconstitutional, where does that leave Obama with his base of support? Far Left Liberals love this piece of legislation. It is the centerpiece of the Obama administration. Strip this from his list (or lack of list) of accomplishments, what does he have to run on for his re-election? Is he going to continue to promote this class warfare? What good is that doing for this country? I had high hopes for this President. I did not vote for him, but was willing to give him a chance. I am afraid he has divided this country irreparably and fiscally dug a hole too deep to climb out. I hope I am wrong!

      • descender says:

        Bigger question…

        If they find it constitutional, where does that leave bleeding heart republicans?

      • J Daniel Boone says:

        It strengthens his position with the base. If the court finds the statute unconstitutional, it will be the fault of those fascists, Thomas and Scalia. Especially the unethical Thomas for not recusing himself. If it's upheld, all the better, those nasty Republicans were wrong all along and look at the delays we've all suffered at their hands on the road to Utopia.

        If you doubt me, spend a painful few minutes with the kooks at the Daily Kos — better known as Obama's base. Some, admittedly not all, think that Thomas should recuse himself because of his wife's private professional work, but that Kagan is completely impartial despite her direct public advocacy. Obviously she should recuse herself, and I have to think she will. I can't imagine a serious jurist facing peers in the legal community for years to come having not recused herself from this case. She would have to know that every lawyer in the room would be thinking how could she possibly justify that? And I sure don't feel sorry for Obama who should have easily seen this coming when he nominated her.

        But to your point about base support, the bottom line from La La Land, they think any result is a plus for Dear Leader.

      • bworei says:

        Personally, I think Obama loses either way. If it's ruled unconstitutional, sure his base will get worked up, but they're what, 20%? It'll be a huge loss of face for him in the minds of the other 80% and any "hope" the fair-weather supporters had for him will vanish completely when his signature "achievement" collapses.

        If it's upheld, it'll anger the 60+% who've consistently polled as being against it and they'll vote GOP to try to get it overturned in Congress.

        That's the way I see it at least….

      • Commonsensus says:

        No….the far left liberals were disappointed with this bill because it dd not go far enough, and was not Single-Payer.

      • Craig Smith says:

        It leaves them free to move to a new country where this type of law is supported by the people and not against the countries constitution. Sweden comes to mind.

      • AmericanFaith says:

        Have faith! This country is resilient and we will bounce back, if the government along with the unions, would get out of the way of people making a living and living in peace.

    112. brianbeattie says:

      Does the law have the routine severability clause in it? No??
      I guess the democrat congress didn't want one. Seems like an easy call…

    113. Art Mooney says:

      Obama's presidential legacy
      1. Unconstitutional Obamacare (that will be overturned)
      2. Gays in the military. (hopefully overturned by a conservative Republican with nuts.)

      • Shelly says:

        1. Hope you're correct. (Think you are.)
        2. Gays didn't just "appear" in the military. They've been there serving since the beginning. None of the active military people that I know have a problem w/ them serving. Why do you?

      • patrick says:

        what's wrong with gays in the military? if an American wants to defend their country by serving why would you stop them?

      • Zainuddin says:

        What gripes you about Gays in the military. Last I heard they can shoot or call in an air strike or do anything else that a heterosexual can do. What does Sex have anything to do with that?

    114. M.P.Wise says:

      A certain justice needs to recluse HERSELF from this case!

      • JackBauer says:


        It would be rather encouraging if some on-the-ball elected Republicans started talking about Kagan and her insurmountable conflict of interest — as of yesterday.

        Too much to ask Mr Boehner and Mr Daniels?

        • Spudman54 says:

          Great point. Start emailing all of your representatives in Washington with this info. We all need to make our voices heard. They need to know we are watching their every move. We will hold them accountable.
          You know the jobless, (of their own choosing), moochers are being heard. They have nothing better to do but try to keep their taxpayer funded benifits. Take America back.

      • 2 of them but they won't and they are obama's yes ladies

      • The Cheese says:

        Recluse? Hide away as would a hermit or other anti-social person?

      • ERNIE says:

        Right after Ol Clarence recuses himself for his family conflict from his wife's income.

      • Commonsensus says:

        Why? If none of the other Jusitices (read Thomas) can take money and gifts for upcoming Court decisions, why should she? A little one-sided eh? Remember, they have no need to worry as they are not limited by ethical rules like the lower courts.

      • Mike says:

        She want, that is why she was put on the Court. It was her deal with him , if he appointed her. she would vote for him if it got to the court, plus , she helped write it. BUT SHE WILL NOT RECLUSE HERSLEF.

    115. no-duh says:

      So did the DOJ give up the slow-walking and screw up badly by not asking for a full appeals court hearing? I doubt they are that dumb. So what gives?

      • DJM says:

        Here is what I believe they determined: (1) we probably have a loser in the SC therefore holding off until after the election and claiming they did something great was a silly statement that would not be bought by even his base let alone the American people (2) by letting the Supremes decide against him now would give him the pitch to his base that "elections have consequences" thus you better get out the vote for me or the next Republican President will get to appoint two justices and the Supremes will be giving out honest decisions based on the Constitution which is bad for the libs cause of ruling the people.

      • Breetai says:

        It's a gamble on the Left's part. Should the Left win with their stacked court, it will impose a certain impression on an incoming conservative congress that it cannot repeal Obamacare after it was publicly ruled to be "Constitutional" by the packed court. Not to mention the noise the shrill Left will make to make it appear as if America as a whole came out to support the fraudulent ruling.

      • RM in Indy says:

        It's possible, the admin thought the en banc would rule against Obamacare, shelve it, then the Supremes could just not take the case. Obamacare is kaput, SCOTUS has no blood on their hands. That's just my guess

      • letluvshine says:

        agreed. something's up…

      • slow and old says:

        I belive the court has 11 judges 6 of them republicans and in the last ruling 2 to 1, one was a democrate.

    116. mpedrick says:

      Thank God. This is the biggest decision this court will make. If it is ruled valid then you can kiss this country goodbye. You can't dictate a program this large from one party. This doesn't save money, doesn't allow you to keep your Doctor, and damn sure doesn't make the system work better and I don't want to wait years for service that we get now in weeks. What makes sense about that. Lets get some competition in the insurance world and quit letting the politicians dictate who our carriers are thru their lobbying. Everycompany can do business in every state and let " capitalism" keep the market in check

      • spudman54 says:

        100% beside you on this one. Contact your congressmen and be heard.

      • Commonsensus says:

        NO……the biggest decision was Citizens United because it allows bribery money. But I guess you like knowing that your favorite Politicians are bought and payed for. Think…………

    117. TDK says:

      Can someone explain to me how it is legal for the government to force me to buy something? doesnt sound like America to me.

      • TheGlobalizer says:

        Duh, that's the whole point of the case, dude.

      • West Texan says:

        Aye aye. Next these big government bureaucrats will be taxing the dead for inactivity. Might as well as many of the deceased are likely receiving social security payments each month. Besides, social progressive demagogues depend heavily on graveyard voting blocks.

      • smokey says:

        How about automobile insurance?

        • Pastovall1 says:

          You don't have to own a car do you? If you choose to own a car than the "state" can mandate you insure it. The only alternative to obamacare is to kill yourself therefore you no longer have to insure your health.

          • Commonsensus says:

            And you dont have to go to the ER when your sick either……….and if you decide to go you should have insurance or the money to pay up front. Why should I pay higher premiums because you don't want to pay for any?

        • RM in Indy says:

          They can't force you to buy automobile insurance, just don't buy a car. When you do buy auto insurance, it protects others (other drivers, the bank) once your car is paid off, you can decide if you want insurance for your personal vehichle. Oh and the Feds don't mandate this, the states do

          • Wnddll says:

            Even if your car is paid off you are still required to have liability insurance to cover you if YOU cause an accident. It won't fix your car but it will fix the damage you cause to others. But I think many people like you think they don't have to have liability coverage, thus I am forced to pay for uninsured/underinsured coverage to protect myself from people like you.

        • Daniel says:

          thats state law genius, you know the 10th Amendment? There are even states that do not require car insurance. Not only that auto insurance is suppose to pay for damages you may inflect ON SOMEONE ELSE. Tell me how this is similar to heatlthcare

          Try again

        • BBlaze2 says:

          You don't need car insurance if you don't own a car. But with the healthcare law you have to have health insurance just for being a american.

          • Commonsensus says:

            You don't have to buy insurance either. You have a choice…….buy some and you will have insurance, don't buy it and you will lose some of the taxes on your refund to offset the costs the rest of us will pay for your not having insurance and running up a huge bill when you go to the ER……..because without insurance, many Docs will not see you………..and you will need medical attention sometime.

            • Bobbie says:

              it's a bribe foreign sensus. If doctors won't see patients because they're uninsured, says the doctors' are working more for the government then the care of the sick! UNAMERICAN!!!

        • Joe says:

          You can choose to not own a car, therefore you don't have to buy auto insurance. You have no choice with the health care bill, either buy it or pay the penalty.

        • stopthe says:

          Automobile insurance protects other people, not you. Also, not all states require it. And also, if STATES want to force you to buy something, that's still quite different than the giant, remote, all-seeing FED requiring you to buy it.

      • Rich says:

        I don't understand how government can force you to buy car insurance, but then you complain when they want to force you to buy health insurance. Either they can or they can't. Which is it?

        • West Texan says:

          Vehicle licensing, where an owner is required to carry liability insurance, is mandated by each state, not federal government. Romney was well within bounds requiring health coverage for Massachusetts' residents. In other words, only Illinois should be forced to suffer Obamacare. NOT the entire nation! Hope this helps.

