HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Robert Reich: Supreme Co...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:48 PM

Robert Reich: Supreme Court will Uphold Affordable HealthCare Act

Predictions are always hazardous when it comes to the economy, the weather, and the Supreme Court. I wonít get near the first two right now, but Iíll hazard a guess on what the Court is likely to decide tomorrow: It will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) by a vote of 6 to 3.

Three reasons for my confidence:

First, Chief Justice John Roberts is ó or should be ó concerned about the steadily-declining standing of the Court in the publicís mind, along with the growing perception that the justices decide according to partisan politics rather than according to legal principle. The 5-4 decision in Citizenís United, for example, looked to all the world like a political rather than a legal outcome, with all five Republican appointees finding that restrictions on independent corporate expenditures violate the First Amendment, and all four Democratic appointees finding that such restrictions are reasonably necessary to avoid corruption or the appearance of corruption. Or consider the Courtís notorious decision in Bush v. Gore.

The Supreme Court canít afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government: As Alexander Hamilton once noted, the Court has neither the purse (it canít threaten to withhold funding from the other branches) or the sword (it canít threaten police or military action). It has only the publicís trust in the Courtís own integrity and the logic of its decisions ó both of which the public is now doubting, according to polls. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a particular responsibility to regain the publicís trust. Another 5-4 decision overturning a piece of legislation as important as Obamacare would further erode that trust.

It doesnít matter that a significant portion of the public may not like Obamacare. The issue here is the role and institutional integrity of the Supreme Court, not the popularity of a particular piece of legislation. Indeed, what better way to show the Courtís impartiality than to affirm the constitutionality of legislation that may be unpopular but is within the authority of the other two branches to enact?

http://wallstreetpit.com/93330-supreme-court-will-uphold-affordable-healthcare-act

113 replies, 12646 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 113 replies Author Time Post
Reply Robert Reich: Supreme Court will Uphold Affordable HealthCare Act (Original post)
spanone Jun 2012 OP
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #1
spanone Jun 2012 #2
WinkyDink Jun 2012 #43
freedom fighter jh Jun 2012 #55
rateyes Jun 2012 #60
tokenlib Jun 2012 #3
BumRushDaShow Jun 2012 #4
notadmblnd Jun 2012 #11
cthulu2016 Jun 2012 #5
CTyankee Jun 2012 #32
Richard D Jun 2012 #40
a kennedy Jun 2012 #80
Sirveri Jun 2012 #85
Logical Jun 2012 #98
Glitterati Jun 2012 #6
stubtoe Jun 2012 #15
Glitterati Jun 2012 #44
Logical Jun 2012 #69
DarthDem Jun 2012 #73
calimary Jun 2012 #78
Ruby the Liberal Jun 2012 #7
Drunken Irishman Jun 2012 #8
spanone Jun 2012 #9
gkhouston Jun 2012 #74
gkhouston Jun 2012 #75
magical thyme Jun 2012 #10
matmar Jun 2012 #12
leftstreet Jun 2012 #16
Leopolds Ghost Jun 2012 #89
Raine Jun 2012 #22
SammyWinstonJack Jun 2012 #48
bornskeptic Jun 2012 #51
spanone Jun 2012 #90
freedom fighter jh Jun 2012 #56
Bandit Jun 2012 #94
freedom fighter jh Jun 2012 #96
woo me with science Jun 2012 #59
NYC Liberal Jun 2012 #61
veganlush Jun 2012 #72
stubtoe Jun 2012 #13
McCamy Taylor Jun 2012 #20
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #14
harun Jun 2012 #30
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #67
harun Jun 2012 #109
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #110
harun Jun 2012 #111
aggiesal Jun 2012 #34
rhett o rick Jun 2012 #68
DCBob Jun 2012 #17
McCamy Taylor Jun 2012 #18
Jackpine Radical Jun 2012 #42
ut oh Jun 2012 #19
liberalmuse Jun 2012 #21
bvar22 Jun 2012 #23
grahamhgreen Jun 2012 #29
abelenkpe Jun 2012 #36
SammyWinstonJack Jun 2012 #49
bvar22 Jun 2012 #53
girl gone mad Jun 2012 #70
bvar22 Jun 2012 #99
woo me with science Jun 2012 #64
Laelth Jun 2012 #91
bvar22 Jun 2012 #101
woo me with science Jun 2012 #102
woo me with science Jun 2012 #106
woo me with science Jun 2012 #57
TheKentuckian Jun 2012 #58
Zanzoobar Jun 2012 #62
pampango Jun 2012 #88
Honeycombe8 Jun 2012 #24
1-Old-Man Jun 2012 #25
DearAbby Jun 2012 #26
grahamhgreen Jun 2012 #27
Mutiny In Heaven Jun 2012 #28
Faygo Kid Jun 2012 #31
spanone Jun 2012 #33
MineralMan Jun 2012 #35
radarluv Jun 2012 #37
ProudToBeBlueInRhody Jun 2012 #38
valerief Jun 2012 #39
Marr Jun 2012 #41
GusFring Jun 2012 #45
Bellerophon Jun 2012 #63
BlueCheese Jun 2012 #46
ErikJ Jun 2012 #47
bigdarryl Jun 2012 #50
Logical Jun 2012 #100
mckara Jun 2012 #52
TomCADem Jun 2012 #82
Tennessee Gal Jun 2012 #54
AynRandCollectedSS Jun 2012 #65
emulatorloo Jun 2012 #79
AynRandCollectedSS Jul 2012 #113
LaydeeBug Jun 2012 #66
LaydeeBug Jun 2012 #97
quakerboy Jun 2012 #71
KinMd Jun 2012 #76
gkhouston Jun 2012 #77
freshwest Jun 2012 #81
loyalsister Jun 2012 #83
Prophet 451 Jun 2012 #84
HiPointDem Jun 2012 #86
woo me with science Jun 2012 #105
Dragonfli Jun 2012 #107
woo me with science Jun 2012 #108
CoffeeCat Jun 2012 #87
woo me with science Jun 2012 #103
Arkana Jun 2012 #92
Laelth Jun 2012 #93
spanone Jun 2012 #95
Tommy_Carcetti Jun 2012 #104
Quantess Jun 2012 #112

Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:49 PM

1. SCOTUSBlog predicts mandate will be upheld...

Two legitimate sources now have suggested this.

I DON'T WANT TO GET MY HOPES UP!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:50 PM

2. i look at this as hope..... i hope.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #1)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:49 PM

43. I would rather the mandate NOT be upheld. I would prefer my coverage be through taxation, like my

Defense Dept. and wars.

Insurance companies are the only victors, otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:34 PM

55. So would I nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to WinkyDink (Reply #43)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:48 PM

60. i would too... but

that wont happen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:53 PM

3. It takes guts and optimism to write an article like this..

..when many of us think it will be another partisan ruling. I hope Sec'y Reich is correct.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:53 PM

4. Racism

usually trumps all with a crew like them. It usually takes a couple Dred Scott's and Plessey v Ferguesons before they get to a Brown v Board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to BumRushDaShow (Reply #4)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:24 PM

11. I don't think they care anymore.

Our government (yes, every branch) has been bought and paid for by the 1%. Integrity has gone out the window, they're gonna dance to their master't tunes lest they be beaten down by those masters.


I'ts funny though, they think they are the ones with the power and freedom, yet they're more deeply enslaved than most of us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 06:57 PM

5. Reich is being silly

If this SCOTUS was the least bit concerned with the public trust or standing in the public mind that would have manifested itself some time ago.

It may be upheld, but if so it probably won't be for that reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:17 PM

32. Yep, I agree. This group is one of zealots, not beholden to the public trust in the least.

I hope I am wrong. I WANT to be wrong. But I don't think these bastards care about anything other than their ideology. Zealotry is never a good governing tool...it is a path to polarization and unrest...not a good thing for a democracy, really...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:34 PM

40. Right

If it gave a damn about the law we would have had Pres. Gore instead of the rat.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:07 AM

80. like CU......

the SCOTUS does not give a d*mn about the little folk pure and simple. I really wish it was pure and simple.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:48 AM

85. It will be upheld because the health insurers tell them to.

They like the mandate. They want the mandate. They will strike down the profit caps and everything that the health insurance companies ACTUALLY hate. But forcing more customers into their laps, they have ZERO problems with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cthulu2016 (Reply #5)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:17 PM

98. Not silly now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:03 PM

6. I think it will stand as well, but because

Scalia is so angry. If that partisan ass had Health Care in his pocket, he wouldn't have blown up like he did the other day on SB1070.

He's pissed, and not JUST about immigration.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glitterati (Reply #6)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:36 PM

15. If you are correct,

that will be SOOOOOO sweet if he gets his butt kicked again on health care.

