posted
Conservatives Claim Roberts Upheld Obamacare Because Of ‘Cognitive Problems’ Due To Epilepsy Medication By Guest Blogger on Jun 29, 2012 at 9:30 am
Chief Justice John Roberts — a George W. Bush appointee — surprised many conservatives when he wrote the majority opinion upholding Obamacare’s individual mandate, but now some conservative activists are trying to link the side effects of Roberts’ epilepsy medication to his jurisprudence.
On his radio show yesterday, right-wing host Michael Savage — who has previously called autism a “phony disease” — claimed that Roberts’ epilepsy is the root cause of his “cognitive dissociation” in the Obamacare ruling:
Let’s talk about Roberts. I’m going to tell you something that you’re not going to hear anywhere else, that you must pay attention to. It’s well known that Roberts, unfortunately for him, has suffered from epileptic seizures. Therefore he has been on medication. Therefore neurologists will tell you that medication used for seizure disorders, such as epilepsy, can introduce mental slowing, forgetfulness and other cognitive problems. And if you look at Roberts’ writings you can see the cognitive dissociation in what he is saying.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
i feel the nedd to clarify soemthing you keep quoting from otehr people that is wrong ray, the SCOTUS did not approve the Constitutionality of mandating healthcare. this is very critical to understanding how we are where we now are.
they specifically stated the government has no authority to mandate it, Roberts as an Activist Judge re-interpeted the fines imposed for not having health care as a TAX.
he then pointed tot eh Constituaionality of Congress imposing a tax.
so please refarin from saying they (or quoting othere who say they) found mandated helathcare Constitutional.
this is a very critical fine point, many things hinge on this because now, under the new interpretations? the Govt can- for instance decide to impose a TAX on people who print things they do not like, even her eat allstocks. they will not be imposing our First ammendment rights by doing this because it is not being "prohibited" by imposing a tax.
look at ethe 24th Ammendment carefully while considering this:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
they are only specifically restricted from taxing hte right to vote... they had to actually create an amendmet to stop states from doing this...
now, Roberts has opened the door to any frigging tax they want to do to discourage other rights too. it will require specific amnedments to fix as well..
nothing was "won" by anybody here, in fact it all just got more screwed than ever before.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by glassman: i feel the nedd to clarify soemthing you keep quoting from otehr people that is wrong ray, the SCOTUS did not approve the Constitutionality of mandating healthcare. this is very critical to understanding how we are where we now are.
they specifically stated the government has no authority to mandate it, Roberts as an Activist Judge re-interpeted the fines imposed for not having health care as a TAX.
he then pointed tot eh Constituaionality of Congress imposing a tax.
so please refarin from saying they (or quoting othere who say they) found mandated helathcare Constitutional.
this is a very critical fine point, many things hinge on this because now, under the new interpretations? the Govt can- for instance decide to impose a TAX on people who print things they do not like, even her eat allstocks. they will not be imposing our First ammendment rights by doing this because it is not being "prohibited" by imposing a tax.
look at ethe 24th Ammendment carefully while considering this:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.
Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
they are only specifically restricted from taxing hte right to vote... they had to actually create an amendmet to stop states from doing this...
now, Roberts has opened the door to any frigging tax they want to do to discourage other rights too. it will require specific amnedments to fix as well..
nothing was "won" by anybody here, in fact it all just got more screwed than ever before.
LOL! Nice one glass. They ruled the Mandate as constitutional because the SCOTUS said it was a tax and not a fine. What part of that eludes you? They said it wasn't constitutional until the SCOTUS said it was a TAX and NOT a fine.
I know, I know....an inundation of WIKI is coming...but you have no grounds. But carry on...as I am sure you will with your wrongheaded assertion. Re-read the decision before you post please.
PS: how will the decision affect you personally?
-------------------- It is impossible to make anything foolproof because fools are so ingenious. Posts: 3311 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
i'm not sure you understand what i said pagan.
i willattempt to restate in simpler terms.
SCOTUS did not decide that mandated healthuinsurance is constitutional. to say they did is to misrepresent the decision.
we do not have mandated health care-
we have a tax on people who don't have health care.
Roberts was very activist to make this determineation since the word tax is never mentioend in th ebill..
"personally affect me?" who cares?
i have never been "against" this law. my criticism have been how retrded teh actaul law is..
and i've stated that many times since before it was even voted on.
i would prefer to see something more ratiaonal like single payer plus, where you are taxed to support healthcare and you get straightforward deductions when you buy private health care.
keep it simple stupid
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care what anybody feels or says we are on trac for better things. once people see how this is we are about 10 years away from a single payer. Things will move fast like they did in Britian now medical just comes out of the national budget in Britian. Thanks Obama for putting us on track.
-------------------- Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise. Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Guys...I am not speaking for Glass but he is spot on about this. Every right you have is guaraunteed not to be infringed upon by the constitution....Government can't touch those rights....right?
Of course you are entitled to your right to bear arms!!! We just need you to pay a small tax of 10,000 bucks a year per gun and 50 bucks per year for every round of ammo you own.
Of course you are protectd from illegal search and seizure...its your God given right to some privacy....Unfortunately, God doesn't process the warrants so we have to eat the cost of doing all that paperwork! Tell you what...we are gonna tax you 500 bucks a year and guarauntee you will be served with a writ prior to entering your home....ya know....just to cover expenses and what not.
Guys...this is the slickest slope I have ever seen. That decision pretty much means that you are owned.
you can be compelled to do whatever by means of tax. You can be coerced to do whatever by means of tax. You will give up your freedoms one by one in order to comply or avoid a tax. Anybody remember 1776?....King George III. We are Subjects of King now and I don't mean Obama. We have created a headless monster in order to be its subject...fashioned our own Golden Calf so to speak. Granted this has been evolving for decades. Many of us have decried the direction we have been heading because we have seen it coming. But if you can look at the implications of that ruling and be "stoked" about it...something is wrong, imo. I understand that proponents of Government Health care are happy that they benefit from it with this ruling....but we are all going to be on the losing side of this ruling at some point because of what it opens the door for. Even if you are a fan of Obamacare, this is what is known as a peeric victory. The Tax is the least of what we are ultimately going to pay.
Just my thoughts....
-------------------- "The greatest argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." (WC) Posts: 386 | From: Georgia | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
i just realised i let Pagan down by not cutting and pasting something:
Making matters much worse, Mr. Roberts asserts the mandate is a tax without permitting the kind of rigorous analysis of the taxing power that would have been demanded in the legislative process. He says it is neither a direct tax or a capitation (as he must, since both types of tax are constrained by Article I in a manner the individual mandate penalty/tax is not), nor is it an income tax; indeed the mandate/tax is only justified as an adjunct to a regulatory scheme, which scheme in this case the Chief Justice clearly sees as impermissible as an exercise of Congress’ regulatory powers.
Because if the Congress may defend any enactment from constitutional scrutiny by characterizing it as an exercise of the taxing power, mandates to buy health insurance, broccoli, or the collected speeches of Supreme Court Justices may seem like small potatoes indeed. K Streeters of all persuasions must be busily refreshing their links with the tax-writing committees already.
basically this article is saying what i said too. congress can tax anything they want now, and they can do it to "promote" behaviour or "discourage" behaviour, and there is no limit implied by other parts of the Constitution...
this has pretty much been used already in drugs and guns and alcohol..... anyway.
most people think of silencers adn full auto (real) assualt weapons as illegal when they are not... i can buy one if i want to pay thetax on them.. now, i can also be taxed for NOT doing something the govt wants me to....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rounder1: Guys...I am not speaking for Glass but he is spot on about this. Every right you have is guaraunteed not to be infringed upon by the constitution....Government can't touch those rights....right?
Of course you are entitled to your right to bear arms!!! We just need you to pay a small tax of 10,000 bucks a year per gun and 50 bucks per year for every round of ammo you own.
Of course you are protectd from illegal search and seizure...its your God given right to some privacy....Unfortunately, God doesn't process the warrants so we have to eat the cost of doing all that paperwork! Tell you what...we are gonna tax you 500 bucks a year and guarauntee you will be served with a writ prior to entering your home....ya know....just to cover expenses and what not.
Guys...this is the slickest slope I have ever seen. That decision pretty much means that you are owned.
you can be compelled to do whatever by means of tax. You can be coerced to do whatever by means of tax. You will give up your freedoms one by one in order to comply or avoid a tax. Anybody remember 1776?....King George III. We are Subjects of King now and I don't mean Obama. We have created a headless monster in order to be its subject...fashioned our own Golden Calf so to speak. Granted this has been evolving for decades. Many of us have decried the direction we have been heading because we have seen it coming. But if you can look at the implications of that ruling and be "stoked" about it...something is wrong, imo. I understand that proponents of Government Health care are happy that they benefit from it with this ruling....but we are all going to be on the losing side of this ruling at some point because of what it opens the door for. Even if you are a fan of Obamacare, this is what is known as a peeric victory. The Tax is the least of what we are ultimately going to pay.
posted
So is Obamacare going to pay for sex changes and breast implants?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by CashCowMoo: So is Obamacare going to pay for sex changes and breast implants?
i beleive it could- sex changes are usually done after extensive psych evaluations and are already paid for by insurance in cases where docotrs "prove" (?) to themselves at least that the person really is gender wrong... in other words? the way i understand it, they don't consider people who demand sex changes to need them for any other reason than to be 'healthy" again.. it is pretty dramtic surgery and i don't think too many peope would want to go thru that for "fun" - i know it sounds wrong but i also know of a cases where a cop got one to "become" a man and it was paid for by "his" insurance- he continued to be a cop too this was over ten years ago now, so it isn;t even recent...
as to breast augmentation? some are medically needed and others are business deductible anyway so you/we still pay in tax breaks
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if I think I am a black woman and when the census comes around I do not feel I have to label myself as a white male? What about my feelings? I have a right to a sex change and a right to select the race I think I am!
Of course, I am joking. However, this is the kind of mentality we are looking at these days. Sad.
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
she was a good cop, made pretty high rank prety fast... haven't seen him tho ..... i moved all the way from virginia to socali just before she became him..... stranger stuff out there? well, yeah..... i was shocked when she got the insurance to pay for it, i thought it was purely elective too, but you know who gets the insuracne comapnies to pay for that stuff? the doctors do... otherwise they can't get paid- that's alot of friggin surgery.
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
this was over ten years ago now, so it isn;t even recent...