        • Splinter says:

          The government doesn't require that you buy a car, and hence doesn't require that you buy auto insurance. You have the option to use public transportation, take taxi's, ride a bike, or have friends/family get you around town. It may be inconvenient for you, but that is your choice. You ARE NOT forced to buy auto insurance. Most of us find the convenience of having our own personal transport worth the expense needed to operate it.

          On the other hand with health insurance, if you a living human being you are going to be required to buy it or pay a ridiculous fine. You have no alternative.

          Not quite the same is it …

          • stopthe says:

            I'd go further. Car insurance should NOT BE REQUIRED by the government. Individuals should buy insurance to protect themselves, or if their lienholder requires it. We have too much of this kind of crap in our lives – government dictating how we should behave.

            The net effect of required automobile insurance is just another boon to big business – i.e., insurance companies. It was probably passed because of their lobby, under the guise of being about safety or the general welfare. In reality, it is unnecessary and intrusive. If I had the option, I'd buy liability for myself, plus underinsured/uninsured driver insurance. But I should also have the option to not do this, and to be ruined because of my bad choices if I get unlucky.

            • Splinter says:

              I understand where you are coming from, but I think in the case of auto insurance it really is necessary. If you smash into someone and injure them, there needs to be monetary resources to help offset the cost of dealing with the repercussions. For example: If you worked a minimum wage job with zero savings or assets, the person who was injured would have no hope of being compensated for their losses inflicted by you.

              The main aim of liability insurance is to cover injury or damage THAT YOU CAUSE TO ANOTHER PARTY. This is the type of insurance that is REQUIRED on a vehicle. My understanding is that all 50 states require some minimum level of liability coverage.

              Comprehensive insurance coverage which relates to acts of nature, theft, vandalism, etc (and are not accident related) is optional.

              Collision coverage is the part of your auto insurance that typically pays for damages to YOUR auto from accidents involving other cars or objects. This is usually optional as well. If you wreck your car without collision coverage, you pay the entire repair bill yourself.

              Dropping comprehensive and collision coverage can reduce your insurance rates a lot !

        • David says:

          You don't have to buy auto insurance. Don't drive! If you do drive, don't leave your property.

      • Tim Tomm says:

        Auto insurance?

        • Duh says:

          I am not forced to own a car therefore I am not forced to buy auto insurance…..

        • Ken says:

          If you buy a car they can force you to have insurance. They don't force you to buy auto insurance if you do not buy a car. They do not have to right to force you to buy health insurance just because you exist..

      • WindyTitty says:

        Auto insurance is mandated at the state level. Why don't you take a second or two to read the 10th amendment to the US constitution.

      • ladytaz says:

        To those who keep talking auto insurance, you don't have to buy a car in which case you don't have to purchase auto insurance.

    118. Sherri in CA, USA says:

      As a former federal tax attorney, Michelle Bachmann discovered the $100B tucked away in Obamacare to support it while this legislative monstrosity it’s going through the appeals process. Ms. Bachmann unequivocally said if elected, she will pull Obamacare out by the roots. I won’t vote for any candidate who pledges to leave it up to the states. Not good enough as it will allow trillions of dollars in tax money to go down a rabbit hole and futher Obama's socialist agenda. My respectful opinon.

    119. dougindallas says:

      So are Obama's two appointees going to recuse themselves? If not, why not? They have a vested interest in giving their boss cover.

    120. Jon Steelman says:

      Potential here for a Constitutional smackdown of epic proportion; the facts presenting an issue-rich environment to rival any bar exam question.

    121. B. D. Heise says:

      Well it's about time. Now we can put this Communist Socialist piece of trash in the dust bin.

    122. AgentAmerican says:

      This is the exhaust port in the Death Star. Torpedo this menace, Alito…it's payback time.

    123. jeff mckasson says:

      Have faith that the SC will take up this issue as soon as possible following the new suit raised by the NFIB. The tactic of ramming through an unpopular social engineering program while letting the economy and jobs languish is an unconscienable action by an ameturish and socialistic agenda driven administration.
      Hoping the SCOUS does the constitutionally mandated needful and repeals Obamacare.

    124. bobbyhoying says:

      All nine justices know this thing is unconstituional yet four will vote with their god Obama. They sicken me.

    125. Bill says:

      My concern is whether the DOJ lawyers will go the route of the Soc. Sec. argument in 1936. All the while Roosevelt was saying that SS was an insurance and his lawyers were in front of the Supremes saying it was a tax. If they claim Obamacare is a tax (and the seed has already been sown in a lower court) will it be upheld?

      • stopthe says:

        SS should also be repealed. These welfare statists are all the same. Good point.

