Supreme Court to strike down individual mandate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ridge

25%? Is that all? I know people who's premiums have gone up 35% or more.

---

my company got rid of an entire option, and that option was the best value for the employee [Rant1]

The company I work for dropped all health insurance for employees completely ... thankfully for me I had found a better deal on my own (which is more often the case than one would think). But some of my co-workers are really struggling because of it ... well that and the "temporary" across the board 10% pay cut we all took last November that was supposed to end back in March (no it didn't ... and its more because our boss is a wonderful blend of crook and idiot, not because he can't reinstate our rates).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

our boss is a wonderful blend of crook and idiot

---

I know how you feel, mine is too...
[Coffee]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mcantar18c

I know how you feel, mine is too...
[Coffee]

---

No, yours is a dillusional, narccissitic, arrogant, self serving prick.
[Coffee]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zundfolge

There is no sever-ability clause for the individual mandate in the law (because it was rushed together ... thank God for the incompetence of these wannabe tyrants). So if we were still the constitutional republic we were designed to be it would be a no-brainer and the whole law would be tossed. But since Wickard v. Filburn - 1942 its been a crap shoot. Sometimes they uphold the Constitution ... sometimes they piss on it (couple of recent examples are Heller and Kelo ... one clearly constitutional, the other ... piss).

Once the law becomes unpredictable, liberty dies and tyranny reigns. For the last 70 years law has been unpredictable.

---

[ROFL2] then we were doomed to tyranny from the first. Marshall made more shit up in his rulings they came up with a legal term for it. They call it 'legal fiction'.

Read about his rulings concerning GA state and the Cherokee Nation. Hell, he basically wiped his ass with the constitution in one of the rulings. So, I would back the date up to about 1782.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

So, I would back the date up to about 1782.

---

Because you are the "just the facts" Mod:

Marshall was not appointed to the court until 1801, and the Constitution was not ratified until 1787.

[Poke]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Waywardson174

Because you are the "just the facts" Mod:

Marshall was not appointed to the court until 1801, and the Constitution was not ratified until 1787.

[Poke]

---

Ok, 1802 then. I got lazy and didn't look up the date he was appointed. I also forgot it was like 30 years later. Sigh, heads all messed up from doing 20+ hours of physics this week already.

"F" Newton and the horse he road in on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

"F" Newton and the horse he road in on.

---

[ROFL2]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SA Friday

Ok, 1802 then. I got lazy and didn't look up the date he was appointed. I also forgot it was like 30 years later. Sigh, heads all messed up from doing 20+ hours of physics this week already.

"F" Newton and the horse he road in on.

---

If Newton was so smart, then why didn't his horse just keep right on going?

My kid wants a horse. Is it for sale...cheap?