Judge Rules Individual Mandate UnConstitutional


In his 55-page opinion, O’Connor agrees. He writes that the individual mandate is unconstitutional, saying that it “can no longer be fairly read as an exercise of Congress’ tax power.”

It was never a tax. It violates the origination clause if it is called one. Of course the individual mandate is unConstitutional.

Kavanaugh will vote with Roberts.


It’s about damn time the judicial did their job on this unconstitutional travesty. ObamaCare was never about people’s health, but the Marxist takeover of our country. They are following Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals that says if you want to control a nation control its health care.


Now the government should have to re-imburse everyone who paid the penalty. It was just thievery…the whole time.


Don’t get too excited - the Supreme Court has proven that it will bend over backward to save the ACA.

Judges are now basically feudal lords handing out decrees whenever they see fit.


I’m not really sure if I am clear on the impact of the ruling.

ACA was ruled constitutional because the penalty was considered a tax, correct?

Now the penalty (tax) has been removed, therefore Congress cannot force the individual mandate upon anyone because “tax” was the glue that held the whole thing together? :woozy_face:

1 Like

Seems all legislation recently isn’t from Congress but the bench. Why even bother being a democratically elected official when you can be an appointed judge interpreting laws however you see fit? I support the ACA getting eliminated but that’s what we elected Congress to do.


This ruling didn’t legislate at all like the ■■■ marriage ruling. It’s not telling states that they must do something, it’s telling states and the feds that they can’t force citizens to do something.

You are correct. We are being ruled by The Nonumvirate.

Leftist Twitter Bot Salt











1 Like

Actually, your thread title is incorrect. You should have copied the title of the link.

The judge ruled that ObamaCare is now unconstitutional because it no longer includes the tax designed to pay for it.

Why is somebody else changing my thread title?

Is this normal here?

I don’t post the way you think I should, I post the way I post.

1 Like

You should post in half Latin and half Greek.

1 Like

I was wrong. He didn’t change your title. He changed the tag.

You should correct the title yourself.

It’s fine the way it is.

The tag is fine. I guessed at it.

The judge is wrong. It was never Constitutional because of the origination clause. As I said.

The SCOTUS disagrees with you. It twice declared the law constitutional. It defined the mandate as a tax. Now that it has been repealed by Congress, there is nothing (tax or otherwise to pay for it). As stated in your link…recent changes in tax laws makes it unconstitutional.


You gave my post a heart which I assume you concur that the impact of the ruling is not clear to you either.

Yet notice instead of some help from those who may have the knowledge to contribute the thread it devolves into a pissing contest on the title of the thread?

I am not an ACA guru. Gawds folks. Can you PLEASE help me understand what the threads are that are causing the unraveling?

Mean I liked your post, and I’m somewhat just as confused as you are about the impact of latest ruling and repercussions it will have on SCOTUS.

I did that to let you know you’re not alone in that thinking. :wink:

Now the should get a few panties in a twist.

Next up another lawsuit which will end up in the 9th circuit.

Results conflicting cases headed to the SCOTUS.

1 Like