I realize that it is unlikely the Supreme Court will overturn the law, but wouldn't it be wonderful vindication for Justice Alito to write the majority opinion?
A guy can dream, can't he?
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
'Opening The Floodgates My A**, Reverse This!'
The ink is barely dry, and fourteen states, including my adopted home state of Pennsylvania (commonwealth, actually), have joined together to file suit challenging the constitutionality of the just-enacted health care 'reform' law.
I realize that it is unlikely the Supreme Court will overturn the law, but wouldn't it be wonderful vindication for Justice Alito to write the majority opinion?
A guy can dream, can't he?
I realize that it is unlikely the Supreme Court will overturn the law, but wouldn't it be wonderful vindication for Justice Alito to write the majority opinion?
A guy can dream, can't he?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
From what I see, the AGs will challenge the law based on the fact that it will require people to purchase health insurnce policies. How is that different than a state requiring motorist to purchase auto insurance?
Driving is privilege, whereas health care is now a right, and purchase of which is now a requirement of citizenship.
Second time I have seen someone using the auto insurance analogy. The federal government does not require auto insurance, so where is this connection? Dumb analogy if you ask me.
GG - I'm guessing the requirement to buy a gun for our 2nd amendment right is just around the corner. Actually, they'd probably, and rightfully start with the first amendment. Probably will make having a wife a requirement for free (and unlimited) speech.
The "free speach" part of Amendment un/one will be watered down to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms version. Or, whatever passes for free speach in dhimmi-land...er I mean Your-up Pee-an Union.
Anon,
I don't support Obamacare, but please tell me how to address the auto insurance/health insurance analogy when I am challenged with it.
Post a Comment