Wah our rent is going up because of bad decisions by the housing commission, lets blame people that have good jobs in tech and force them out by destroying the internet connectivity in the city.
Blah blah blah....like all conservatives you say you like a free market but then you complain about it.
All that means is that they supported Robert's reasoning.
Drinking and driving was a huge problem for 18 year old kids when they did that, so...yeah it does.
Sorry, I meant Kennedy, not Stevens.
What are they forced to live with? Their employer providing healthcare (cause that is part of Obamacare)
But he clearly said "pay up front for service". Maybe pay up front is strong....how about put a lien on all your own and can dip into your bank account to take money until it is repaid and the debts can not be discharged in bankruptcy.
Maybe if the financial costs were bad enough people would stop being idiots and "choose" to buy insurance.
Why the DoD? it's not like they have unaccounted nearly 8 trillion dollars (about half the US debt)...err...wait....that was them.
you do realize that was not a lie....they are having us buy a privately operated service....the service changes and the Dr does not want to accept the service anymore the Dr goes away. The LAW does not force you to lose your doctor and it does not force you to lose your insurance. Free market changes caused insurance companies to end a program (something that happens almost every year) and doctors to think about their reimbursement rates with specific insurers (something that happens almost every month) Apparently conservatives like the free market until it negatively impacts the,.
except that Roberts and Stevens are conservatives and ruled with the majority and that 5 out of the 9 justices are conservative....but sure....partisan hacks and party lines, right.
All of those things have to do with driving. The court has rules recently that you can not use federal funds like the highway fund to bully states to do something that they do not want to do when the funds have no relationship to the act that is being compelled.
because of cronyism in state legislatures and a period of time where people thought they could amend their way out of corrupt practices? They could have just passed laws in each state that gave harsh fines and better oversight of the process that the state governments were involved in.
As a liberal leaning independent I completely agree with you. Most Amendments clarify or guarantee rights that are not addressed in the constitution, the 17th flat out dumps an entire section of Article I. Usually not a good idea to change the fundamental functioning of the way the government works when it was designed to work a specific way.
He was concerned that the private prison population would drop because of the increased access to location information when attempting to railroad people at trial to keep the prisons full.
you're an asshole