Profile image
By Michigan Taxes Too Much forum (Reporter)
Contributor profile | More stories
Story Views

Last Hour:
Last 24 Hours:


Wednesday, June 29, 2011 22:03
% of readers think this story is Fact. Add your two cents.

In an appeals court today the majority holding that Obamacare is legal:

The majority emphasized that the case should not hang on distinctions about whether the failure to purchase insurance should be defined as activity or inactivity, a question the Supreme Court has never considered. “The constitutionality of the minimum coverage provision cannot be resolved with a myopic focus on a malleable label,” the judges said.

In his concurrence, Judge Sutton added: “Inaction is action, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse, when it comes to financial risk.” Whether an individual buys an insurance policy or not, the judge wrote, “each requires affirmative choices; one is no less active than the other; and both affect commerce.”

Inaction is action?  Is this guy on some hardcore pharmaceuticals?   No less active, yet one has a cost, and a decision made where resources are forced to an end by government.  Government that assumes too much.

Our founders would have chased you back to England, foul wretch.

Read more at Michigan Taxes Too Much


We encourage you to Share our Reports, Analyses, Breaking News and Videos. Simply Click your Favorite Social Media Button and Share.

Report abuse


Your Comments
Question   Razz  Sad   Evil  Exclaim  Smile  Redface  Biggrin  Surprised  Eek   Confused   Cool  LOL   Mad   Twisted  Rolleyes   Wink  Idea  Arrow  Neutral  Cry   Mr. Green

Total 1 comment
  • building 5

    another corrupt judge.

Top Stories
Recent Stories



Top Global

Top Alternative



Email this story
Email this story

If you really want to ban this commenter, please write down the reason:

If you really want to disable all recommended stories, click on OK button. After that, you will be redirect to your options page.