      • beachkrp says:

        One slight difference, albeit technical. Those that are self-employed pay their Social Security premiums as self-employment on their tax returns.

        The only "tax" here is the penalty for NOT having insurance, which is why they wanted to hire an extra 16 thousand IRS agent.s So the penalty is a tax. but a tax that someone is exempt from if they have insurance from a private insurance company? That's where the logic of this measure just falls through the ice.

    126. NWBill says:

      Brilliant move by the NFIB – it puts a PORTION of Obamacare before the Court, letting it essentially verify that Congress itself said that the mandate could not be separated from the rest of the law (without seeming to take a "politically motivated" stance in its' decision) … which means that the Court could then consider the entire law later (as it surely will at some point). The question is whether the Court will put Obamacare on the docket before next summer, or consider it after the elections.

      My guess is that it WILL be on the docket; and, considering the weight of the lawsuits the states have already filed against it, the Court will overturn Obamacare BEFORE the election – sealing defeat for Obama.

    127. matismf says:

      As if the Facts or the Constitution will have ANY bearing on the outcome of this. The foul swill on this court have shown repeatedly that they care not for EITHER.

    128. RAyC says:

      Alito, It's pay back time you called him a liar. He and his comunists regime are liars. Put them out of business before we have to.

    129. toledofan says:

      I think it's going to turn into a street fight, so, let the games begin. I just wonder how long it's going to take to get to a finalized position on this; I mean by all accounts it should be DOA and almost a unammious decision to repeal the bill in the first place. This one should be a no brainer.

    130. Troy says:

      If The Supreme Court rules Obama Care Unconstitutional…. It will all be Bush's Fault!

    131. Galt says:

      It will be 5-4 unless someone recuses herself which she won't. The only question is where Kennedy will land. My guess is Kennedy finds the individual mandate is unconstitutional but that it is severable cuzz he's always enjoyed being the politian regardless of the constitution.

      • beachkrp says:

        From what I understand, the Business Council appeals ONLY the part that they lost, which is the severability and that is the only part that would be reviewed at this time.

        However, take this into consideration…… the whole point of the mandate was the funding. So if the severability is left intact, then that would leave the law in place and strike down the funding. That just BLOWS the debt ceiling deal that was just passed out the window because now you have a huge hunk of revenue that has disappeared.

    132. reanna says:

      Well, if you can control healthcare, you can control the public. How about "NOBODY that says ANYTHING against King Obama will ever be allowed health care for themselves or their families?!" Is that where we will ultimately end up if this abomination passes the judicial stop?

    133. firstpoppa says:

      Kagan recuse herself? Wouldn't that imply that she was ethical?

    134. Kevin says:

      If BO wins, it gives the Republican ammo to say, " I stand between it being law, or being killed when I am elecetd". If it goes down, BO looks bad to the base and the country as over reaching and proving his socialist mentality. He will try to campaign against it saying its Republicans fault, but it will not fly. Letsjust all hope and pray for the good health of the 4 + 1 Justices. Not that something "may" happen, but ….

    135. Run1more says:

      Not sure how it can be valid under the interstate commerce clause since insurance CANNOT be purchased across state lines.

    136. Ozzie Brito says:

      NFIB was a brilliant move. Once severability is off the table…the law implodes. This will end this nightmare hanging over the necks of our small businesses. I say that the economy will be saved, not by Congress or the Whitehouse, but buy the Supreme Court.

      • stopthe says:

        This time, yes. The problem is that with clowns running the country, who knows what asinine piece of legislation they will bludgeon us with next?

    137. Look Out says:

      If the Supreme Court abides by its own precedent, the law will stand as written. The only way it gets overturned is through "judicial activism." Of course, this could happen, but understand the political dynamic if it does.

      The NFIB filing before the DOJ has absolutely nothing to do with "which" case will be considered. It's not as if the larger government appeal has now been boxed out by some masterful counterplay.

      The DOJ choosing not to take the case to the full 11th Circuit Court is not good news for the law's opponents. In bypassing that option, there will now be no ruling from a conservative-tilted panel which (if negative) would have provided additional case law for the Supreme Court to cite.

      Also, the government's case is now certain to be argued by a Democratic administration, since it will be before the election. Appealing the case would have pushed the Supreme Court's inevitable hearing to 2013.

      As for that election, the SC ruling is expected to occur around June of 2012. If the law is upheld, it badly weakens the unconstitutionality claim being made by the GOP. If the law is partially or entirely overturned, it gives the Democrats a rallying issue to exploit in the election (think FDR in 1936).

      • stopthe says:

        Stare decisis is not the most important principle. If past courts have been wrong, their decisions should be reversed. The very idea that we should all be herded collectivist-like into supporting each other by buying into an insurance program should be repugnant to any true liberal.

