• Meta

  • Click on the calendar for summaries of posts by day, week, or month.

    February 2011
    M T W T F S S
    « Jan   Mar »
  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    wearenegroes on Will Hillary Clinton Run Again…
    Al Dajjal (@AlDajjal… on Where are the “Moderate…
    esgort on Religion of Peace Update: Musl…
    IB on Why Gun Ownership is Biblical…
    NEW White House Insi… on Hitler and the muslim bro…
  • Archives

  • Advertisements

Administration asks judge to tell the states that healthcare law isn’t optional

Administration asks judge to tell the states that healthcare law isn’t optional

The unmitigated gall of these sleazy bastards STILL sickens and shocks me. Even after a federal judge rules his health care takeover unconstitutional, the Usurper in Chief has the gall to ask a federal judge to tell states that they have no option when it comes to participation in Obamacare. At this point, EVERYTHING Obama has done is optional to the states because EVERYTHING he has done to this point has been unconstitutional and illegitimate. When are the American people going to reach the point where they’ve had enough of these usurpers?

Here are some excerpts from the Obama administration filing:

“The Court’s declaratory judgment potentially implicates hundreds of provisions of the Act and, if it were interpreted to apply to programs currently in effect, duties currently …in force, taxes currently being collected, and tax credits that may be owed at this time or in the near future, would create substantial uncertainty.”

The only uncertainty an injunction creates is how much power Obama and the democrats will gain or lose. Obama and the democrats lied about the financial benefits of the bill by reporting costs beginning in 2014, but revenues from taxes that began IMMEDIATELY upon passage of the bill. So, how is it a bad thing exactly when taxpayers get to keep money that was/is being taken for services they will likely never receive?

“Because of the sweeping nature of the declaratory judgment, such an interpretation would pose a risk of substantial disruption and hardship for those who rely on the provisions that have already been implemented.”

Read this to say that “the voters whom we have made dependent on government will not support us anymore when we can’t keep giving them free stuff.”

“This motion respectfully asks the Court to clarify the scope of its order, in particular that its declaratory judgment does not relieve the parties to this case of any obligations or deny them any rights under the Affordable Care Act while the judgment is the subject of appellate review, or, if the Court anticipated otherwise, to address specifically what the Court intends the parties’ obligations and rights to be under the judgment while appellate review is pending.”

In most cases, when something is ruled unconstitutional, or is otherwise under appeal, isn’t it normal to NOT do what is under appeal until the matter is settled? This is like a child molester being allowed to continue molesting children until his case finishes the appeals process.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: