Lodinews.com

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
|
||
Logout|My Dashboard

Supreme Court not above political bias

Print
Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Wednesday, July 25, 2012 12:00 am | Updated: 6:21 am, Wed Jul 25, 2012.

Not since that day long ago, when I heard on my car radio that John F. Kennedy had just been shot, have I been so disheartened and felt so deeply such a loss for we the people. The so-called Supreme Court of the United States has rolled over and decided a clearly Constitutional issue on political bias. And to think, we the people thought the court would be above such tawdry action.

Of course Ginsburg, appointed by President Clinton, and Kegan, appointed by the political chicanery of the incompetent Nobama and his muppets, decided in favor of Obamacare. What did you expect them to do; rule against their political ideology and the source of their life-long wealth?

For once since 2007, let's speak the truth for a change. The childish poppycock dreamed up by Roberts to justify his sophomoric opinion is nothing more than vomit against his oath of office. Also he had the audacity to imply that the Court wasn't supposed to pass laws. What just happened? He in effect passed a law with his pro-Nobama ruling: "We can't decide this on the basis of 'commerce.'"

What would cause Roberts to compromise his integrity? Why would a previously honorable judge forsake his mantel of impartiality? Could the allegation be true that Nobama was finally able to get to him? We all saw Obama on TV gleefully hugging and thanking him.

If Roberts really wanted to save the Supreme Court (from what?), he would have held to the rule of law, not some hastily contrived fiction which was scathingly denounced by four of his colleagues. Roberts: You have not "saved the court," you have made it a "mockery," and made yourself a tarnished joke.

Sadly, we the people have lost again.

Don Van Noy

Lodi

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Use your real name. You must register with your full first and last name before you can comment. (And don’t pretend you’re someone else.)
  • 2 Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually oriented language.
  • 3 Don’t threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 4 Be truthful. Don't lie about anyone or anything. Don't post unsubstantiated allegations, rumors or gossip that could harm the reputation of a person, company or organization.
  • 5 Be nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 6 Stay on topic. Make sure your comments are about the story. Don’t insult each other.
  • 7 Tell us if the discussion is getting out of hand. Use the ‘Report’ link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 8 Share what you know, and ask about what you don't.
  • 9 Don’t be a troll.
  • 10 Don’t reveal personal information about other commenters. You may reveal your own personal information, but we advise you not to do so.
  • 11 We reserve the right, at our discretion, to monitor, delete or choose not to post any comment. This may include removing or monitoring posts that we believe violate the spirit or letter of these rules, or that we otherwise determine at our discretion needs to be monitored, not posted, or deleted.

Welcome to the discussion.

45 comments:

  • Mike Adams posted at 7:47 am on Thu, Aug 2, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1492

    "Why do you think he has been in hiding for so many years? " A theory of mine is that Mrs. Bush told him that she has locked the door from outside.

    What I see is absolute hatred for Obama, as a President and a person, much more so than even the hate exhibited of Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Why do you think questions of his citizenship, his religion, his travel history persist despite most even weak attempts by the few decent republican politicians to set the record straight. Because it's like an anchor, dragging him down, requiring time and money to set the record straight again and again, there is no serious effort made by republicans, even if they no the claims are false. (Local conspiracy therorist nuts aside) I believe this is really the result of conservative media outlets and personalities continually bringing it up over and over.

    The mythical left picking on George W. Bush? During GWB term as now, most media outlets and personalities are conservative. Aside from a very small number of radio talk shows (liberal) and the conservative mind set that all the major news networks, newspapers, and other avenues, and especially if you look at ratings, a "liberal" press does not exist.

    The reality is that many, many Americans hate Barack Obama. As a person and as a President. Again I assert that this hate has it's foundation that Obama is a democrat and he is an African American. A lot on the right will say no, no, and give some mild rationale for their vitriol, like even you do sometimes, but make no mistake, if Obama was white, there would be no questioning of his nationality, his education, or his religion.

    The right in this country should be ashamed of themselves.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 4:48 am on Wed, Aug 1, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mike stated...Darrell: If it makes you feel better about it, then you can call me a hater of Obama haters

    Actually Mike, I said just the opposite, I stated it would not be fair as you simply disagree with people’s politics and perception of fairness. It does not make you a hater any more than it makes Don Van Noy a hater as you assert.

    As far as you not recalling ever reading such vitriol and flat out loathing of G.W. Bush... I can only think you could not have watched or read any media anywhere any time as it was an hour by hour, day by day happening for 5 years. Why do you think he has been in hiding for so many years?

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 7:38 pm on Tue, Jul 31, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1492

    Darrell: If it makes you feel better about it, then you can call me a hater of Obama haters. And quite honestly, when the letter writer uses a phrase such as "....Kegan, appointed by the political chicanery of the incompetent Nobama and his muppets, decided in favor of Obamacare." and when you write: "A hater of people that think Obama betrayed, deceived and lied to Americans." it comes off entirely as someone who hates the president. There are several serial haters who routinely submit LTE here and every one of them uses language such as you did as well as Van Noy.

    I don't recall every reading such vitriol and flat out loathing of G.W. Bush. I heard a lot of people say they wish they never voted for him, something I haven't heard at all regarding Obama.

    Why do people hate Obama? I would guess (primarily based on what I hear in Lodi) the fact that he is African American (or from Kenya for the real nuts) has a lot to do with it. That he is a democrat is certainly the other part of it. My experiences tell me that these are the two primary reasons why so many hate him who write LTE or post here. These people not only hate him as president, but they hate him personally.

    Everything else is secondary. Where he was born, that he is incorrectly alleged to have used a name of "Barry Sotero", the Affordable Care Act, tax cuts/tax decreases, all of this is just to shore up the absolute can't stand president.

    I listen mostly to conservative talk shows on radio, but occasionally on TV, read Op-Ed pieces from conservative writers, these formats or venues are all the same, they predominately spread, reinforce, and encourage the continued re-telling of mis-truths and flat out lies. The major conservative participants in each of the media listed above are primarily responsible for the division in this country.

    I'm sure you'll have many links and articles to direct me to what you consider the truth and I'll tell you right now that I'm not going to look at any of them. Merely repeating the same information over and over, even if well written, does not make it true. I know I'm not going to change your perception of the president and anything you or anyone else says is not going to change mine. Haven't you noticed the last couple of years that there are people for Obama, who think of him as a very good president and worthy of re-election and then there is the vocal group who say he is an interloper, and use every negative adjective they can think of. There is no way these two groups will ever change their minds.

    It really is a shame or at least worthy of some shame on the part of these LTE contributors who continually spew out their hate and anger of a man who is doing a good job of righting what was a sinking ship when he took the oath. I'm past the point of feeling sorry for them or trying to reason with them and their small minds.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:14 pm on Tue, Jul 31, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mike stated...Another angry letter from serial Obama hater Don Van Noy

    Humm...would it then be fair to call you a hater Mike? A hater of people that think Obama betrayed, deceived and lied to Americans.

    No, I do not think it would be fair as you simply disagree with people’s politics and perception of fairness. Equally, it is absurd to state that Don Van Noy is a hater.

    As far as Obama, he is a nice guy and looks good to people who believe what he says… however, there are people who sincerely think his policies and legislation is a disaster… hate of him personally is not a factor.

     
  • Mike Adams posted at 6:45 am on Tue, Jul 31, 2012.

    Mike Adams Posts: 1492

    Another angry letter from serial Obama hater Don Van Noy. Many posts from readers who don't understand the function of the Supreme Court and without any sort of legal training when they disagree with it's rulings.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:43 pm on Sat, Jul 28, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Peaking of deception Mr Chang, what is thename of that representative you were quoting.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:41 pm on Sat, Jul 28, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Chang, the king of distortion is at it again... when I stated Obamacare was not indexed to inflation I assumed you would understand I was talking about health care inflation and not general inflation since the topic was health care.

    You then say I was being deceptive. I guess if you were in first grade you might have an argument. I was assuming you were an adult and could comprehend like one.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 11:32 am on Sat, Jul 28, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1161

    "You are in over your head...."

    No, I like a challenge.

    Darrell, you're one of the most devious and insincere persons that I've ever come accross on the internet.

    Darrell said "The amounts are not indexed for inflation". Then he's challenged for posting a falsehood and sources are provided.

    Darrell then quotes a blog "the tax is linked to general inflation" and immediately moves on to a new points.

    Darrell never acknowledges his previous deception.

    That's the pattern that been repeated hundreds of times out of his 7500 postings. Deceive, obscure and move on.

    Darrell's stated goal here, is to "articulate truth". That's a flasehood.

    The real goal is: decieve for political advantage, frighten people and whip up partisan passions!!

    And it's sad really, as Darrell could of been a resource.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:48 am on Sat, Jul 28, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Chang, please take the time to read the bill. You are in over your head....

    I have read most of the bill and know what is in it. It only takes 20-25 hours to read the major parts. In addition, I suggest you go to some seminars put on by CPA's and lawyers like I did so you can understand the mechanics of the bill.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:45 am on Sat, Jul 28, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/nancy-pfotenhauer/2012/07/03/four-flaws-of-obamacare

    The "Cadillac tax" on high-cost health care isn’t scheduled to take effect until 2018. But because the tax is linked to general inflation, and not medical inflation, it will hit more and more health plans over time – not just "Cadillac" insurance plans, but "Chevy" plans and even "Yugo" health plans.…The "high income" surtax is not indexed for inflation at all – it’s designed to hit more and more middle-income families every year. Page 87 of the 2010 Medicare trustees report notes that the tax will hit only 3 percent of workers next year, when the tax takes effect – but a whopping 79 percent of all workers by 2080.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:43 am on Sat, Jul 28, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr chang stated...Wiki says "The dollar thresholds are indexed with inflation"

    You are distorting what I was referring to.Clearly, you are still clueless.
    Obamacare’s new health-entitlement vouchers are indexed to general consumer inflation that can only be used in the health exchanges. The cost of health care is dramatically higher and it's inflation rate is far beyond the general consumer rate.

    Do you really thing that Obama and the tax thirsty liberals would put a provision in it;s bill that provided for taxing health plans that are rich in benefits if no one would be subjectto the penalty. In reality, they are counting on this tax to either gain revenue or focus people out of plans that increase the cost of health care.

    Your position is absurd Mr Chang.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 9:23 pm on Fri, Jul 27, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1161


    Re: Cadillac Tax

    Darrell said "The amounts are not indexed for inflation Mr Chang. Clearly, you have no clue."

    Darrell can't help himself.

    Embellish, exaggerate, twist and distort. He's the undisputed King!

    Facts:

    Wiki says "The dollar thresholds are indexed with inflation"

    Republican Policy Commitee says "The law indexes the Cadillac tax threshold"

    The National Review says "the tax is indexed for inflation"

    Sources:

    http://en.wikipedia.org http://rpc.senate.gov http://www.nationalreview.com


     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:28 pm on Fri, Jul 27, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1161


    "Most Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates losing money

    By Edward Winnick"

    Darrell, you say "easy to find years when profits did not exist" then provide us with an article from 1999??

    Eric is like taking about profits recently and this is the best you can do??

    Please try to stay relevant.


     
  • Walter Chang posted at 5:26 pm on Fri, Jul 27, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1161


    "10 dollar co-pay HMO for a family of four currently cost $2000 to $2500 per month"

    Darrell, I think you're jaded from being "in the business" too long.

    $2291.62 per month or more, you're in Cadillac teritory.

    I haven't seen a $10 co-pay in years!! And I got a deductible too.

    Please best guess a more modest plan, just for fun.

    Family of 4, $35 co-pay with $1500 yearly deductible.

    Also same situation but under a group policy with 250 people.

    My plan representative's name is Delores and she's our HR Benefits manager. She fielded the questions in a staff meeting. I paraphrased her comments "expect business as usual" and "expect nothing out of line with what we see every year". Upon reflection and further research, the latter statement if I was to write it again, would read "expect nothing out of line with what we saw last year".

    Do you still want to talk to her?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:49 am on Fri, Jul 27, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    yes, I thing Walter's intent is honest...however, like you, badly misinformed.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:26 pm on Thu, Jul 26, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    By the way Mr Chang... what was the name of that representative that gave you advise?