    138. Dr. Michael Tulloch says:

      Courts always rule so as to increase THEIR power at the expense of other branches. Which decision increases the Supreme Courts power? Ruling it constitutional give power to both Executive and Congress. Ruling against it gives power to the Court and, indirectly, to The States and The People. Tough call. Historically, the Supreme Court isn't very States' Rights friendly. Rather they tend to support big, centralized government.

    139. Rocketchi[ says:

      Hopefully, the Supreme Court will remember how disrespectful Obama was during his State of Union address.

    140. Patrick Henry says:

      Just think if the Justices decide with Obamacare, then we only have to add two initials to our name – SR. That would make us the USSR (United States Socialist Republic). How many jails will they have to build to house all of the protesters against this crap? If I was in the position where the Govt. has mandated that I buy something, then I will say "Give me liberty or give me death."

    141. Protocall says:

      This will be an easy call even for Sotomayor and Kagan. After all we are still a Republic.
      It will be interesting though to see if their boss is the Constitution or Obama.

    142. oldtaxpayer01 says:

      There may be demonstrations in the streets of Washington demanding Obama's removeal as well as congress if this mandate is affirmed by the court.

    143. SPG says:

      Kagan must recuse ~ Kagan must recuse ~ Kagan must recuse!

    144. joe grassley says:

      There are two issues here: 1) can an individual be forced to purchase a product that the Government decides we MUST buy and 2) what is the meaning of "severable"?

      On part one: The answer is clearly "NO" to us having to buy insurance and that's what the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled and that's exactly how the Supreme Court will rule. Why, you ask? Because if we can be forced to buy Government mandated insurance then we're on the slippery slope downward wherein this same Government can then mandate we buy "anything". They could even mandate buying a Chevy over a Ford or pick other winners and losers in business and this is NOT within the Governments constitutional ability to dictate. The Supreme Court will not allow the Government to force a product on us…..not OBama care and not anything else.

      Second issue is "severability" meaning the bill is all or nothing. The bill as passed by the Congress was non-severable. This means if the mandate to purchase insurance is declared unconstitutional (as the 11th Circuit declared), normally the entire bill is rendered illegal but, the court also ruled that it is severable meaning parts of it can go forward. It was appealed to the Supreme Court by business groups who want the Supreme Court to not only ratify the courts ruling on the declaring illegal the "purchase mandate" but to also declare the bill "non-severable" because of the way the Congress passed it. Declaring it "non-severable" means the entire bill gets thrown out if one provision is thrown out. Thankfully, Nancy Pelosi, who told us "we need to pass this bill so people can see what's in it" also failed to read it herself…..otherwise they would have seen the lack of the words "this bill is severable" in it. So Nancy……now that you passed this 1,000 page bill we see there are no words in it saying the bill is "severable"……..meaning the entire bill will be done away with…. Way to go!

      • Tyller says:

        Mr. Grassley:

        It is scary to think about the future with American people allowing the federal government to throw all these regulations at us. It is even scarier to think about all the potential products the government can impose on us.

        Question one is interesting because you are asking if "an individual can be forced to purchase a product…" Well, nobody can be forced to do anything. If an individual does not want to purchase the insurance they do not have to; they will be fined, but nothing states they have to purchase the healthcare. The argument, then, is how does the country, meaning the citizens whom make up this country, decide the best course of action for the healthcare economy?

        Do you believe the governments action of imposing healthcare mandates will for ever change the decision making processes in our government? If so, why…and how can we fix it? If not, do you think it needs to change? If so, how?

    145. Bobbie says:

      If the Supreme Court is true to their American positions with honor, facts and the Constitution will stand to repeal!

    146. Sharyn says:

      Of course Obamacare is as unconstitutional as BHO's presidency but why does this article have to be reprinted/rebroadcast in SPANISH???

    147. phil says:

      If O B Plenty can force you to buy healthcare, why can't he force you to buy a government motors Chevrolet, or anything else of his choosing?

    148. CapitalSpirit says:

      Well, as the Drudge link said, It's on…and now Obamacare is as constitutional as Anthony Kennedy says it is.

      If this case is heard in the upcoming term, the decision is likely going to be handed down smack dab in the middle of the 2012 campaign. Either way, the GOP is likely to come out ahead. How so?

      If Obamacare is upheld, that is going to galvanize GOP voters, and would likely put independents squarely in the Republicans' camp. Independents do not like Obamacare, and if the Supreme Court upholds it, 2012 could look like 1984 (the election, not the novel). And with 21 Democratic Senate seats in play, the GOP could end up with a united Congress, a cloture-proof Senate, and a ready pen about sixteen blocks up the street.

      If it's struck down, Obama is left with almost nothing to run on. He owns the economy, which isn't going anywhere. Gas prices could be a very effective cudgel if the GOP put them in play. Obama's foreign policy has been a joke, but the joke's sadly on us, as America's standing in the world has been greatly reduced. Absent Obamacare, his legacy could turn out to be Solyndra.

      Finally, here's a good rhetorical question for GOP hopefuls: "If President Obama were out to deliberately destroy the United States of America, what would he have done differently than what he already has?"

    149. Dr. Dimento says:

      This means the S.C. will actually have to read the bill, unlike to sharks who passed it

    150. DJH says:

      The regime always knew it was unconstitutional and didn't care. They just hoped it wouldn't be challenged. Since it was challenged, they want the ruling out of the way as far in advance of the 2012 elections as possible. When they loose, somehow, some way, you KNOW it will be Bush's fault.

      • Tyller says:


        I am sure the Obama administration hoped their bill wouldn't be challenged. Besides the differences in ideology, politics and elections throws a huge wrench into the development of sound legitimate healthcare legislation. I think we can agree that something needs to be done with the current overall healthcare system in the United States.

        Do you think the Obama administration really doesn't care? Is the intention of the administration to let the American people suffer? If so, why do you think our representatives in Washington have failed to impeach Obama?

        • Bobbie says:

          What makes you think it isn't intentional when it's against the will and without consent of the people? And HIGHLY unconstitutional. We shouldn't even be spending time on this but forced to. The only focus is on slush money and where the government can steal it from with what government covers as "good intent" while taking limitless finances and personal control away! There are parts in the world that service your low standard. go there.

      • beachkrp says:

        I hardly think that these clowns thought far enough ahead to consider it being challenged. They didn't care if it was constitutional or not. The only thing they cared about was "I won".

    151. Rhonda says:

      ONLY the state can impose regulations not the feds. It is in the Constitution! The Supreme court has to rule according to the Constitution or there are grounds for their dismissal. They swore to uphold the Constitution of the USA.
      Now I hope they have some sense and get this off the books and business can be put at ease and start to hire without fears of Obama care! The states need to get on the ball and work this out NOT THE FEDS.

      • Tyller says:


        It is without a doubt that Obamacare has an effect on businesses in the United States. Our country is going through a very difficult time which becomes even more complex with question marks increasing exponentially as we try to analyze the future. Who wants more regulations, especially from the national government who often struggles at determining what is best for such diverse states/cultures throughout the United States? It is clearly a difficult time for our country and the decisions that need to be made must be thoughtful, empathetic and compassionate to the lives of the American people.

        Do you believe all laws imposed by the federal government need to be abolished? If so, why? If not, how do we the people, through the means of congress, determine what the federal government should and should not regulate?

    152. American Man 2012 says:

      If the supreme Court rules that this is constitutional to force the citizenship to purchase coverage, which leads to other forced obligations, it would imply in my opinion that the members of the Supreme Court are complicit with the politics and the powers controlling the executive branch, and should be held and found guilty of treason and hung. This has gone too far.

    153. JAXTAC says:

      Is Heritage reversing its position on the Tenth Amendment ? Previously, Heritage held that it was in effect a truism that had no bearing on states ability to reject federal mandates.

    154. mark says:

      Something this intrusive into one's privacy and freedom of choice, why not let the public vote it in or out? What are they afraid of? A tiny taste of democracy?

    155. Well Elena Kagan will have to sit this one out as she was the one the wrote the appeal to it when she was with obama. So she is out. I really think that once they get rid of the mandate that this is over with. Then ole nancy and harry will scratch their heads and wonder was it worth wasting 2 years with this mess and now they will lose the Senate in 2012. Tisk Tisk maybe harry and nancy could go fishing and just jump into the water and drown.

    156. Dr. Michael Tulloch says:

      Interesting scenario. Supremes uphold Obama care. Citizens put in overwhelming republican congress. Congress impeaches Supreme Court Judges voting in favor of Obamacare for failing to uphold the Constitution a violation of their Oath of Office.

    157. Steven Parks says:

      Way to go 26 states. Let's knock this big government fastball out of the park. We citizens aren't to be told by the government what we have to purchase. This government is too fat and bloated to compete with the tenacious citizens that are sick of watching the government get fat off our hard work. It's time to bow down and submit Fed.

    158. LizardLips says:

      Since the early days of Medicare, society has been imbued with the notion that our public servants must be the arbiter of our monies re our health and have used threats and coercion to effect our compliance when it comes to helmets, seatbelts and the like with monetary fines and or jail, citing cost associated with the risks of non-compliance. The arguments used during the townhalls two years ago that Obamacare was socialized medical care were laughable, considering we've been there for almost forty-five years. The SCOTUS could very easily find for Team Obama, citing past practice simply because nodoby saw what was obviously right under our noses the whole time.

    159. servantshart12 says:

      "My fellow Americans, our long national nightmare is over."
      ALMOST anyway

    160. Irish says:

      First, while I don't believe it is constitutionally legal to force American's to buy into something such as Health Insurance… however, with that said, how is it that we are all forced into paying into SSN and Medicare?

      Next, if everyone "doesn't" pay into this HCR bill passed… as in those 1,700 org's granted waivers (even for a limited time), then it is left up to those of us paying into the system to bear the brunt of the healthcare costs of others not paying into it.. which is "wrong" in itself… therefore, either everyone pays into the system, or nobody does… and it shouldn't be up to those paying into it to pay for those getting a FREE ride…

      The whole HCR bill is flawed, which is why it never should have been passed without being read…

      It's already been shown that Employer Medical benefits has increased over 9%… which goes to show our Healthcare benefits would not decrease with the passage of this bill…

      The HCR bill is nothing more than another form of redistribution of entitlements… forcing individuals to essentially cave in to the Obama's system and away from Private Insurance carriers. His stimulus and bailouts have done nothing but create the loss of jobs since he entered the WH, therefore, making more and more people in the unemployment lines dependent on the gov't… a well thought out strategy in creating more dependance on the Gov't.

    161. sonnyboy says:

      The Supreme Court has become a joke in the last 2 decades. Where did these joker's go to law school? Harvard, the most anti American university in the USA? How sad.

    162. Realist says:

      Here is reality: This country will go broke on uncompensated care. Period. That is, unless you are going to turn the sick and dying without insurance away from emergency rooms, which no one is going to stand for. Texas needs a billion dollar uncompensated care fund. You are being forced to buy a product because its incredibly expensive to pay for your care, which we ALL do, if you become ill and don't have insurance.

      Secondly, you people made me buy the War in Iraq. Sorry someone wants to spend money on THIS country, rather than feed the defense contractors.

    163. Jake49 says:

      Let's hope for the beat donw of o'bummer care.

    164. Thinking cynically.. it is an amusing opportunity for the SCoTUS to exact some revenge for Obama's rudeness to the court's attendees during the 2010 State of the Union.

    165. Majestic_One says:

      I don't understand how anyone can argue Obamacare is a regulation of commerce since commerce was always regulated through duties on items of import/export:

    166. Five sixths of the country HAD good health insurance before Obama got a hold of it. Now, no one knows what they got.

    167. spencdo says:

      The only thing that worries me at this point, and should worry everyone else is the deceit that Obama, his admin, and the liberals will stoop to in trying to get what they want. I would put absolutely nothing past these people.

    168. Wayne says:

      Hard for me to imagine any of our Conservative members on the Supreme Court voting to keep this piece of crap. I believe that the Supreme Court will overturn it 5 to 4 and here's how it will go down.

      John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas will vote to overturn. The liberals most likely will vote to uphold it: Breyer, Ginsburg, Kagan and Sotomayor. Sorry, I can't remember their first names. LOL .

      Kennedy could be the spoiler but I don't think so. The larger question is if they will overturn the entire bill or just the individual mandate

    169. nonequity says:

      Did you know that Sotomayor's spouse is a lobbyist, earning a profit off of supporting Obamacare????? She must recuse herself. Wait…scratch that. It's the other way around. Clarence Thomas' wife earns a pretty penny as an anti ACA lobbyist. But I guarantee the wingers on this site are purposefully ignorant of that.

      Oh, well. I guess we'll go from repeal and replace, to repeal and just die already.

    170. derk_e_der says:

      Well in case you people watch only the MSM you may not yet have realized that complete criminals have grabbed the reins of our so-called government which is now a de facto outlaw regime. Not sure about you all but I WILL NOT comply further with the dictates of these worthless gangsters. I'll leave the once great country if I have to. Stop complying and cooperating with this mobsters. Breaking legs goes both ways does it not?

      Isn't it about time we step up and pay our share of the cost of freedom, our founders paid more than their share. Whether it be just disobedience or blood, the cost of freedom is worth every drop of effort. "When injustice becomes law, resistance becomes duty."–Thomas Jefferson

    171. Mick Leigh says:

      It is good that the Supreme Court will not hear this case in the fall session. If they hear it in the Spring session, they will issue their opinion just six months before the election. This will be issue No. 1 all the way to November. On the downside, Bachmann will lose her platform.

    172. Jim says:

      Liberty itself is in peril.

    173. victor gonzales says:

      So if they are calling it a tax now then the legislation is illegal since all tax bills have to originate in the house right? They need to make up their minds.

    174. Patrioticnut says:

      We can only hope and pray that the SCOTUS will slam this bill to the depths of hell where it belongs. If we see it upheld as constitutional we can say goodbye to our country or hello to the next real and armed revolution. Very scary to even think about such a thing, who would the combatants be? I own guns and would most likely be involved and how many others. Who exactly would the revolt be against, the federal government??? Who would defend the government? Has obama's national police force been formed behind the scenes yet? Very scary stuff indeed…

    175. Jeff Phillips says:

      Flush the whole Bill !!!!!!

    176. kim says:

      I will not get to excited over this until….But, until then, the States need to put their brass balls on an erect a backbone, for they need to start exercising their enumerated powers over the fed gov-also known as the US Corporation, and start protecting the people against tryanny from this over bloated pig of a government…

    177. and2therepublic says:

      Heritage and commenters, I have a question for all. The parties of this case, besides the NFIB, are 26 States v. the U.S., right? Why didn't this case go directly to the SCotUS as per Art. III, Sec. II, clause 2. of the Constitution? Which states: "In all cases affecting embassadors, other public ministers, and consuls, and those in which a STATE shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have ORIGINAL JURISDICTION. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make." ( emphasis mine) Again, why did not the SCotUS hear this case originally?

    178. Annah Cobb says:

      Will the lady that was appointed by Obama last be able to vote on this. I read somewhere that she is to have ALL of the bills sent to her personally for the Obamacare for her approval ….first. Could she be omitted from voting on this bill? I hope so.

    179. lynn says:

      i would like to see obamacare stopped and finished once and for all… if so many do not want it why keep going w/it?! if a fed. judge as richard vinson saw too many unconstitutioal loop hole then… it surely isn't a good thing.but when the government owns all you do that is not a good thing. a doctor to be fined or jailed … that is crazy. if the appointed not knowing the first thing about being a doctor to tell the doctor to let you die or treat you… well if my money is paying for my plan.. i would exspect the doctor to do for me .. not the government telling what my doctor can or can not do for me…. no!!! i do not want obamacare. so many infants having a rough start will just die now.and children w/ cp what is it for their fate? i have many patients w/ cp. i am a nurse and i am getting out of the job i have had since 1970.i do not want obamacare for me or my fellow american's.. period!!!!!!

    180. srk says:

      perhaps 2012 will be the turning point for this nation to get back to constitutionality and rule of law. obama has sent this country perilously close to "the emperor rules" ! god help us if we don't get rid of him.

    181. RandyLeanear says:

      The way obama and his administration PASSED this ridiculous "BILL" SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO HAVE IT THROWN OUT COMPLETELY. Tell 'em to try again within the laws and Constitution of OUR great nation THE USA!!!

    182. Charles Webb says:

      I am proud of this country for the first time since this neighborhood organizer was elected! Feels good to see a real challenge to our leader and his socialist ways.

    183. IHATEOBAMACARE says:

      Obamacare horror
      I go to the doctor every couple of months to get my thyroid checked. I get blood work, and then see the doctor days later and he adjusts my prescription. This time I could not get bloodwork. Under Obamacare I had to have a doctor's visit in order for him to prescribe blood work. So, the way it works, is that I must go to the doctor, tell him my problem, (BUT HE ALREADY KNOWS MY PROBLEM) He will order blood work. He will tell me that he has nothing to tell me. (BECAUSE HE NEES BLOODWORK)
      A week later the blood work will come back. If there is nothing to tell me he will tell me nothing.
      If there is something to tell me, I have to schedule another appointment so he can tell me what he should have been able to tell me at the first appointment.

    184. thedespotexposed says:

      today, on the eve of the SCOTUS decision on nobamacare, we learn that the despot who occupies the former residence of the POTUS, intends to ignore the courts ruling and continue implementation of the un-constitutional law. If he succeeds our liberty is imperiled such as men have not seen before. It's time to dust off the lawbooks and prove the case, via quo warranto, that the POTUS IS INELIGIBLE TO GOVERN.

    185. red bottoms says:

      Needed to write you the very little note in order to thank you very much yet again for those great suggestions you have featured in this case. This is so particularly generous of people like you to give openly all that a lot of people would’ve offered for an electronic book to help with making some profit for their own end, chiefly now that you might have done it if you ever desired. Those smart ideas as well worked to provide a fantastic way to be sure that many people have a similar fervor much like my very own to see much more when considering this condition. Certainly there are some more pleasurable moments ahead for many who read carefully your blog post.

    Comments are subject to approval and moderation. We remind everyone that The Heritage Foundation promotes a civil society where ideas and debate flourish. Please be respectful of each other and the subjects of any criticism. While we may not always agree on policy, we should all agree that being appropriately informed is everyone's intention visiting this site. Profanity, lewdness, personal attacks, and other forms of incivility will not be tolerated. Please keep your thoughts brief and avoid ALL CAPS. While we respect your first amendment rights, we are obligated to our readers to maintain these standards. Thanks for joining the conversation.

    Big Government Is NOT the Answer

    Your tax dollars are being spent on programs that we really don't need.

    I Agree I Disagree ×

    Get Heritage In Your Inbox — FREE!

    Heritage Foundation e-mails keep you updated on the ongoing policy battles in Washington and around the country.