Oh and don't forget today's undercard: House vs. Holder.
Sounds like some Dems are on board with the contempt vote, thanks to NRA pressure.
What a day it could be.
Looks like an unpredictable matchup today. I've got some real nervous energy.
Let's rock.
Last edited by JetPotato; 06-28-2012 at 07:47 AM.
Oh and don't forget today's undercard: House vs. Holder.
Sounds like some Dems are on board with the contempt vote, thanks to NRA pressure.
What a day it could be.
Anyone direct me to a live stream?
-
LOL. Nice
C-SPAN.Originally Posted by 32green
But I heard it's not on in Jacksonville.
I think Holder will be held in contempt...
But we'll leave that for another thread... I wish I'd have awoken to the news breaking, instead of having to sit here and wait on pins...
The Capitol Building will be rockin'. Possibly.
I don't know what happened to my life that I actually am anticipating this SC decision so much. I think I'd have far less stomach pains on a daily basis if I just ignored this stuff and only let the Jets do this to me 16 times a year.
This thread has elements of Pfail Strip, Hampur and Politiks Forum.
I think we're treading on dangerous ground here. Careful.
Hah?
I was gonna make ribz.
Arseclown Deutchbargs!
-
NRA and being in a re-election year.
Contempt and Gutted!
The whole thing might fold in on itself? Or more like if you go back in time and run into yourself?
Anyway, my sis in law just forwarded me a good link: http://www.scotusblog.com/cover-it-live/
Radio host, If you're above a certain age you will not be able to get the knee or hip replacement under Obamacare.
Lady Dr. from N.Y. and a Obama mouthpiece, yes you can still get those surgeries.
RH, no you can't!
DR. Yes you can.
above exchange times five.
RH, I can show YOU where the elderly will be excluded, can you show me where they're not?
I didn't say that! I said, you can still get those surgeries!
RH, what do you mean?
DR. Well you can pay for them yourself.
So, I guess the DEMS hate old people and only want the Ted Kennedy's(RIH) of the world to be able to have TOP QUALITY healthcare.
CNN is reporting that the SC "KILLS INDIVIDUAL MANDATE"
Decision is in
Mandate survives as a tax
Both CNN and FOX reporting this now.Decision is in
Mandate survives as a tax
This is going to get complicated.
Last edited by DDNYjets; 06-28-2012 at 10:11 AM.
I don't know which to believe yet...Decision is in
Mandate survives as a tax
+1
Only ruling I care about today is the mandate. It's unconstitutional, it's a terrifying new power the Governemnt should not have in any form, and it should be struck down.
The rest of the bill can stay, it's legal IMO. Regulation of existing commerce is a clear right of Congress. Hwo to pay for it is Congresses job to then figure out, but it has to be legal and constitutional if they want it.
As for Holder, meh, don't know. I get a "birther" feeling here that (R) is being strung along for the eventual (D) "see, look, nothing was up at all, look at these evil racist (R) going after us for nothing again, just like the birther issue". Any wrongdoing that was done, and I do belive there was, will be covered up, shredded or lost, and the end result is the (R) House looking like professional birthers right at election day.
CNN reporting that Chief Justice Roberts concluded it "may be upheld under the tax provisions of Congress"
Initially it was believed it wouldn't be upheld under Commerce clause. Which the SC agrees with.
Now CNN reporting it has been UPHELD.
LOL.
This is a clusterphuck.
Last edited by DDNYjets; 06-28-2012 at 10:17 AM.
Supreme Court strikes down 'Stolen Valor' Act
The Supreme Court today struck down the "Stolen Valor" Act that made it illegal to falsely claim to be the recipient of military honors and decorations, SCOTUSblog.com reports.
The court found that the statute violates the First Amendment.
Update at 10:06 a.m. ET: SCOTUSblog.com says that the wording of the court's ruling suggests that Congress might be able to rewrite the law to make it pass the high court's scrutiny.
Original post: The law, signed by President Bush in 2005, was punishable by fines and up to a year in jail.
The case involved Xavier Alvarez, a California man who had never served in the military but lied at a public meeting about receiving a Medal of Honor.
The central issue before the court was whether such falsehoods cause harm to the U.S. military and to service members who have been legitimately honored for their heroic actions during war.
http://content.usatoday.com/communit...1#.T-xnY7XSlLU
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks