Siteadmin, Bureaucrats, Check users, nsAm_Govt_101RO, nsAm_Govt_101RW, nsAm_Govt_101_ta, nsJudgesRO, nsJudgesRW, nsJudges_talkRO, nsJudges_talkRW, nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW, oversight, Administrators
125,794
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: + +
Update: the experts were wrong in predicting that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare under the Commerce Clause, but an unusual opinion by the Chief Justice on an issue barely argued in the
*virtually all of the "experts" missed the boat, and continue to miss the boat, on [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. Wrong about that, why would anyone expect them to be right about anything else?
*virtually all of the "experts" missed the boat, and continue to miss the boat, on [[Biblical Scientific Foreknowledge]]. Wrong about that, why would anyone expect them to be right about anything else?
*the [[liberal]] [[White House]] inappropriately used [[ObamaCare]] to interfere with religious liberty, soon after the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld by a 9-0 vote strong rights of religious organizations to fire workers for religious reasons
*the [[liberal]] [[White House]] inappropriately used [[ObamaCare]] to interfere with religious liberty, soon after the [[U.S. Supreme Court]] upheld by a 9-0 vote strong rights of religious organizations to fire workers for religious reasons
'''''Update: the experts were wrong in predicting that the U.S. Supreme Court would uphold ObamaCare under the Commerce Clause, but an unusual opinion by the Chief Justice on an issue barely argued in the case -- and expressly rejected by supporters of ObamaCare -- provided the fifth vote to uphold the statute as a tax'''''.