Candidate Romney spoke yesterday of repealing Obamacare...
 

...on the first day when he takes office. This must just be rhetoric. Cannot see how a President Romney could repeal an Act just found Constitutional by the Supreme Court unless some kind of very tricky politics are involved which would take a lot longer than one day in office.

All the Supreme Court decision did was state that the individual mandate was in fact a tax and hence the individual mandate was unaffected by the Commerce Clause. Congress can repeal ObamaCare and one manner is by defunding it. Roberts was clever in how he went about this decision I started another thread on this subject.

Cicao

The Republicans though would have to get quite a number of new seats in Congress to repeal Obamacare outright. I doubt if they can get the numbers needed.

It does sound like Chief Justice John Roberts made some law of his own by declaring Obamacare a tax when the President and the Democrats took such pains to say that it was not a tax.

Not gonna happen. Cicao.

Cons don't handle defeat well.

Wonder what the Con reaction would be if the decision went in their favor? I am willing to bet EVERY single Con in the country, at every level, would be holding a press conference today saying - I told ya so !!!!!!

If you read my other thread you would have known that it was not, "the defeat" if that is how you dwsire to describe it, but that Roberts allowed infracture to occur and ultimately created bad law.

Once the majority decided that the individual mandate amounted to a tax vis a vis and not falling under the commerce clause Roberts had an obligation to reset oral argument. He did not. Also Justice Kagan as solictor General had heavy participation in the developing the governments case for the eventful Ssupreme court Jearing. Kagan's involvement was a clear "conflict of interest" and she should have recused herself. she did not, nor did Chief Roberts speak up. Finally the majority finding the individual mandate as being a tax , cheif Justice roberts had an obligation to involke the Anti Injunction Act. He did not. the anti Injunction Act requires that with a finding of a tax, the tax has to be first imposed before a lawsuit can commence. Hence this case should not have been heard until sometime after 2014.

So from a personal view I find the making of bad law always to be distasteful

Republican congressman admits GOP has no plan that would replace The Affordable Care Act. How can voters compare what both parties are offering when only one plan is on the table? To say vote for us, and we'll repeal and replace ACA without any alternative being offered is ludicrous.


Republican Congressman Admits GOP Has 'No' Plan To Replace Obamacare | ThinkProgress

The best manner in which disputes such as this are resolved is through the passage of time. I am a naturalist and so let nature take its course.

All you lefties who are so enamored of President Obama's use of Executive Privilege have got to realize that President Romney would have that same option.

Good talking point. Think I read the same exact quote on Townhall.

Someone would have to tell him what it is, how it works and what to do; he has no independent thoughts. :ohdear:

Unfortunately it has brought out screeching of Bachmann and Palin.

The only intelligent posts on this thread have come from conservative posters. Not very surprising, but revealing none the less