That guy needs an attitude adjustment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stubtoe (Reply #15)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:49 PM

44. The guy needs to be

forced off the court.

No one can even pretend that Scalia is non-partisan.

He makes a mockery of what the Supreme Court is supposed to stand for.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glitterati (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:09 AM

69. Interesting point!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glitterati (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:11 AM

73. I Had The Same Thought . . .


. . . as you did, expressed in almost exactly the same terms. We'll see.

Clearly, however, Scalia's intellectual powers are fading.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glitterati (Reply #6)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:34 AM

78. Most interesting point. Watching his behavior lately is like watching a five-year-old throwing a

temper tantrum in the cereal aisle at the grocery store. He seems SUPER pissed about something. His ego can't take it when he's unable to steer the court his particular way? Another manifestation of the republi-CON "Sore Loserman"? I don't know.

However, I am pessimistic about pretty much everything that comes out of this court anymore.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:06 PM

7. I would love to hear how SCOTUS gives one ounce of a shit about public perception.

They are seated for life. What do they care?

Citizen's United told me all I needed to know about this crew.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #7)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:11 PM

8. Legacy? I don't know...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Drunken Irishman (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:15 PM

9. that and the public trust

The Supreme Court canít afford to lose public trust. It has no ability to impose its will on the other two branches of government: As Alexander Hamilton once noted, the Court has

neither the purse (it canít threaten to withhold funding from the other branches) or the sword (it canít threaten police or military action). It has only the publicís trust in the Courtís own

integrity and the logic of its decisions ó both of which the public is now doubting, according to polls. As Chief Justice, Roberts has a particular responsibility to regain the publicís trust.

Another 5-4 decision overturning a piece of legislation as important as Obamacare would further erode that trust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ruby the Liberal (Reply #7)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:14 AM

74. Or... gives one ounce of a shit about the public. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to gkhouston (Reply #74)


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:22 PM

10. meh. Once the SCOTUS appointed W pResident, the demonstrated

exactly how much they care about the constitution, public trust, the public's will, or anything other than the 1%.

Everything shitty decision since then has just been window dressing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:25 PM

12. Hogwash....

 

The reason they will rule in favor of the ACA is because it locks in profits for private, for-profit corporations.

Sweet deal if you can get it.

Pathetic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:38 PM

16. +1 Get ready for For-Profit Medicare, For-Profit Social Security

They'll eventually End Homelessness by Mandating Home Ownership!!!!1111

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to leftstreet (Reply #16)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 07:57 AM

89. They're already doing that -- Philly just passed a law criminalizing feeding the homeless.

It will remain perfectly legal to, um, "mandate" that the homeless PURCHASE food, natch.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:52 PM

22. Yes, EXACTLY. I don't think they would have the guts

to strike down the mandate and go against their coporate overloads.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:55 PM

48. Yeppers!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:11 PM

51. Then what is your explanation for Scalia and Thomas voting to strike it down,

as we know they will? You think that Roberts and Kennedy are in the pocket of the corporations, and Scalia and Thomas aren't? We don't see many Scalia defenders on this board.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bornskeptic (Reply #51)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 08:26 AM

90. wake up, have some coffee. they haven't struck it down yet.....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:40 PM

56. That's my fear. But

there are other factors. Court justices, unlike Congresspeople and senators, don't need to collect funding for reelection. Some of the Republicans are near retirement and may be more concerned about shaping the nation's future the way they want to see it than about doing favors for corporations.

Best outcome would be to dump the mandate but keep most of the rest. I hope they can find a way to do that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to freedom fighter jh (Reply #56)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 09:09 AM

94. How is it a mandate in any way other than wording when there are zero penalties

There is no penalty for refusing to purchase, so how can this really be called a mandate? It is nothing but a mirage and that is why it has ended up at the Extreme Court. More than one federal judge has ruled there simply is no mandate because there is no penalty for refusing to purchase..Those decisions have been appealed and here we are...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:47 PM

59. Absolutely.

It is predictable as hell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:48 PM

61. SCOTUS has been expanding the commerce clause for a long time now.

I don't see them backtracking.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to matmar (Reply #12)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:46 AM

72. it limits profits though

And limits bad behavior. why do you not acknowledge that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:31 PM

13. Maybe he knows something we don't know...

But I sincerely doubt Roberts gives a rat's ass for the reputation of the Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to stubtoe (Reply #13)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:49 PM

