As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Quote of the Day, Part 2

A note from our attorneys: This is a real quote

“Mitt Romney will appeal this decision to the American people on November 6th. Oral arguments are already taking place.”

– Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer

H/T to Joe Curl, in whose Washington Times piece I saw this.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

18 Responses to Quote of the Day, Part 2

  1. I know who I am voting for, Just. However, I am starting to think the best we will get out of Romney on Day 1 is a repeal of the Mandate/Tax. If ObamaCare is completely repealed by the Republicans, it will release a firestorm of protest. I don’t think our Republican legislators have the cojones to do it.

    • Rick, think about this. The House is set to vote on repeal the week of 9 July. They will pass it. Harry Reid will do everything in his power to keep it off the Senate floor. Remember, this is now a ‘tax’ bill and only needs a simple majority to pass. There are 22 Democrates up for reelection in the Senate. The pressure will be on some of them to vote with the Republicans if they want to hold onto their seat. The real fun will be watching obama twisting in the wind trying to justify a veto of his signature piece of legislation and the largest tax increase in the history of the U.S.

      • All fair points, Just. And, believe me, I would LOVE to see them take place. I’m just bummed out with “the System” and the stupidity of the electorate. Discussing Obama’s forceful “It is NOT a tax!” with many people after it was ruled a tax and whats the answer from his followers? “Who cares what it is, we won!” The fact that the POTUS lied like a rug means nothing to these voters. It is what it is, I guess.

  2. Thanks to the so-called conservative chief justice, we now have a new name for Obamacare — Obamatax. After the Progressive majority on the court set the precedent that inactivity can be taxed, Reagan’s words – “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” – are no longer valid because tax and subsidy now have the same definition.

    Well written article, but that knife sticking in the middle of America’s back isn’t any less painful this morning than it was yesterday when the blow was delivered.

  3. Michelle Bachmann is referring to the DEM reconciliation bill which only required a simple majority of 50 plus one. Looks like it may not work in this case. I hope and pray she is correct – she usually is!

    “Many Republicans, especially in the blog and talk-radio swamps, would cry, “Use reconciliation!” Readers familiar with the congressional debates of 2009-2010 will remember that this procedure allows certain budgetary measures to pass through the Senate with a simple majority. (After Ted Kennedy died and was replaced by the Republican Scott Brown, Obama and congressional Democrats used the reconciliation process to make some final, crucial changes to the health-care law.) But reconciliation wouldn’t work here-the process can only be used for policies that have budgetary effects and a C.B.O. score. Much of the A.C.A., such as the insurance exchanges and subsidies, would fall under these categories. But a lot of it, including the hated individual mandate, does not. Repealing the exchanges and subsides without repealing the mandate and the other regulations and cost controls in the law would create a health-care Frankenstein that a President Romney would be rather nuts to support.”

    Read more http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2012/06/why-romney-wont-repeal-obamacare.html#ixzz1zC0xB7D6

  4. I do not understand something.

    The Court was ruling on a piece of legislation that provided for a “penalty” if a person did not buy mandated insurance and justified it as a part of Congress’ powers under the Commerce act.

    The Court said this was unconstitutional,

    Doesn’t it end there with the act being voided? Even if the Court opines that such an action could be constitutional if it were called a tax — isn’t it necessary then for Congress to go back and pass such legislation?

    Is it really okay for the Democrats to do a global-search-and-replace of “tax” for “penalty” in legislation, thus changing the content of what had been voted upon?

    I am confused — please help me out.

  5. Byron York writes:

    ….Roberts’ sleight of hand drove his conservative colleagues nuts. “The government and those who support its position on this point make the remarkable argument that [the mandate] is not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but is a tax for constitutional purposes,” wrote dissenters Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito. “That carries verbal wizardry too far, deep into the forbidden land of the sophists.”

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/white-house-braces-for-house-court-actions/article/2500817

  6. I want to throw a question out to the group: We’re all reading examples of Roberts’ brilliance in twisting this decision back around so it benefits Republicans but didn’t the 4 liberal Justices he sided with see this potential as well? Conversely, why are the 4 Conservative Justices seemingly so upset over the vote? One would think if it was so advantageous to “us”, it would have been 5-4 Conservative (with Roberts) vs Liberal Justices, no?