Black lawmakers plan walkout during contempt vote

Should you lose, I'd wager you'll enjoy the month off.

 

I will.It would be better if it happened when Obama was doing poorly in the polls though

 

Not over yet though



Obamacare Predictions: What Will the Supreme Court Decide?

By Meghan Kiesel | ABC OTUS News – 2 hrs 17 mins ago



ABC's Jilian Fama and Meghan Kiesel report:

Tomorrow is decision day for the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, a.k.a Obamacare, and the controversial individual mandate included within it. What kind of decision will SCOTUS hand down? Though no one can be certain, predictions abound:


Lawrence Tribe, Harvard Law School professor who taught both Obama and Chief Justice John Roberts, has faith in Obamacare: "I think it will be upheld in its entirety."


Robert Reich, former Secy. of Labor, is optimistic: "It will uphold the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) by a vote of 6 to 3."


Nancy Pelosi, House minority leader, thinks that the courts will rule in favor: "I'm predicting 6 to 3 in favor."


Tom Goldstein, publisher and contributor to SCOTUSblog, says the mandate will not be invalidated: "In the end, you have to make a prediction and take responsibility for it. I believe the mandate will not be invalidated tomorrow. Far less important, I expect the principal opinion will be written by the Chief Justice; a majority of the Court will find it has jurisdiction; and the challenge to the Medicaid expansion will be rejected."


The American Bar Association published a special report devoted to the Supreme Court ruling on health care reform. Eighty-five percent of those surveyed (journalists, lawyers and academics) are predicting that the court will uphold the law.


Michael Tomasky, special correspondent for Newsweek/ The Daily Beast and a contributor to the New York Review of Books, believes SCOTUS is a group of "politicians in robes," thinks the court will carefully declaw Obamacare: "That means overturning the mandate 5-4. But it means doing so narrowly, carefully, almost regretfully."


Ed Whelan, contributor to National Review Online, read the tea leaves before making his prediction: "The fact that Justice Scalia read his dissent from the bench in the Arizona immigration case leads me to believe that the Court will invalidate the individual mandate by a 5-4 vote."



Walter Dellinger, Slate contributor, thinks it's unlikely that mandate will fall: "Now, health care. My gut tells me the court will do something that will be a partial victory for both sides of the seemingly unbridgeable chasm between supporters and opponents of Obamacare."

Check back tomorrow for the latest on the final ruling. In the meantime, see our infographic on the options for how the court could rule.

Get more pure politics at ABC News.com/Politics and a lighter take on the news at OTUSNews.com

 

Contract just dropped by 6% on intrade in the last couple hours... so you might be in business..... i dont think this contract has alot of predictive value though as there is only couple hundred shares within 5-10% either way.....

Im just paying close attention for a wild move one way or the other which might imply something has been leaked, so i can do something with the healthcare stocks tomorrow morning before the announcement.....

 

I generally only follow intrade on elections but it could have some value on this if as you said something is leaked

I will be following .My guess is intrade will have the answer before the media

 

Good God the cbc are clowns, asshats and race hustlers.

Perfect example of why our democracy sucks.

 

When was the last time The USSC limited Federal Power?

Honestly that's supposed to be the whole reason the USSC exists in the first place. The last time the USSC limited Federal power that I can think of off hand, was when our dear dictator fdr was president.

 

If the socialists left wing propaganda media came out and blamed the holocaust on Bush, I'm sure you'd believe it.

 

Bullshit.

From todays Washington Post...

In the fall of 2009, the Justice Department was putting pressure on Newell and his agents to combat Mexican cartels by identifying and eliminating the pipelines used to move guns across the border. There were calls in Washington to bring down the trafficking network, not just the people on the lowest rung — the “straw purchasers” who buy guns legally, then transfer them up the hierarchy of the cartels.

The small-time gunrunners, known as “hormigas,” the Spanish word for ants, were simply slapped with small fines.

Newell’s office developed a plan: To identify the drug networks, his agents would track — but not arrest — straw buyers. The agents could follow them and their associates, wiretap conversations, and possibly charge more senior cartel members with serious crimes such as conspiracy, drug trafficking and money laundering.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...tion/2012/06/27/gJQAQviT7V_story.html?hpid=z1

 

So if white lawmakers walk out next time they don't like something, is that OK? Will they be called racists? Would they simply be exploiting the race card for political purpose? Would Chris Matthews and every other media leftist be running around with their hair on fire crying racism? Yeah, that's what I thought!
BTW, I thought segregation was wrong, so what's up with a black only group in government?