20. Agreed. Roberts could care less what his legacy is.

I personally think he would just love to preside over a decision as unpopular as Bush v. Gore. It would show that he is not one of the "little people". It would win the favor of the multinationals whom he and his fellow four right wingers worship as some kind of modern day pantheon of gods.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:33 PM

14. Someone plez help me out. What the hell is he talking about re.

the SCOTUS worries about public trust. Why? What can the public do to them? He totally lost me. He makes it sound like the poor, poor weak SCOTUS. They can overrule decades of precedence and carve up legislation that comes before, them to satisfy their own ideologies. Once they have ruled, it takes a Constitutional amendment to override them.

I firmly believe the Roberts is a sociopath and wont give a shite about "public trust".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:07 PM

30. What can the public do? They can overthrow the whole thing, open any history

book to see it kind of happens A LOT.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #30)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:47 PM

67. I have opened a few history books thank you. Maybe you want to give me some examples

where revolution produced democracy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #67)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:53 PM

109. You were wrong about Roberts. Epic ruling today. God Bless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to harun (Reply #109)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 03:10 PM

110. Reich was correct in predicting that the SCOTUS and specifically Roberts

would vote to uphold the mandate. As far as why Roberts voted as he did, I stand by my statement that he is a sociopath and doesnt give a shite about the public trust. I concede that some agree with Reich, but I just cant.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #110)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:24 PM

111. Hard to say. I know B*sh wouldn't have nominated him if he was simply

a good judge. Those Right Wing justices are sent there to do RW work (be activists for RW policy).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rhett o rick (Reply #14)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:20 PM

34. We still can . . .

IMPEACH them.

But I don't think anyone on the Dem side of the House has the
cajones to bring up Articles of Impeachment on Roberts, Scalia or
Thomas; although I think Thomas would be the easiest since he's
been lying about his wife's income for sooooo many years.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aggiesal (Reply #34)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 11:48 PM

68. We have to act thru our "representatives" and they have

no desire to impeach.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:40 PM

17. Reich may be right.

The SCOTUS has lost credibility during the past several years. Many think they are just as political as Congress. A vote by some of "conserva-judges" to uphold ACA would show the public they can vote against their own party for the good of the nation.

I wouldnt bet on it but it is very possible. We shall see.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:46 PM

18. Sorry but the SCOTUS is like the Pope---it thinks it is infallible and it does not care what its

critics say. Indeed, I sometimes wonder if they are not taking their marching orders straight from the Vatican---and a few major corporations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to McCamy Taylor (Reply #18)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:46 PM

42. Yeah, the first thing I thought of was Fat Tony & Opus Dei.

Tony & Ratzi make an interesting pair.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:46 PM

19. I don't trust Roberts anymore....

than I can throw him...

I hope that Reich is right, but Roberts is just as partisan 'non-partisan' as the other's of 'the 5'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:52 PM

21. I lost my trust in these bastards December 12, 2000.

And they've done absolutely nothing to change my mind since then. This is why we need a Democratic Presidency and Congress in 2013, in hopes we can purge the right-wing fucks from the court with two more liberal-leaning or at least moderate to liberal justices. In other words, "justices" who aren't owned by the Republicans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:54 PM

23. The Mandate WILL be upheld,

but NOT for the reasons cited by Robert Reich.

The Mandate WILL be upheld because

* it establishes For Profit Corporations as the only Gateway
to Health Care
in the USA,

*It Mandates a PROFIT for this completely parasitic Industry that
Manufactures NOTHING
Produces NO Wealth,
and Provides NO Service...
Money For NOTHING

*the ACA opens the door to the Public Treasury for these For Profit Corporations.
The much vaunted "subsidies for the Poor" are actually a Gravy Train Funnel of $BILLIONS of Taxpayer Dollars straight into the pockets of the 1% as they get a mandated Skim-Off-The Top....FOR NOTHING.

*any "historic regulations" will be easily avoided much like the Wall Street Banks
avoided the "sweeping regulations" imposed on them.

In short,
the Mandate WILL be upheld simply because it is GOOD for Corporate America.

Justice Roberts couldn't care less about how the SC appears.
His ONLY concern is strengthening the death hold the 1% have on the 99%,
and for THAT he will be well rewarded.

The LAST thing this country needs is MORE Welfare for Rich Corporations.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:06 PM

29. Agree 100%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:27 PM

36. exactly

The Supreme Court will either uphold the entire thing (because it benefits insurance companies) or else they have to trash the entire thing (because it benefits insurance companies) Either way their ruling is influenced by money not public perception.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:59 PM

49. Can't believe some actually think this mandate bs is a good thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:25 PM

53. So called "Centrists" from the Upper Middle Class,

...AKA "Reagan Democrats" who are wealthy enough to afford decent Health Insurance,
and believe that if they force The Poor and the Healthy to buy Insurance,
their premiums might go down.

They have completely subscribed to the Conservative Reagan Ideology that the people who can't buy Health Insurance are the problem,
and not the monolithic, exempt from Anti-Trust, completely parasitic Health Insurance Industry.

Its that old "Personal Responsibility/Welfare Cadillac" bullshit repackaged into a different bag.

Hate the Poor.
Hate the Hippies.
Hate the "Fringe Left".

Its hard for me to believe too,
but they are here,
AND running the Democratic Party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #53)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:34 AM

70. Yep. The uninsured are the Cadillac driving Welfare Queens of 2012.

Just diving their Caddies up to the ER and getting unlimited top-quality free health care subsidized by the poor helpless insurance companies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to girl gone mad (Reply #70)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:18 PM

99. They are "sick & tired of paying for the "FreeLoaders" in the Emergency Rooms"[/i].

(^actual post seen on DU^)







You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SammyWinstonJack (Reply #49)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:08 PM

64. Corporate propaganda. The ACA was the slickest bipartisan political scam

by the one percent in recent memory. It is an absolutely perfect example of how owning both parties allows the one percent to play them against each other to pass legislation that neither party would have accepted had it been presented honestly.

The fired up one side with the promise of universal healthcare, and they fired up the other side with the fear of government-controlled healthcare, and then they passed a "compromise" that favored neither but just happens to be a corporate wet dream: an unprecedented mandate for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy an outrageously overpriced corporate product FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.

I remember watching the corporate shills hawking this around the time of the vote. One of them noted the polls showing that Republicans hated it and that Democrats hated it and said (I am not making this up), "This shows they must be charting a good middle course."

Good god.

The "Affordable Care Act" is perhaps the most ironically named contribution to the growing corporate state yet; Orwell would be impressed. Its entire purpose is to entrench the predatory, for-profit companies into our health system and ensure that not a single American, from birth to death, will be able to avoid these bloodsucking middlemen.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 08:40 AM

91. +1. Well said. n/t

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #64)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:32 PM

101. Well Said.

I would insert one clause.
Where you said:
"....an unprecedented mandate for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy an outrageously overpriced corporate product FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES."

I would add:
....an unprecedented mandate for EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN to buy an outrageously overpriced INVISIBLE corporate product EVERY SINGLE YEAR FOR THEIR ENTIRE LIVES.


This is public money destroyed... thrown away...wasted on parasites.
The American Taxpayer will own absolutely NO useful product after their money is spent,
and our Commons will NOT benefit from any tangible gains.

Wait until the photos of the Health Insurance Execs with their new Jets, Yachts, and Summer Homes start appearing after the Mandate kicks in.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #101)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:33 PM

102. Thank you for adding that.

That is the most important point of all. We get NOTHING from them. It is legislated, mandated submission to theft.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #101)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:56 PM

106. And...

I wish you would post your full argument again as an OP. Your summaries of this utter SCAM are the very best I have seen.

God, this country needs to wake up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:41 PM

57. Absolutely this is the correct answer.

All the rest is garbage propaganda.

Wake the hell up, America.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:47 PM

58. Damn straight. The fascist court will uphold the fascist mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #23)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:49 PM

62. They are going to blow a hole in it

 

A narrow hole, as is typical of the court.

A hole just big enough to make their decision as frustrating as a nonspecific glandular problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bvar22 (Reply #23)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 06:59 AM

88. All the right wing "friends of the court" filed briefs support overturning ACA.

All the liberal "friends'" briefs support its constitutionality.

Right wing "friends" include the CATO Institute, ALEC, Boehner and Paul. On the left "friends" include the NAACP, SEIU, AFL-CIO, and Health Care for All.

Merits Briefs for the Petitioners

Brief of the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Reply Brief for the Petitioners on the Anti-Injunction Act

Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners

Brief for AARP
Brief for American Nurses Association et al.
Brief for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Brief for Constitutional Law and Economics Professors
Brief for 104 Health Law Professors
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Child Advocacy Organizations
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. et al.
Brief for the California Endowment
Brief for the National Womenís Law Center et al.
Brief for Prescription Policy Choices et al.
Brief for the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action et al.
Brief for Health Care For All et al.
Brief for California Public Employees Retirement System
Brief for Law Professors Barry Friedman et al.
Brief for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, et al,
Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates
Brief for Department of Health and Human Services et al.
Brief for the Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire
Brief for Health Care Policy History Scholars
Brief for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid et al.
Brief for Small Business Majority Foundation, INC and the Main Street Alliance
Brief for State Legislators
Brief for the States of Maryland et al.
Brief for Service Employees International Union and Change to Win
Brief for Economic Scholars
Brief for the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations

Merits Briefs for the Respondents

Brief for the State Respondents on the Anit-Injunction Act
Brief for Private Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act
Brief for the State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Private Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Reply Brief for State Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondents

Brief for Citizensí Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Cato Institute et al.
Brief for Association of American Physicians And Surgeons, inc., and Individual Physicians
Brief for Judicial Watch, Inc.
Brief for American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice et al.
Brief for the American Legislative Exchange Council
Brief for American College of Pediatricians et al.
Brief for the American Civil Rights Union et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for Gary Lawson et al.
Brief for the Catholic Vote and Steven J. Willis
Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence et al.
Brief for Citizens and Legislators in the Fourteen Health Care Freedom States
Brief for Citizensí Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli
Brief for Docs4patientcare et al.
Brief for Employer Solutions Staffing Group
Brief for Egon Mittelmann, Esq.
Brief for Former U.S. Department Officials
Brief for the Foundation for Moral Law
Brief for HSA Coalition, Inc. and the Constitution Defense Fund
Brief for John Boehner
Brief for the Landmark Legal Foundation
Brief for Liberty Legal Foundation
Brief for Members of the United States Senate
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation
Brief for Oklahoma
Brief for Partnership for America
Brief for the Rutherford Institute
Brief for Senator Rand Paul
Brief for Stephen M. Trattner
Brief for the Thomas More Law Center et al.
Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall et al.
Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation and Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Authors of Origins of The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Independence Institute
Brief for Economists
Brief for the Independent Womenís Forum
Brief for the Tax Foundation
Brief for the Missouri Attorney General
Brief for Montana Shooting Sports Association
Brief for the American Life League
Brief for the Caesar Rodney Institute
Brief for Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for Project Liberty

Amicus Briefs Supporting Neither Party

Brief for the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati regarding minimum coverage

Merits Briefs for Court-Appointed Amicus regarding the Anti-Injunction Act

Brief supporting vacatur

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Court- Appointed Amicus

Brief for Tax Law Professors
Brief for Mortimer Caplin and Sheldon Cohen

Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondent regarding the Anti-Injunction Act

Brief for the Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for the American Center for Law & Justice
Brief for Center for the Fair Administration of Taxes

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002475335

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:56 PM

24. Who knows? But so far the S.Ct. has voted aligned to their parties....

at least the ones on the right have.

They'll either strike down the ACA, major parts of it, but most likely the mandate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 07:56 PM

25. I don't think Reich is right on this one, and maybe I'm thinking backwards on this, but ...

If Robert's would let his vote be swayed by a desire for the Court to stand in good stead with the public or for his own reputation would diminish my faith in the Court ever further. As vile as I see the current Court I would prefer to think it is one driven by ideology rather than popular politics, I'd rather have a lunatic-Court than a scoundrel-Court.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:00 PM

26. Do you think they care what the Public thinks?

I don't....they will vote what they have been paid

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:03 PM

27. Of course they will - it's a it mandates trillions to big insurance that they'll use to crush reform

Once they get their mandated money, they'll bribe - er, lobby - congress until they eliminate every reform in the bill. In the end, they will collect money and pay out very little.

It's a no-brainer.

We need Medicare for all - I hope the mandate goes down in flames. The rest of the bill is OK, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:03 PM

28. I think the mixed Arizona ruling was a sop to make them look bipartisan

You know, a kind of "heeey, look, we did this, sooo...."

And I think they'll offer another one here, keeping bits of it but tossing out the mandate, not because they necessarily believe that it's unconstitutional, but because they KNOW that that will be the buzzword. Obama "overreached", Obama "violated the constitution" and so on and so forth.

