Advocacy / AMAC Action On Capitol Hill / Politics

AMAC Supports the “SCOTUScare Act”

capitol-buildingIn light of the Supreme Court’s recent activist ruling in King v. Burwell, AMAC is supporting a new bill that seeks to hold Supreme Court Justices accountable to the laws they uphold – namely ObamaCare.  Introduced by Representative Brian Babin (R-TX), the “SCOTUScare Act” would require Supreme Court Justices and their staffs to enroll in ObamaCare’s health exchanges just like millions of other Americans. AMAC firmly believes that no government leader or federal employee is above the law or should be specially exempted from ObamaCare. Like many Americans, AMAC feels that the “SCOTUScare Act” is an important step in making sure that Washington does not abuse its authority.

stars

June 26, 2015

The Honorable Brian Babin
36th District, Texas
316 Cannon House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515

Dear Representative Babin,

On behalf of the 1.3 million members of AMAC, the Association of Mature American Citizens, I am writing to extend our strong support for your bill, the “SCOTUScare Act.”  This timely, responsible piece of legislation would ensure that Supreme Court Justices receive no special exemption from the laws they uphold – namely, the “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” known more commonly as “ObamaCare.”

AMAC believes that the “SCOTUScare Act” is critical to ensuring that no individual – including America’s nine Supreme Court Justices – is permitted to live above the law.  This bill would require these Justices and their staffs to be enrolled in ObamaCare’s health care exchange, just like millions of other Americans.  All government officials and federal employees should be willing to fully submit to the laws they create, enforce, and uphold.

In light of the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in King v. Burwell, AMAC is deeply concerned by the activist role the Court has assumed.  This legislation is a necessary step in making sure that Washington does not continue to abuse its authority or unfairly benefit from special exemptions.  As an unelected and unaccountable branch of government, it is important that Justices of the Supreme Court abide by the letter of law just as is required of the American people.  Thanks to your leadership and willingness to stand on principle, AMAC is pleased to support the “SCOTUScare Act.”

Sincerely,
Dan Weber
President and Founder of AMAC


If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter
and Download the AMAC News App

Sign Up Today Download

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!


Subscribe
Notify of
54 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Lisbeth Jones
7 years ago

Can we possibly get the Congress to do anything about this mess?

HAM
7 years ago

All politicians and government employees, not just the Supreme Court, should be required to go on an Obamacare plan. If it’s “good enough for the goose, it’s good enough for the gander”. I am tired of this double standard. Force these 2 faced idiots to back up their own laws. They are not going to do it on their own. If the people don’t push for it, then Congress will not do it.

Sandi Bryan
7 years ago

Sorry…Supreme Court !

Sandi Bryan
7 years ago

For years I have listened to the “conservative” commentators. As a child of the 60s I learned what activism meant..as a conservative, however. What I find is that all conservatives do is talk. As Ben Carson says, “It is time for the people to rise up.” We can talk about the Superem Court being a lawless institution, but what are we the people going to do about it? It is a bad “Twilight Zone” movie: 5 black robed, godless people who just redefined the meaning of marriage for the entire country. And we are supposed to say “ok”? It is time to say, “NO”!

The definition of tyranny: “arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power; despotic abuse of authority.” Synonym: dictatorship.

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  Sandi Bryan

What we can do about it is to join the growing movement calling for a Convention of States to propose Amendments to the Constitution which will impose fiscal restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms in office of its officials and members of Congress. I’m afraid just saying no will have about the same effect as doing nothing. What is saying no, other than more talk? Four states have already passed the Convention of States application, and at least 35 others have had it under consideration this year. Go to conventionofstates.com and join 200,000 other people who are doing something more than just talking.

M Bryan Rice
7 years ago

Calling for a Constitutional change is opening the door to everything in the Constitution. One does not open that door to a specific issue but rather opens the door to change everything. Do you really want to do that? I don’t think so. What is needed is a way to force obedience to existing laws. There is nothing wrong with the Constitution as it is. The problem is in not holding politicos to the letter and the enforcement of laws as they are. I agree with the idea of no exemptions to all laws, from retirement to medical coverage to severe penalties for any avoidance or privileges extended. Watch the career politicians like hawks and treat them as they deserve (ask) to be treated. Whipping posts come to mind.

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  M Bryan Rice

All I needed to do was to mention the term John Bircher and M Bryan Rice shows up two hours and twenty one minutes later to prove my point, almost as if by magic; a true John Bircher if there ever was one. They never have any solutions, or even anything even remotely sensible to say; nullification, whipping posts, force obedience to existing laws, or elect better politicians. Sure, and how has that been working out so far, Mr. Rice? First, they say the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a runaway Convention, and then they always say the Constitution is perfect and cannot be improved upon, and even if it could it would solve nothing. So, the runaway Convention of 1787 produced a perfect document, and the states which created this perfect document containing in Article V a legal way they could Amend it as needed and if needed, should have no right to use that provision. Article V is part of the law which you falsely claim to want to be able to force obedience to, although you very clearly do not.
Any Convention to propose Amendments would be totally controlled by the mandate (subject) stated in the applications of those states applying for the Convention. In the case of the Convention of States application, which is the only one which I am advocating for, the mandate is to propose Amendments which will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms in office of its officials and members of Congress. Any delegate who votes in favor of any Amendment which does none of these things will be immediately recalled by the state which he represents, and his vote will be cancelled. He may also be subject to prosecution. So clearly, you have no idea of what you were writing about, Mr. Rice. The state legislators who have passed these applications are not morons, and they have been the most conservative legislators in some of the most conservative states, and in my opinion they are considerably more intelligent than you are.
The John Birch Society is a thoroughly discredited organization in a number of ways, having discredited itself, and I am going to explain a little bit about what I mean here. A lot of fear and misinformation about the use of an Article V “Convention for proposing Amendments” has been spread by members of the John Birch Society over the past 30 years after they had been trying to bring about a Convention of the States for the previous 30 years before that. Two and one half months ago, on April 15, 2015, an article entitled “John Birch Society Denies its History and Betrays its Mission”, by Ken Quinn, was posted on the Convention of States website, and the article can still be read there. Mr. Quinn explains why current JBS president, John McManus’ claim, made repeatedly in his March 24, 2015 article which I have read, that the John Birch Society has never advocated for an Article V Convention is false. JBS founder, Robert Welch, and his successor, Larry McDonald, were both strong advocates during the 1960s into the 1980s of an Article V Convention to propose the “Liberty Amendment”, which was drafted by Willis E. Stone in 1944. In his article McManus conveniently says that he never spoke to Congressman McDonald about his position on the Article V Convention process, (even though they were both JBS top officers at the same time) but he was sure that McDonald was against it. McManus can easily be proven to be a lying by reading the Congressional Record from October 9, 1975 #32634-32641, showing Larry McDonald’s testimony in Congress about how the Article V Convention process was designed to operate (by George Mason), and how he intended to get the Liberty Amendment proposed by the Convention of States Amendment process. Ken Quinn provided a copy of the relevant parts of the Congressional Record in his April 15, 2015 Article, and I have read Congressman McDonalds’ testimony in the Congressional Record.

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  M Bryan Rice

Furthermore, even though he was a US Congressman he was also a strong advocate for the Article V Convention process, as I am quite sure John McManus is aware of. Unfortunately, while still advocating for the “Liberty Amendment” as president of the John Birch Society, Larry McDonald was killed in late 1983, when the Korean Airlines plane he was on was shot down by a Russian Mig jet, and some sources say it was an SU 15. After that, the John Birch Society was taken over by people who have reversed its position on the “Liberty Amendment”, and on the entire Article V Convention process, as well. So all the information being put out about the JBS never having been in favor of the Article V Convention process is false. You should read Mr. Quinn’s article, because it contains a lot more evidence than I have room for here, and I think all of this says a lot about the lack of character of the John Birch Society president and his entire organization. In my opinion, nearly all the arguments against the Article V Convention process come either directly or indirectly from the articles posted on the jbs.org website, because they are nearly all identical to the objections which appear there, and most of these opponents will not admit that this is where their ideas came from.
On March 26, 2015, in response to a lot of criticism caused by an article in the ’Washington Examiner’, Alex Newman posted an article on the JBS website reversing everything which John McManus had said just two days earlier about JBS never having supported an Article V Convention. In Newman’s article, entitled ‘Con Con backers Deploy False Attacks Against JBS’, he admits that JBS actually supported the Article V Amendment process from the1950s to probably beyond the mid 1970s (probably for at least twenty years and they got the Liberty Amendment passed in at least ten state legislatures). However, we know from what I said above that JBS was still advocating for an Article V Convention when Larry Mc Donald was killed in late 1983, so that means JBS was advocating for an Article V Convention for almost 30 years, but according to them, it doesn’t really count because they were only intending to frighten Congress. You have their word. You can rely on it, according to them.

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  M Bryan Rice

Even though AMAC has endorsed the Article V process, my post in support of it and replying to misinformation posted by M Bryan Rice was rejected due to its length, unfortunately, about four days ago. That is no way to grow a conservative movement. Further proof that the John Birch Society promoted the Article V Convention process comes directly from the JBS website. Everything within the brackets below is excerpted from Newman’s March 26, 2015 JBS article: [“It was a calculated tactic that Mr. Stone promoted.” By the early 1970s, JBS toned down its support for the amendment simply because “we felt that it was not wise to use this dangerous strategy of playing chicken with the Constitution.” When asked about a quote from Welch that appeared in an August 1963 interim bulletin urging members to support a resolution in Alabama to promote a convention for the amendment, current JBS President John F. McManus again explained the strategy then being employed by Welch and Stone. “That strategy was to have state legislatures petition for a Constitutional Convention, not to actually result in a convention but as a way to force Congress to use its authority contained in Article V to pass the Amendment without any convention,” McManus said. “Mr. Stone’s plan was to frighten Congress to act by having numerous states back the Con-Con route. He very emphatically explained this to me years later when he asked me to become the state chairman for the Liberty Amendment.”]
As to the 12 ½ minute March 11,2014 JBS video entitled “State Legislators Warn Against a Constitutional Convention”, which the JBS is circulating to every state legislator in the US, one relatively important fact JBS probably never mentions is that all three of these “legislators” were big Ron Paul supporters. The quotes are because two of the three were no longer legislators when the video was made, so the title should read “Former Legislators…” The three “legislators” in the video were former state senator Randy Brogdon, former state representative Charles Key, and state representative Michael Ritz. Besides being John Birch collaborators, it is easily proven that all three were major Ron Paul supporters in 2012 and before. I believe this places them in a small minority of the political spectrum.
Nevertheless, I will offer a rebuttal here to a statement made by Representative Mike Ritze:
Statement: “The essence of why we defeated the Article V convention bills this year (in Oklahoma) is that this would be a runaway convention- there is not a way to package this where it can be controlled…”
Answer and Reference:
The Other Way to Amend the Constitution: The Article V Constitutional Convention Amendment Process By James Kenneth Rogers Published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, the URL is http://www.harvard-jlpp.com/vols-30-34/#303
Page 1011
“The text and history of Article V indicate that Congressʹ role in calling a convention is merely ministerial. The original purpose of Article V was to give States the power to circumvent a recalcitrant or corrupt Congress. It thus makes little sense for it to give Congress broad power to control a convention. In light of the text of Article V and its purpose to empower States, States should have the power to limit the scope of a convention and to limit their applicationsʹ validity to only a certain topic. The original purpose of Article V also indicates that States’ applications should be grouped and counted by subject‐matter.”
And further, in Federalist 85, written by Alexander Hamilton, he said, “We may safely rely on the disposition of the State Legislatures to erect barriers against encroachments of the National authorities.” And in Federalist 43 he made it clear that both methods of amending errors in the Constitution are equally valid. Also, there have been several Supreme Court rulings which reinforced Hamilton’s interpretation of Article V. Some of them include “Dodge v Woolsey” (1855), “Hawke v Smith” (1920), “Dillon v Gloss” (1921), and “United States v Sprague” (1931). In “Hawke v Smith” the Court said “…The language of the Article is plain, and admits no doubt in its interpretation. It is not the function of the courts or legislative bodies, national or state, to alter the method which the Constitution has fixed.” The Article V Convention process was put into the Constitution because George Mason insisted on it as a way to protect the states from a tyrannical federal government. It would make no sense for the federal government to have any authority over a Convention of the States to propose Amendments that impose fiscal restraints upon the federal government, and limit the power, scope, and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms in office of its officials; no sense at all.
Opponents like to cite Chief Justice Warren Burger’s opinion that “this cannot be done in private”. Demonstrators, hecklers, and others who would attempt to interfere with the proceedings can be barred, while the Convention will be recorded on video. I think Chief Justice Burger’s main concern was the fear that his decision in Roe v. Wade could be reversed.
Others like to cite recent remarks by Justice Antonin Scalia that a “Constitutional Convention is a horrible idea.” Justice Scalia also said during a May 8, 2015 speech in Morristown, New Jersey, disappointingly, that “the Bill of Rights does not make us free”, and I don’t think very many Americans would agree with such a statement. He also spoke against the idea of concentrating power in any one person or branch, and I think most American’s agree with that principle. Does he not realize how often one person on the Supreme Court has overruled the opinions of millions of Americans? While no one that I know of is advocating for a Constitutional Convention, I think Justice Scalia is afraid of being term limited, if 34 states succeed in calling a Convention of States for the purpose of proposing Amendments which will impose fiscal restraints on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and limit the terms of its officials and members of Congress.

Larry B
7 years ago

Wouldn’t it be great if Obamacare became known as SCOTUScare? Regardless of what other things might happen to the healthcare law as a result of unConstitutional Supreme Court decisions, what would become of Obama’s legacy socialist healthcare law if it became known by a name unrelated to Obama, and by a name originating back to Justice Scalia?

Richard Hasson
7 years ago

It’s time for a third party!

Mark Alpern
7 years ago
Reply to  Richard Hasson

No the third party idea is a bad one. It’s time Republicans kicked folks like John Boehner out of a “leadership” position and TOOK THE PARTY BACK from the current frauds that are in control and causing us to be beaten on every front!

C. Ann C.
7 years ago
Reply to  Mark Alpern

Good point, Mark. Any third party we conservatives/Republicans change to will be detrimental to the one party that can defeat the Democrats. You don’t see them splitting up their party, so the more those who want to split our one party up the more the Democrats are loving it. Don’t give them the chance to defeat us like that. We just need to do some very necessary party changes, and yes, one of them is Speaker Boehner, then let’s go after Sen. John McCain, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham(nesty) – we in South Carolina call him that since he sides with Obama’s amnesty, and Lindsey also confirmed to vote for those judges nominated by Obama, Kegan, Ginsberg – 2 whom should have recused themselves from the marriage ruling since they’ve both spoken publicly their support of gay marriages, but they didn’t! A third party will only be defeated and how many of those progressive Republican voters (there are some of those) will move out of being progressive Republicans to a third party? And how would some other staunch, Republican party supporters switch over to a “new” party? They won’t, and there you have the split that the Demoncrats want us to do. They’re hoping we do this. We need to change the entire party structure, including the leader of the Party, and in every state, and every county. To do that, every Republican voter, and every conservative voter, including Tea Parties, conservative groups, patriotic groups who vote Republican, have to come out to the Precinct Reorganizations when the next one comes up….that will be in 2017 because we just had one this year, and it was a sorry result of how many of us turned out at that one. This is how the Democrats do it — they go to their precinct reorganizations (ReOrgs we call it) — they fill up their precinct voters and hence that’s how they get the votes and that’s how they go to their conventions. The Republican party seems to never get that many respondents at the ReOrgs, thus the Party stays the same as it was and never changes. If everyone knew how these precincts are organized we’d have all registered voters lining up by the thousands! If everyone knew how these people get to go to the National Party conventions where each side nominates their party’s candidate for President, we’d have thousands lining up to be members of their Party, but we never do. That is where the changes MUST be made…starting at the precinct levels…if you want to know more about that, let me know..

Dorothy A Davis
7 years ago
Reply to  C. Ann C.

C. ANN C: PLEASE send me info on how to get involved with the Precinct Reorganization.

D.Webb
7 years ago
Reply to  C. Ann C.

Ann.
I also would be very interested in receiving more information!
Thank You

Pat
7 years ago

I’m for We the people, ALL the people (no exceptions) covered under Obamacare. That includes those VIPs in congress and SCOTUS. They have a high opinion of themselves and we have allowed this to happen for years. Obama just took it to the limit. They are all a spineless bunch of jerks. I say dump all those graybeards including Pelosi, Feinstein and all their ilk. These people do not care what the people of this great country want. They have turned it upside down and inside out. We are becoming a very sick society under this government. As a legal immigrant to this country years ago, I am glad I got to see it at it’s best and am glad I won’t be around when it finally hits rock botom.

Philip
7 years ago
Reply to  Pat

Oblowhard has taken it beyond the limit.

Tony Pope
7 years ago

TERM LIMITS ! The ultimate answer. The chances of it happening in my lifetime are almost zero. However it will never happen if no one talks about it. There are plenty of conservative “talking heads” who have massive audiences, but the subject is never mentioned. We certainly can’t depend on the lawmakers to bring it up. It should apply to all 3 branches of government. It applies to the Executive Branch – why not the Legislative and Judicial. Two 4-year terms would eliminate Career Politicians, and allow for those in the general public to be involved in making intelligent and rational decisions which are beneficial to all, not just Washington POLS. Additionally, all laws should apply to everyone – 100% of the people living in the USA – no exemptions for those making or enforcing the laws.

Wayne Peterkin
7 years ago
Reply to  Tony Pope

While I agree with term limits and have for many years, this week’s disasters were created by nine unelected political appointees with no oversight by anyone. Activist courts can and do much damage and the only possible way of repairing their damage is through constitutional amendments, a long, tedious, and very uncertain process. While I dislike tampering with the Constitution, perhaps an amendment should be considered in light of this week’s rulings to limit federal judges, especially SCOTUS justices. Were we to replace a few of them, perhaps we could find some that were capable of reading both English and simple law. The Obamacare ruling made it plain they were incapable of doing so.

Mark Alpern
7 years ago
Reply to  Wayne Peterkin

Correct.

Earl
7 years ago
Reply to  Wayne Peterkin

Ted Cruz has already introduced an Amendment to require all Supreme Court justices to face reconfirmation election by the voters every eight years, and I think every four years would be better. His Amendment says that if a justice is not reconfirmed by the voters in over half of the states he/she will not be eligible to ever serve on the Supreme Court again. This would be helpful, but I think that the states should also have the power to reverse a Supreme Court decision by a vote of 60% of the state legislatures, and Mark Levin suggested an Amendment which would do that in his book, “The Liberty Amendments”. The only possible way of ever getting a term limiting Amendment proposed is through the Article V Convention of States process to propose Amendments which will impose fiscal restraint on the federal government, limit the power and jurisdiction of the federal government, and impose term limits on its officials and members of Congress. This year about 36 state legislatures have been considering a Convention to do just that, and four states have made their applications to Congress already.This same legislation was passed by the House in six states and by the Senate in three other states this year so far, and it will be reintroduced every year until it passes in 34 states so a convention can be held. Some people, like Ivan Berry and all the other John Birchers for example, believe that only the Supreme Court, the President, and the Congress should be able to revise the Constitution at will, and that the rest of us should have absolutely nothing to say about it. If you are not one of those people you should go to conventionofstates.com and get involved and keep the movement growing, as there are over 200,000 people involved so far, but we need a lot more. The first half of the year is the most active, but you should not wait until next year to start learning about the process.

The fastest way to get rid of Obamacare for those who don.t want to live under socialized healthcare is to elect Ted Cruz as the next President, because he is the only candidate who has vowed consistently to do so. He is the best candidate in almost every way, and you can learn more about his qualifications as a conservative by going to conservativereview.com and reading about all the Presidential candidates.

Dorothy A Davis
7 years ago
Reply to  Wayne Peterkin

I AGREE 100%.

Joe
7 years ago

Everyone has very good points! The problem is that ALL Politicians, whether Dems. or Republicans are drawn out of the same Socialist pot of candidates! I believe that both parties meet behind closed doors to decide how to milk the public out of more money. The only thing they really need to decide is who will be the “Good Guy” & who will be the “Bad Guy” on each issue.

They should ALL be arrested and Tried under “THE RICO ACT” as a CRIMINAL ENTERPRISE! The problem with getting any Justice is that the ATTORNEY GENERAL is APPOINTED by which ever crook holds the White House, therefore they are beholding to that President. The Attorney General should be an Elected Office, then maybe, just MAYBE we could get investigations and prosecution of the IRS, Bengazi & Retired Politicians that with hold information, Lie, keep secret E-mails etc.

What we need is for ALL political Offices to be filled from a LOTTERY SYSTEM! The name of every (Educationally Qualified) citizen would be placed in a drum & when they need a Senator from a particular state? they draw a name from the applicable drum! Then that person gets a DRAFT NOTICE saying ” Mr/Mrs Blank, you have been selected to serve as a Senator from your State for a period of 3 years. You have three months to get your affairs in order before reporting to Washington. Your present job will be held for your return, and your salary will remain the same as Senator!”

What we need is Total change, not just New Faces doing the same nonsense!

Wayne Peterkin
7 years ago
Reply to  Joe

What politicians conspire to do is buy votes using someone else’s money; the taxpayers. Both parties are very good at it, but the Democrats have a clear advantage. They’ve been doing it longer and have more practice, but the GOP is starting to catch up.

Dorothy A Davis
7 years ago
Reply to  Joe

What AN EXCELLENT IDEA.

Ann
7 years ago

As a survivor of a Federal Retiree, I do not want to lose my FEBH benefits just to make others happy. My husband worked over 35 years to have those benefits and I feel nobody in the Federal Government should have to be on Obamacare. I pay a premium plus taxes toward my benefits. So I don’t want to hear that I am not a taxpayer.

Gerald Couey
7 years ago
Reply to  Ann

So what Ann, I have paid for my health insurance my entire working career and paid taxes.
Now I am retired and on a fixed income and I still pay for my medicare and supplement policy plus taxes on my .retirement income.

Lincoln Sorensen
7 years ago
Reply to  Ann

Ann, it is all too obvious that our government workers have evolved into the thinking they are our masters and should have superior options. We the people need to quit referring to our elected officials as politicians or elected officials and referring to them as “our employees”. That will put all of us in the proper frame of mind when we have to mingle with each other. No law passed should exclude any person or group of people from it’s rule. I believe that should also be the case for foriegn ambassadors and their families. Everybody has equal importance as does their job. No one gets special treatment.

Faye Harwell
7 years ago

I believe that until government emloyees – ALL of Washington, etc.- are also required to be on Obamacare, that they will have no empathy for what they make other Americans suffer. They are not above the law of the land. Obama, etc. institutes bad things for the rest of us – they should have the same – from Obama on down the chain. Then and only then, will our lives improve. Justice for ALL.

old crank
7 years ago
Reply to  Faye Harwell

Oh, wonderful idea! But who is going to hold them down, sit on their chest, and pour the medicine down their throat?

Richard Hasson
7 years ago
Reply to  Ann

I don’t think taxpayers should have to fund union pensions,There shouldn’t be unions in public service.

minnie
7 years ago
Reply to  Ann

Ann, I agree with you and I am also a retired Fed employee, and since my health insurance has indeed been more costly, I have had health insurance since 1982 for my family and I and now only for myself. I also contribute for medicare while I was working so I had a choice to keep what I had Fed H/C or get medicare. I decided to keep what I had. Now I only have that plus my medicare part A.

KEITH
7 years ago

The republican leadership is so weak and corrupt! WE should have had a backup plan in the form of a bill to offset ObamaCare. By introducing a bill with specific points on healthcare, and even if it wouldn’t avoid the presidential veto, WE would have been on record as having a plan. Shame on these so called leaders…they are just backroom dealing politicians……out with the OLD farts and in with a new breed of truth and transparency… real conservatives!.

Mark Alpern
7 years ago
Reply to  KEITH

Nope… the ONLY practical answer is for us to TAKE OUR PARTY BACK from the weak individuals currently running it first… then we can get to work showing the American people how to make most of us prosperous.

Chuck
7 years ago

Lawrence;
You are 100% correct, there is no difference between the two parties. I can see the eventual overturning of religious freedom and enactment of a permanent socialist state now that the Constitution has been basically shredded. Thank God I lived during the best of times. We are headed for the worst of times.

Ronald
7 years ago

This is at best a symbolic act.This administration loves symbolic acts as such steps do not impact policy making. The effort should be to re-cast Congress – vote out all current incumbents in ’16. Nominate yourself or your in-laws if need be as there will be more common sense in that set of citizens than there is in Congress today. For 10 years now, yes it started back in ’06 when we gave Nancy the gavel, the Democrat Party has been the party of enablers, but this was expected. During the same time the GOP has been striving to become the party of also-rans. Time to vote them all out of office. AMAC members must look for candidates to nominate in ’16 – one state/district at a time.

Sheila
7 years ago

A majority of the Supreme Court judges would not be forced into Obamacare because of their age-they are in Medicare, not private insurance. The problem is that it is not just the court. Our politicians may say they are in Obamacare, BUT, Their premiums are paid directly by the taxpayers, even if they are millionaires. (they all have a subsidy, you might say.)

Of course, Medicare will get destroyed, as we know it, because Obama will drain funds from it to pay for His namesake plan.
There seems to be no way to beat these people, on anything. The Rebublicans talk a good Conservative talk, but in many of our causes, too many walk the Liberal walk. The chamber of commerce owns them.

Most days, I am glad I am old, and probable will not be here, when everything colapses.

Alden Sewell
7 years ago
Reply to  Sheila

Amen to hopefully be gone B-4 the roof caves in .

joseph parise
7 years ago

well they voted for us to have this GARABAGE. now let the American people have a say and vote to have all justices and senators and congressman and women all there staff and Obama and his family.etc. to be put on this garbage called Obama care. since this is so great we do not want anyone left out of this great opportunity for this care. NOW GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GIVE IT TO THEM.

Doris
7 years ago
Reply to  joseph parise

Any laws that are passed should apply to everyone equally. As a member of the private sector who worked all my life, I really resent paying the benefits of union workers and the Feds. We do without the same bennies in the private sector that they incessantly increase fur themselves. Time they’re cut down to size. They have contributed to the bankruptcy of the country. Sorry Feds, you work for us. No more goodies.

tom mccaffery
7 years ago

sounds like a plan

Don Morrison
7 years ago

I agree with Lawrence Stone. It is time that we have Judge that will support the Constitution an not change the laws to meet their personal interpretation of what some law should have said. The SCOTUS under John Robert has become a court that make laws not review them to see if they are Constitutional. They have acceded the authority give to they by the Constitution. The Congress need to act now to impeach the SCOTUS jurists who can’t due the job the right way.

Cheryl Farris
7 years ago
Reply to  Don Morrison

He didn’t interpret the law, he in essance rewrote the law using his ruling! Forget Congress they won’t pass any law that will rework this bundle of joy, they are too CHICKEN! I am from Kentucky and ashamed that I voted for Mitch McConnell, who talks big lies. I want the Republicans to tell the truth, they are lying to us also.
Amen to the person who wrote the comment “hopefully be gone when the roof caves in”

kris littlefield
7 years ago

The Supreme Court does not have the authority to make law. They also can’t impose their personal opinions. Our Founders were smart enough to know that a guaranteed life long job could have unintended consequences so they made it possible to remove them. We should find out what steps need to be taken to get them removed. Sotomayor and Ginsberg should have recused themselves from Gay marriage.

Dorothy A Davis
7 years ago

AND SOTOMAYOR should have RECUSED herself on Obamacare as she was MR Obamas consultant when it was first being written up.

billl guilfoil
7 years ago

americans wake up I was n the 94th infantry division in world war two a after college or rather enlisted during my college. Were in deep trouble withfederal spending obamism supreme court etc sad day forimmigration mess lots of great people in world don’t get me wrong but we must limit our immigration. Bill Guilfoil new oracle of Kansas politics

54
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x