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:23 pm on Thu, Jul 26, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    How silly... Some years are profitable and some years are not. All industries have years in which profits grow and years where money is lost.

    Some companies win, some lose.... easy to find years when profits did not exist.

    Most Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates losing money

    By Edward Winnick

    NEW YORK, Aug 19 (Reuters Health) -- Eight out of 10 of the nation's Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates lost money in their core underwriting business last year, according to a study released by Weiss Ratings on Thursday.

    Tom Brownstein, director of insurance safety for Palm Beach Gardens, Florida-based Weiss Ratings, told Reuters Health that the "magnitude and pervasiveness of the losses is surprising." He said that these losses could result in cost-cutting measures, downsizing among plans' operations, and higher premiums for consumers.

    The study included all 55 of the Blue Cross Blue Shield affiliates in the US. According to Weiss Ratings, which provides financial safety ratings on health plans, 45 (or 82%) of the plans incurred losses last year. However, 34 of the plans were able to cover their losses through investment income and securities gains.

    The total underwriting losses for the Blues affiliates were $835 million in 1998 compared with $790 million in 1997. Total investment income for the affiliates was $1.2 billion, unchanged from the prior year.


     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 9:10 pm on Thu, Jul 26, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    The amounts are not indexed for inflation Mr Chang. Clearly, you have no clue.

    You do understand that current rates for a 10 dollar co-pay HMO for a family of four currently cost $2000 to $2500 per month currently depending on the carrier. With rates escalating because of Obamacare , rates will easily double in 5 years. The tax will be substantial. The only option is to switch to a health plan than does not cover conditions as well, or pay the tax.

    You clearly are absurd.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 9:37 am on Thu, Jul 26, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1586

    last year during these tough economic times Kaiser showed profits of 2 billion dollars Blue Cross/Blue Shield showed a combined profits of 5.5 billion dollars and healthnet showed a profit of 72 million dollars relying on these companies or their minions for factual information is unwise.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 8:35 am on Thu, Jul 26, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1586

    Walter thanks for the info I think an honest discussion on what is in the health care bill is important. The alarmists are using dishonesty to forward a political agenda. This behavior cannot stand up to scrutiny.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 7:47 am on Thu, Jul 26, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1161

    “cadillac plans”

    Our “Alarmist” is at again!

    What is a Cadillac plan? A Cadillac plan is an informal term for any unusually expensive health insurance plan.

    What is the Cadillac tax? Starting in 2018, Obamacare imposes an annual excise tax on Cadillac plans, those with premiums exceeding $10,200 for individuals or $27,500 for a family. Not including vision and dental benefits. Special protections are also provided to plans held by workers in high-risk professions, like police and firefighters, as well as by those over 55.

    Who has Cadillac plans? Based on analyses by the Joint Committee on Taxation, only about 3% of health care premiums will be affected by this provision. Unfortunately for this small group, their taxes will go up. The vast majority of health plans fall far below the thresholds set and would be completely unaffected by the provision.

    Sources: wiki, americanlivewire.com and whitehouse.gov

    Let’s have a show of hands or an informal survey. Do you have a Cadillac plan?

    I don’t anybody who does and there’s nobody at my place of employment that does. What’s your story???

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:39 am on Thu, Jul 26, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Tillett stated...No, not so much... ( in reference to his perception that the IRS will not hire so many agents)

    In reality, According to the Washington Examiner, the agency is seeking 4,000 new agents even before the supreme court rules that Obama"not"care is constitutional. The main part of the bill does not go into effect until 2014.
    As for the new workers sought, the GAO said the total (now) will be about 4,500 with nearly 4,000 slated for enforcement in current time.

    Obviously, as time goes on and enforcement becomes an issue, they will have to hire many more. Since the real problems will not be generated until after 2016 the numbers will dramaticly escalate as revenue will be needed to pay the expensive health care system this bill creates.

    Rather than quibble about estimated numbers of IRS agents, it is obvious that Obama"not"care will change life in America as we know it. 4000 IRS agents is just the tip of the iceburg.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 9:00 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    If Kagan had (been forced to) recuse herself, then Thomas would have had to as well, and possibly even Scalia. And it wasn't up to Holder, it was up to the court (sans Kagan) to decide.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 8:59 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Chang stated...I'm covered now, don't have a "Cadillac plan", earn a modest salary, no capital gains income and I'm not a business owner with employees.