The 'justices' know what the masses, for whom nuance is not a strong point, will get bludgeoned with and consequently take from this debacle, all while absolving themselves of the accusation that they're partisan hackfucks by retaining a few bits of offal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:08 PM

31. Doubt it. But, Scalia's angry freakout might have been a good sign.

He might have flipped his lid about the immigration decision because of his anger about what he knows to be the ACA decision.

If it happens, I sure hope somebody dusts off that overused Hitler video about the ACA being upheld.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Faygo Kid (Reply #31)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:19 PM

33. really. what he did was beyond the pale. the supremes are 'supposed' to be neutral

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:26 PM

35. I hope Reich is correct.

If he is not, many will die.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:29 PM

37. They had their chance to show they care

but look what they just told Montana

Supreme Court rejects limits on corporate campaign contributions

http://video.msnbc.msn.com/now-with-alex-wagner/47950237/

Shows how much they care about our opinion.
Reich may have jumped the gun.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:32 PM

38. It will be upheld because it's a windfall for a big business

That's all the Supreme Corporation of the United States cares about.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:32 PM

39. SCOTUS ***CAN*** afford to lose public trust. They answer to the .01% only. They care NOTHING about

law or the Constitution. It's evident from their decisions.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:43 PM

41. This reads more like an appeal to the Supreme Court justices than an article aimed at the public.

But if Reich actually thinks this Supreme Court cares about looking corrupt, he's naive. They obviously don't, and have repeatedly demonstrated that fact.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:51 PM

45. I dont think they care what the public thinks of them. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GusFring (Reply #45)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:50 PM

63. they are in now way

 

Supposed to care whether their decisions are popular.or not. They are supposed to rule on the constitution and the letter of the law. Public opinion is not supposed to be a factor... it protects us from the tyranny of the populace...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:52 PM

46. The Court lost all credibility with Bush vs. Gore and hasn't gained any of it back.

I doubt any of the conservative justices, and even a few of the liberal ones, give a crap about the Court's public standing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 08:53 PM

47. Intrade -79% chance will rule unconstitutional

And theyre rarely wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #47)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:11 PM

50. Well my bet is on the Supreme COurt blog

I'm thinking some clerks tipped the bloggers off as to what the ruling will be I could be wrong but that's my take

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ErikJ (Reply #47)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:19 PM

100. Retraction???:-)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:22 PM

52. Personally, I Prefer Single Payer

And hope the Supreme Court makes it the next move!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mckara (Reply #52)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:57 AM

82. What makes you think this Court would not strike down single payer?

Seriously, if this Court is willing to ignore decades of case law regarding the expansive nature of the commerce clause, why do you think this court would find that single payer is okay? If this Court is willing to knock down the Healthcare Reform, then single payer is just as likely DOA with this Court. I can easily imagine Scalia, Roberts, Alito, and Thomas knocking down Single Payer on commerce clause and state soveriegnty grounds. Look at Scalia's dissent in the Arizona case.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 09:27 PM

54. I don't think Roberts gives a rat's ass about the standing of the court.

He is there to do the bidding of the right wing lunatics.

I hope I am wrong.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:16 PM

65. What am I missing?

I've read quite a few threads here and on other sites/forums about how insurance companies love the ACA and how great it will be for corporate America. What I don't get it this:

1. The ACA mandates that insurance companies only use 20% of people's premiums for overhead and the other 80% HAS to be used for healthcare. If the law is upheld, they will owe BILLIONS in refunds to those they insurance in the coming months.
2. It has been discovered that while the insurance industry was pretending to like "Obamacare," they were secretly spending HUGE sums ($102.4 million in 15 months) to convince Americans it was a bad deal.


3. If if is so good for corporate America, why are the Republicans trying to defeat it to begin with?

It seems to me that it's going to cap their profits and make them have to be insanely competitive to have to vie for every single Americans' business and therefore it's NOT so good for insurance companies at all.

What am I missing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AynRandCollectedSS (Reply #65)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:50 AM

79. I agree with you.

The companies fear ACA. They understand that the mandate could be converted to single payer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to emulatorloo (Reply #79)

Wed Jul 4, 2012, 06:05 AM

113. God willing!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Wed Jun 27, 2012, 10:47 PM

66. John Roberts is not concerned about **Jack Shit**, so now I am pretty sure it's doomed. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LaydeeBug (Reply #66)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:52 AM

97. I am WRONG...happily WRONG. We can still get to single payer. :) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:34 AM

71. Thats possibly the least realistic prediction you could make

Kennedy might... might vote in favor of ACA on legal grounds. Might.

Roberts won't. Not a chance in hell. He is balancing the partisan hatred of Obama against the desire to support the corporations that want this bill to remain in place. Those are the considerations for him. Actual law, precedent, public trust, none of that is a factor. Same for the other conservatives on the court.

I don't know what will come out tomorrow. I wouldn't be overly surprised if they managed to cobble together a ruling that preserves the individual mandate, while getting rid of the rest of the bill. It seems like something this activist court would do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:16 AM

76. That would make a HUGE mess at the Fox News studios

...what with all those heads exploding at the same time

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:33 AM

77. Damn, that's some industrial-strength wishful thinking. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 02:41 AM

81. Scalia's shocking statements have disgraced the Court. Reich makes a good case. Thanks for posting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:01 AM

83. I can think of one thing that could influence Roberts

He has had two seizures since he was appointed. Technically it takes two seizures to get a diagnosis of Epilepsy. Occasionally such events inspire empathy.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1648384,00.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 04:14 AM

84. Don't see it

I think Roberts gives even less of a shit about the SCOTUS's public image than Scalia and Thomas do about the law.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 05:04 AM

86. it will uphold it because it's a republican plan.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HiPointDem (Reply #86)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:48 PM

105. +10000 Of course it was going to be upheld.

Just as we knew from the outset that the debt ceiling debate would end in extension of the tax cuts for billionaires and austerity for the rest of us...

All of this is predictable as hell by now. If the fact that ROBERTS voted for this does not extract some heads from some asses to see what is really going on here, then there is little hope for us.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to woo me with science (Reply #105)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:04 PM

107. Well, even tho many of us have tried to point that out to the enchanted

They still don't get it, that this was just another blow job for the corporations.

We have told them for months they would uphold it and why, but now the meme is "Roberts really cares about the dignity of the court" or something. They don't even laugh when they say it.

They could simply look at the evidence, but since the Heritage Foundation Annex of our party backed the theft, they think it is some kind of "glorious victory".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Dragonfli (Reply #107)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 01:47 PM

108. We have reached deliberate partisan psychosis.

"Roberts cares about the dignity of the court."

Good. Fucking. God.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1014&pid=146626

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 06:46 AM

87. I think healthcare will be upheld...

...not because of any legal or Constitutional issues, but because the mega insurance companies are thrilled with it. Their profits have tripled since the healthcare bill was signed. The bill left their profit-centric system in place. We still live and die based on what's best for health-insurance's shareholder value. There are no cost controls in that bill.

Our Supreme Court is owned by the corporations. The corporations love this bill. So, it will stand.

And a nice little bonus in this situation is that Republicans, especially the rabid base, will be whipped up into a lather of rage and paranoia after "socialized medicine" is not brought down. Republican voters will view the presidential election as their only hope in repealing "Obamacare"--which they've been duped into believing is a Marxist attack on our nation.

Right-wing-talk-show hosts will be poring gasoline on their Obama-hatred fires and creating chaos. They'll have their listeners convinced that the world will implode if Obamacare isn't repealed. They'll be told the only way to save the country from a Marxist-Socialist-Kenyan takeover is by voting for Mittens.

All of this ensures a tighter presidential race.

Yeah. That's how cynical I've become.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to CoffeeCat (Reply #87)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:43 PM

103. And.....

You were right.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 08:42 AM

92. I admire Reich's optimism, but Roberts is a political animal at heart

and a scumfuck to the core. Would not put it past them to overturn the whole law. I think the most likely outcome, though, is that the mandate gets overturned and the rest gets left alone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 08:44 AM

93. I say 7-2 to uphold the mandate.

Alito has telegraphed that he's in the mood to expand government power lately. I expect him to join the Chief Justice. Only Scalia and Thomas will dissent, I suspect.

I hate it when I agree with Scalia and Thomas, but that's exactly what the Democratic Party has forced me to do by backing a Heritage Foundation plan from the 1990s.

Sad.

-Laelth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 10:22 AM

95. thank you mr reich

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Thu Jun 28, 2012, 12:44 PM

104. That man is brilliant.

No surprise he was a Rhodes Scholar in the same class as Bill Clinton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spanone (Original post)

Fri Jun 29, 2012, 08:24 AM

112. Good call!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread