The Ghost of Snapped Shot

Or, welcome to my low-maintenance heck.

Just Another Reason To Vote For People Who Believe In The Constitution

If you ever needed another reason to make sure to vote in Conservatives from NOW ON, just take a gander at this JACKASS of a federal judge.

A federal judge in Michigan has upheld as Constitutional a provision in the health care reform bill requiring uninsured individuals to purchase insurance.

U.S. District Court Judge George Steeh ruled Thursday that the so-called individual mandate — a requirement President Barack Obama opposed during the presidential campaign but later embraced as part of sweeping changes — falls squarely within Congress’s ability under the Constitution to regulate interstate commerce.

I apologize for my language but this angers me to no end.  This jack*** needs to be impeached for this ruling!!!

How does a ruling like this occurr? Because, in order to regulate the commerce that travels across state lines, they will make you buy insurance INSIDE your state.  HUH?

This guy needs to be voted out or removed from office.  He is illiterate.  He is biased.  He is purely political.  He imputes an act of INTRASTATE commerce to be the role of the federal government's INTERSTATE role of manging the commerce that is already commencing.  If there is no commerce across state lines, how can it be regulated?!!?

How in the low hot place did he get from that point A to polygon 2?

What next?  The federal government now has the right to regulate the actual insurance agency and who is allowed to be an insurance company in a state?

But, things get worse.  Here's this doofus' justification.

“The decision whether to purchase insurance or to attempt to pay for health care out of pocket is plainly economic,” Steeh wrote in a 20-page opinion. “These decisions, viewed in the aggregate, have clear and direct impacts on health care providers, taxpayers and the insured population, who ultimately pay for the care provided to those who go without insurance.”
The judge rejected their arguments that Congress has no authority to regulate those who opt out of the medical insurance market.

“The health care market is unlike other markets. No one can guarantee his or her health or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market. Indeed, the opposite is nearly always true,” wrote Steeh, who was appointed by President Bill Clinton. “Far from ‘inactivity,’ by choosing to forgo insurance, plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now through the purchase of insurance.”

You see, because you can't guarantee your health, then the federal government has the right to tell you what insurance to purchase and how much.

This is ludicrous.  Because people choose to NOT BUY something, that is in effect an economic decision and thus the federal government can regulate it.  HELLO!?!?!?!?

At what point does the definition of INTERSTATE COMMERCE come in to play?  Did anyone think of bringing a dictionary to the courtroom?!??!!?  HOLY ECK!!!!

If I choose to not buy a sticky-widget from a company in my home state, because I can't buy one from another state, how is that any business of the federal government?

How can the federal government whose job it is to regulate cross-state economic transactions and traffic, MAKE A CITIZEN BUY SOMETHING WITHIN THEIR STATE!!?!?

But you see, that's the rub.  They can't.  And these people know it.  Yet, as I showed you earlier, after 2014, you will no longer be able to buy local insurance.  On 2014, the only insurance you will be forced to buy will be those companies run by the federal government.

But, the deal ain't done yet folks.  We still have a foot in the door.  The foot is sore and bloodies from the hard slamming against it, but...

A lawyer for the Thomas More Center, Rob Muise, said Steeh’s decision will be appealed. If an appeal goes forward immediately, it’s possible the Michigan case will be the first health reform challenge to reach an appellate court, in this instance the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

This thing is set up quite nicely, actually, for an appeal,” Muise told POLITICO.

Muise said Steeh’s decision is wrong, in part, because it would open almost any decision of private individuals to federal control.

“The trouble, if you think about it, is if Congress has authority to regulate nonactivity then it has the ability to regulate anything,” Muise said. Congress can “tell you to exercise three times a week, to take certain vitamins, to refrain from eating certain foods because, at some point, costs are going to be incurred to the health care market. I find that very troubling when we have a federal government that’s supposed to be of limited, enumerated powers,” he said.


This ain't over yet folks by a long shot.  First, we need to elect Conservative people to Congress and to our local governmental positions.  We need to then REMOVE horse's arses like this judge from the bench.  Then, we need to do it all over again on 2012.

When a judges can, over and over, rule on laws that are not constitutional by claiming rights that are not even there in the constitution, ..... this country is on its way out.

What good are laws and foundational documents when judges can just rule based on politics?


Powered by Snarf · Contact Us