    I see, Mr Chnage is not concerned with the millions of union workers, teachers, state workers who do have a "cadillac plans. Unfortunately for this group, taxes will go up and hit them hard. This is a middle class tax increase which will hurt. Hopefully, conservatives overturn Obama"not"care and save this group from this extreme tax hit.

     
  • Jeff Tillett posted at 8:53 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Jeff Tillett Posts: 554

    No, not so much.
    http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/jul/10/tom-price/price-16000-irs-agents-will-enforce-obama-health-c/

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 7:10 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...I would encourage people to read through the list. I could not find any items on the list that would increase my or the vast majority of Americans taxes.

    This is beyond absurd... Obama"not"care provides for 16000 new IRS agents to enforce the "TAX" requirements of his legislation...thats 16000...

    The salaries, benefits,retirement plans, and buildings to house 16000 employees will cost billions over time. In addition, The Supreme Court judge "Roberts" who was key in ruling Obama"not"care constitutional stated the penalties that will be massive will be classified as a tax. You think this bill requires 16000 IRS agents just to reduce the unemployment rate? Absurd.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:38 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Eric stated...There is a cap on flexible spending accounts once again a stretch to call that a new tax...

    I administrate FSA's for employees. Currently, Lodi Unified has a 10,000 cap on what employees can pretax in their account. Most employers offer $5,000 cap. Thanks to Obamacare, maximum contribution hard working employees can pretax is $2,500 per benefit year. This is very significant because this account is sheltered from Federal, State, FICA and FUTA Taxes.

    In addition, over the counter drugs, which were used often has been excluded as eligible for the account.

    The sad part is that employers and self employed people could not take advantage of this before so this only affected the middle class employees.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:32 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Obamacare also requires employers to report the economic benefit of the health care plan each employee has on the w-2 form. Currently, it will not be taxable. However, the mechinism will be in place for future regulations to be implemented to tax employees as they wish.

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 5:28 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    And it appears that Obamacare is going to cost me - Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

    Wow, how did I luck out? Lets see...My plan's representative says "expect business as usual". When queried about rate increases says "expect nothing out of line with what we see every year"...

    May I ask the name of your representative. I would be interesting in calling him/her to find out what he knows that Kaiser, HealthNet and Blue Cross do not. Unless your representaive is basing the conclusion on rationing of health care, I cannot imagine how rates cannot dramatically increase.

    Better yet, have you representative post something here and identify his position. ask your rerpesentative to address the anti-selection problem created by individual plans becoming guaranteed issue with preexisting conditions covered. I look forward to the analysis.

    My suggestion is for you to find a new representative that knows what they are talking about. Do not ask me however as I am selective who I take on as clients and would not consider you a person I would work with.

     
  • Walter Chang posted at 4:42 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Walt Posts: 1161

    Eric, good post. I just spent some time poking around with a calculator.

    And it appears that Obamacare is going to cost me - Nothing. Zilch. Nada.

    Wow, how did I luck out? Lets see...

    I'm covered now, don't have a "Cadillac plan", earn a modest salary, no capital gains income and I'm not a business owner with employees.

    My plan's representative says "expect business as usual". When queried about rate increases says "expect nothing out of line with what we see every year".

    Contrary to what Darrell would typically say.

    I do expect to be "nickle and dimed" a bit by everyone involved though, so we'll see.

    Check out the facts folks, your situation may actually be favorable too.

    People, please don't believe the hype!!!

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:35 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2600

    I find it significant that language that would get a post deleted is acceptable in a letter.

    I think most papers would have consigned a letter like this one, whether it was targeted at a Democrat or a Republican, to its proper place in the circular filing bin.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 2:38 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1586

    Obamacare will eliminate a tax deduction for employer provide prescription drug benefits, tax on charitable hospitals if they fail to do what they are supposed to do as tax except institutions, tax on drug companies, a limit of half a million in health insurance company executive compensation.

    Obamacare will require employers to report whether or not employees have health insurance not sure how that makes it on the list of new taxes, Codification of the “economic substance doctrine” this is more about tax law then a new tax and finally the black liquor tax this is actually a tax credit that ended in 2010 but I guess it gives the list a nice round number of 20

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 2:38 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1586

    There is a cap on flexible spending accounts once again a stretch to call that a new tax, a tax on medical device makers, less of a deduction on writing of medical care, indoor tanning tax a tax on health insurers who make over 50 million in profits. If you want to know why we need Obamacare is because we even have medical insurance companies that make over fifty million in profits.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 2:37 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1586

    There is an increase in capital gains tax which now is ridiculously low. There is a .9% increase in Medicare tax for income over $200,000, a provision that a person can no longer use health savings account for over the counter drugs so you will have to pay normal income tax on the money you buy cold medicine with, increased penalty on early withdrawal of health savings account not sure how that is even considered a tax.

     
  • Eric Barrow posted at 2:37 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Eric Barrow Posts: 1586

    Andrew stated that .....Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here: http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758

    I would encourage people to read through the list. I could not find any items on the list that would increase my or the vast majority of Americans taxes.

    There is the tax if you don't carry insurance everyone is familiar with that one and another tax on employers who don't provide healthcare if the have over 50 employees.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 2:12 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999


    A 5-4 majority opinion which Elena Kagan joined in the majority, and Ms. Bobin actually believes, "Kagan RECUSED herself"???
    LOL... [lol]

    Federal Law, 28 USC 455, says a Supreme Court justice must recuse from “any proceeding in which his impartiality might reasonably be questioned” or anytime he has “expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy” while he “served in governmental employment.”

    Laws? We don’t need no stinkin laws!

    Attorney General Eric Holder has chosen the cover up route, refusing to answer questions from the Senate Judiciary Committee on the matter.

    REALITY: Elena Kagan should be impeached from the bench for REFUSING to recuse herself for the ACA decision.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 1:06 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    Aside from Mr. Kinderman's message from The Department of Redundancy Department, i.e., "disingenuous with feigned indignation," (is this a self-cancelling phrase? Not sure), I am not feigning indignation. It is true that there have been very few LTE's from known right-wingers who continually call the president some insulting variation of his name because they think it is funny and have juvenile mentalities. Then there are those who feel the need to use the president's middle name because it sounds threatening, then claim they have ALWAYS used EVERY president's middle name. Speaking of disingenuous!

    Then there is the use of vulgarities. In this letter, the use of "vomit" was inappropriate and unnecessary. Not to mention the amount of vulgarities used by several right-wing commenters on this site - we all know who they are.

    That does not change the fact that Mr. Van Noy's letter contained so many inaccuracies, the first being that he pinpoints Justice Kagan and assigns blame for voting for the ACA due to party loyalty. The fact is that Kagan RECUSED herself from this case due to her work on the ACA as Solicitor General.

    He suggests Justice Roberts was bribed in some manner - no facts, of course, just ridiculous accusations. "Could the allegation be true that Nobama was finally able to get to him?" Never heard this allegation, but it no doubt came from the same source as the rest of his nonsense.

    He states "We all saw Obama on TV gleefully hugging and thanking him." That "we" does not include "me," since I never saw such a thing happen. And I doubt anyone else did either.

    He implies Roberts' decision was "poppycock...dreamed up by Roberts to justify his sophomoric opinion." The Solicitor General argued the tax angle before the court, so Roberts did not just pull it out of the air.

    I think the only one sophomoric here is Mr. Van Noy and his letter.

     
  • Jerome Kinderman posted at 12:04 pm on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Jerome R Kinderman Posts: 2367

    While I certainly agree that Mr. Van Noy would have been much better off had he not distorted the president's name in his letter which as far as I'm concerned is never acceptable regardless of whom one supports or dislikes. As such I would suggest that certain contributors here not become too disingenuous with feigned indignation.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 11:18 am on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Don't hold your breath.. [lol]

     
  • Darrell Baumbach posted at 10:08 am on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Darrell Baumbach Posts: 9405

    Mr Liebich stated...Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here:

    Funny that Mr Lielich can produce truth and substantiation yet posters on this tread comicly complaint that posts are not intelligent. Maybe if they could comprehend, they would find it more meaningful.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 9:10 am on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Obamacare imposes more than 20 new taxes on the American people. You can find a comprehensive list of Obamacare taxes right here: http://www.atr.org/comprehensive-list-tax-hikes-obamacare-a5758

    If you love paying higher taxes, then you are going to absolutely love Obamacare once it is fully implemented.

    Did you know that with ObamaCare you will have to pay for life-saving drugs, but life-ending drugs are free. 100% free. If this plan were really about health care wouldn’t it be the other way around?

     
  • Scott Trotter posted at 8:54 am on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Scott Trotter Posts: 16

    I think Mr. Van Noy is confusing "making a mockery of the court" with "not getting what he wants.

     
  • Joanne Bobin posted at 8:49 am on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Joanne Bobin Posts: 4488

    It has become increasing obvious that the right cannot write an intelligent letter, nor can they write a letter without using puns based on President Obama's name or using vulgarities.

    Also, Don Van Anoy condemns Ginsburg and Kegan (sic) by stating they voted with their party, while the other four justices DID NOT vote with their party, they voted based on the "rule of law." What a joke. Experts predicted this split vote along party lines and were surprised by Roberts ruling, which was actually a secondary arguement for the ACA that was presented by the Solicitor General during oral arguements back in March.

    As for "we all saw Obama "gleefully hugging" Roberts...this must be part of Don Van Anoy's alternate universe.

     
  • Andrew Liebich posted at 8:43 am on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Andrew Liebich Posts: 2999

    Democrats have denounced the Citizens United decision as a setback for American Democracy by empowering wealthy corporations at the expense of ordinary voters.

    If ever a court majority legislated from the bench (with Bush’s own appointees leading the way), it was the bunch that voted for Citizens United. Did a single justice in the majority even imagine a world of super PACs and phony corporations set up for the sole purpose of disguising a donor’s identity?

    In front of a Senate panel today, Sen. Bernie Sanders outed the 26 billionaires who are members of 23 billionaire families that are using Citizens United to buy elections. Sen. Sanders also did the last thing the billionaires wanted. He called them out by name.

    http://www.politicususa.com/bernie-sanders-exposes-26-billionaires-buying-2012-election.html

    With his report today, Sen. Sanders has made it more difficult for thieves of liberty to keep operating in the night.

     
  • Steve Schmidt posted at 4:06 am on Wed, Jul 25, 2012.

    Steve Schmidt Posts: 2600

    Don wrote: " What did you expect them to do; rule against their political ideology and the source of their life-long wealth"

    I find this statement interesting in light of the conservative majority's vote on Citizens United. Not even the most deranged conservative could possibly believe that the Founders meant to give corporations the same rights as human beings and yet we heard not a peep of protest at this ruling.

    Just another reminder that conservatives are defined by their hypocrisy, both as a movement and as individuals.

     

Recent Comments

Posted 2 hours ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: U.S. suffers from total lack of…

voter the right to vote.

More...

Posted 2 hours ago by Joe Baxter.

article: Letter: U.S. suffers from total lack of…

Typical liberal dumpster fodder. Nobody on the RIGHT is attempting to deny any QUALIFIED

More...

Posted 17 hours ago by Kevin Paglia.

article: Letter: Michael Brown started events th…

"As a police officer, a muzzle pointing off to the side , away from the officer used to be "don't shoot". Now it's "I t…

More...

Posted 18 hours ago by robert maurer.

article: Letter: Michael Brown started events th…

[lol][lol]How untrue[smile]

More...

Posted 19 hours ago by robert maurer.

article: Letter: Michael Brown started events th…

So, some support lawlessness, mayhem, and chaos . So what else is new? Seems as though a serious criminal history is mandatory to become a…

More...

Video

Popular Stories

Poll

Loading…

Your News

News for the community, by the community.

Mailing List

Subscribe to a mailing list to have daily news sent directly to your inbox.

  • Breaking News

    Would you like to receive breaking news alerts? Sign up now!

  • News Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily news headlines? Sign up now!

  • Sports Updates

    Would you like to receive our daily sports headlines? Sign up now!

Manage Your Lists