Muscatine

As much fun as this obviously is, you are way off base Johnny.

I fully disagree with the mandate and the way the whole law was structured. This isn't a happy day for me and our taxes. I FAIL TO SEE HOW THE COURT CAN SAY IT'S CONSTITUTIONAL. I need orthopedic shoes for my old gross vain puffed feet, but the government can't make me buy shoes. BUT-------------------------------------------

I do use sherry from time to time but in the interest of civility i won't tell you how in the way the old passive agressive Darlene would have.

Sorry BDEYE.

I will.  Oh wait....we tried that once, and you're still here. 

Ah what the hell.....I still will. 

This from the crowd that swore the SC would repeal it.

1.  The Supreme Court split on this almost right down the middle.  The one new judge should have recused herself because she helped the Obumbler work on this before she was nominated as a Supreme Court judge.

2.  They did not rule on the laws value.  Whether it was good or bad.  They found a way to judge it constitutional by stretching the idea that penalties for non compliance can be considered a tax!  The very thing the Obumbler admin. denied!  It is still a bad law.

3.  Those who like the idea of coverage for pre-existing conditions, and coverage for offspring up to the age of 26, but don't like the death panels and the rest of the law, are foolish.  You can't accept just a little bit of love from the devil without suffering the consequences.  We just got some of it, today.  Who do you think will pay for the coverage mandated by this law?

3.  The good thing about this ruling is that it will almost guarantee a Romney victory in November.  The tax paying citizens will not stand for this.  And there are still enough tax paying voters to outvote the parasites.

4.  I'm wondering what sort of dirt Soros has on Judge Roberts?