<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Supreme Court Forces Us To Deal Within the Political System</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 24 May 2013 09:38:22 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Bill S</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187682</link>
		<dc:creator>Bill S</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 11:15:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187682</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[This cunning plan is bound to work out about the same as on Blackadder...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This cunning plan is bound to work out about the same as on Blackadder&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 6t9boss</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187665</link>
		<dc:creator>6t9boss</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:30:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187665</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[SC afraid of being politized..... then why rule on anything? Oh! I get it they should only rule on things that bring good LIBERAL press coverage.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>SC afraid of being politized&#8230;.. then why rule on anything? Oh! I get it they should only rule on things that bring good LIBERAL press coverage.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JX12</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187662</link>
		<dc:creator>JX12</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 09:23:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187662</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I&#039;ve never been prouder of the Republican Party than when they stood precisely against taking an active role in the formation of ACA, and, in fact, lent not one vote to this piece of garbage.

The only active role I want to see the GOP take is the role of repealing every dotted i, crossed t, and dangling participle of this lousy law.  Looks like there may now be more than enough of them in both chambers to do so in 2013 - with President Romney putting his signature to it.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve never been prouder of the Republican Party than when they stood precisely against taking an active role in the formation of ACA, and, in fact, lent not one vote to this piece of garbage.</p>
<p>The only active role I want to see the GOP take is the role of repealing every dotted i, crossed t, and dangling participle of this lousy law.  Looks like there may now be more than enough of them in both chambers to do so in 2013 &#8211; with President Romney putting his signature to it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: SoFiMil</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187659</link>
		<dc:creator>SoFiMil</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 08:56:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187659</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[(I recognize your using the concept/term in a different sense, JX12.)

Washington (and many politicians) infatuation with &quot;legacy building) is distasteful. Absolutely least important consideration of all should be how one want future historians to rank one&#039;s contribution to society. Do it for your fellow man, not yourself. 

Disagree in part with your take on the Chief Justice. He acted without regard to his personal standing - however right or wrong I believe his ruling is.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>(I recognize your using the concept/term in a different sense, JX12.)</p>
<p>Washington (and many politicians) infatuation with &#8220;legacy building) is distasteful. Absolutely least important consideration of all should be how one want future historians to rank one&#8217;s contribution to society. Do it for your fellow man, not yourself. </p>
<p>Disagree in part with your take on the Chief Justice. He acted without regard to his personal standing &#8211; however right or wrong I believe his ruling is.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JX12</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187650</link>
		<dc:creator>JX12</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 29 Jun 2012 06:24:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187650</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Seems to me he&#039;s more concerned about his standing in the Washington social circles than he is about the law OR his reputation.

The Supreme Court had a golden opportunity to come through for the American people and put this monstrosity to bed once and for all.  I figured that if anyone was going to cave, it would be Kennedy.  I really didn&#039;t buy the rumors suggesting that Roberts might be the one to flip on this one.  I guess I learned a thing or two today.  Roberts blew it big time, and I don&#039;t see how his reputation EVER recovers from this one - not just with conservatives, but with a clear and decisive majority of Americans.

This ruling alone qualifies Roberts to be the second coming of David Souter in my book, regardless of how he rules on anything  else from now on.

Shameful.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Seems to me he&#8217;s more concerned about his standing in the Washington social circles than he is about the law OR his reputation.</p>
<p>The Supreme Court had a golden opportunity to come through for the American people and put this monstrosity to bed once and for all.  I figured that if anyone was going to cave, it would be Kennedy.  I really didn&#8217;t buy the rumors suggesting that Roberts might be the one to flip on this one.  I guess I learned a thing or two today.  Roberts blew it big time, and I don&#8217;t see how his reputation EVER recovers from this one &#8211; not just with conservatives, but with a clear and decisive majority of Americans.</p>
<p>This ruling alone qualifies Roberts to be the second coming of David Souter in my book, regardless of how he rules on anything  else from now on.</p>
<p>Shameful.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tnfriendofcoal101368</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187406</link>
		<dc:creator>tnfriendofcoal101368</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:40:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187406</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[and it is unconstitutional unless it is a tax so if it is not repealed...it is a tax...and it is unlawful not to pay you entire charged tax bill.  The penalties for not paying taxes are codified in the law.  A lawyer has no standing to argue it is not a tax, the Supreme Court just ruled it is a tax.  The lack of teeth, you thought the law had, just got quite a bit of teeth in the US code.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and it is unconstitutional unless it is a tax so if it is not repealed&#8230;it is a tax&#8230;and it is unlawful not to pay you entire charged tax bill.  The penalties for not paying taxes are codified in the law.  A lawyer has no standing to argue it is not a tax, the Supreme Court just ruled it is a tax.  The lack of teeth, you thought the law had, just got quite a bit of teeth in the US code.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: marktx</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187399</link>
		<dc:creator>marktx</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187399</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Because people like Erick are willing to give benefit of the doubt to the majority opinion written by Roberts only because Roberts was nominated by a republican. 

When a moderate justice like Kennedy sides with Scalia and Thomas on an issue as huge as ObamaCare - yet Roberts sides with the big government liberals on the court - that should tell Erick all he needs to know about the judicial philosophy of Roberts.

And to suggest that Roberts intention was to throw the legislation back to congress doesn&#039;t pass the smell test either. Because if that were the case, wouldn&#039;t it have been more wise to throw out the entire law and then let congress rewrite something better ?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Because people like Erick are willing to give benefit of the doubt to the majority opinion written by Roberts only because Roberts was nominated by a republican. </p>
<p>When a moderate justice like Kennedy sides with Scalia and Thomas on an issue as huge as ObamaCare &#8211; yet Roberts sides with the big government liberals on the court &#8211; that should tell Erick all he needs to know about the judicial philosophy of Roberts.</p>
<p>And to suggest that Roberts intention was to throw the legislation back to congress doesn&#8217;t pass the smell test either. Because if that were the case, wouldn&#8217;t it have been more wise to throw out the entire law and then let congress rewrite something better ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: acat</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187396</link>
		<dc:creator>acat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:23:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187396</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5

Mew]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5</p>
<p>Mew</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Common_Cents</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187393</link>
		<dc:creator>Common_Cents</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:10:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187393</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You can try to spin this any way you want, but Roberts carried a few trillion gallons of water for BarakaCare.

Roberts could have got his point across in his opinion even if he correctly struck this monstrosity down in its entirety.

How does a tax have standing in SCOTUS?

in addition, what happened to no taxation w/out representation?   Raise my taxes w/out telling me exactly how/what/when?  BS.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You can try to spin this any way you want, but Roberts carried a few trillion gallons of water for BarakaCare.</p>
<p>Roberts could have got his point across in his opinion even if he correctly struck this monstrosity down in its entirety.</p>
<p>How does a tax have standing in SCOTUS?</p>
<p>in addition, what happened to no taxation w/out representation?   Raise my taxes w/out telling me exactly how/what/when?  BS.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: billyd</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187391</link>
		<dc:creator>billyd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 21:05:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187391</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Those people who do not have an option within the exchange that is less than 8% of their income can pay the penalty which is set to start at 1% of their income and increase to 2.5%.   As an example, if the cheapest insurance option within the exchange costs $8k and your income is $90k, you can pay a simple penalty (Which the court has labeled as a tax) that maxes out at 2.5% of income.
Now here&#039;s the problem...  The democrats deliberatly left out any penalty for not paying the required fee.   The Democrats called the fee, a penalty charge, the court called the fee a tax.  Now the IRS can take you to court for not paying your full taxes and claim that the Insurance mandate is the unpaid tax, but the law doesn&#039;t state any penalty for failure to pay that tax.   The biggest issue is that the law was not written as a tax and in no part of 2000 plus pages does it call it a tax.   It only says that it is the IRS&#039;s job to collect the payment.   This is the issue....  The IRS can take you to court for not paying and if they institute a penalty or try to lock you up, they are outside the law as it&#039;s written and any lawyer will be able to point that out.  The law has NO penalty for not paying the fee (Tax).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Those people who do not have an option within the exchange that is less than 8% of their income can pay the penalty which is set to start at 1% of their income and increase to 2.5%.   As an example, if the cheapest insurance option within the exchange costs $8k and your income is $90k, you can pay a simple penalty (Which the court has labeled as a tax) that maxes out at 2.5% of income.<br />
Now here&#8217;s the problem&#8230;  The democrats deliberatly left out any penalty for not paying the required fee.   The Democrats called the fee, a penalty charge, the court called the fee a tax.  Now the IRS can take you to court for not paying your full taxes and claim that the Insurance mandate is the unpaid tax, but the law doesn&#8217;t state any penalty for failure to pay that tax.   The biggest issue is that the law was not written as a tax and in no part of 2000 plus pages does it call it a tax.   It only says that it is the IRS&#8217;s job to collect the payment.   This is the issue&#8230;.  The IRS can take you to court for not paying and if they institute a penalty or try to lock you up, they are outside the law as it&#8217;s written and any lawyer will be able to point that out.  The law has NO penalty for not paying the fee (Tax).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tedblunder</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187355</link>
		<dc:creator>tedblunder</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 19:41:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187355</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Erick, why are we losing?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Erick, why are we losing?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keepcoolwithcoolidge</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187269</link>
		<dc:creator>keepcoolwithcoolidge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:41:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187269</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[go to an international court or the UN? This is a domestic issue, they have no authority or jurisdiction, nor should they.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>go to an international court or the UN? This is a domestic issue, they have no authority or jurisdiction, nor should they.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: tnfriendofcoal101368</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187265</link>
		<dc:creator>tnfriendofcoal101368</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:32:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187265</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The people whose required contribution would exceed 8% of total household income are exempted from the mandate or tax.  If you can&#039;t afford it by the definition of the law, you don&#039;t have to pay the tax.  This works even better i.e. if you don&#039;t have to pay income taxes, you don&#039;t have to pay health insurance tax under the ACA.  Roberts screwed us there is no other way out.  If you can&#039;t afford the contribution and it doesn&#039;t exceed 8% of household income, you pay the tax, set up a payment plan at interest, have property that can be seized or go to jail; that&#039;s how taxes work.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The people whose required contribution would exceed 8% of total household income are exempted from the mandate or tax.  If you can&#8217;t afford it by the definition of the law, you don&#8217;t have to pay the tax.  This works even better i.e. if you don&#8217;t have to pay income taxes, you don&#8217;t have to pay health insurance tax under the ACA.  Roberts screwed us there is no other way out.  If you can&#8217;t afford the contribution and it doesn&#8217;t exceed 8% of household income, you pay the tax, set up a payment plan at interest, have property that can be seized or go to jail; that&#8217;s how taxes work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: keepcoolwithcoolidge</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187241</link>
		<dc:creator>keepcoolwithcoolidge</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 17:10:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187241</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[According to the decision, we were right. The government cannot force anyone into commerce. The left claimed it wasn&#039;t even a question to be considered because it was obvious. They were wrong.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>According to the decision, we were right. The government cannot force anyone into commerce. The left claimed it wasn&#8217;t even a question to be considered because it was obvious. They were wrong.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: karatetraining</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187233</link>
		<dc:creator>karatetraining</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:59:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187233</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1) 
&quot;The Act authorized a deduction from the pay of seamen for the purpose of funding medical care for seamen.&quot;  They did not impose this deduction on ALL American&#039;s or make it a condition of citizenship.

2)
There was a simple solution to the problem you talk about (uninsured people&#039;s inability to afford insurance).  The government could have changes the Insurance Regulation to force Insurance companies to put ALL self-employed and self-insured people in a group and give them group rates, using the same calculations used for big employers.  There I solved the problem in under 2,400 pages!

The above does not force those who do not want insurance from buying it, they can continue to pay the higher costs associated with not having insurance.

3) Really, you interpret &quot;the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness&quot; as meaning &quot;all Americans should have a right to healthcare&quot;??!!!  Really?!  Wow, that is a first.  It says... Life, not good health.  Or perhaps we should all be kept on life support FOREVER since the we have a right to life...not death.  Can&#039;t wait to hear how you interpret &#039;pursuit of happiness&#039;!

I&#039;m with the majority here, disgusted with all three branches of government.  But I don&#039;t blame the government, I blame &#039;we the people&#039; because we enable them.  &#039;We the people&#039; have for far to long remained silent, while the government socialised our children, perverted our society, twisted the constitution and brainwashed/bought the masses.   This has all happened slowly so as not to catch anyone&#039;s attention.  I&#039;m afraid my like minded posters that when you speak of this decision with your friends/coworkers and family you will mostly get, &quot;so what&#039;s the big idea&quot; followed by the glossing over of their eyes as you try to explain it to them.  

Any suggestions on other Countries we can migrate to?  Starting to look like a viable option!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1)<br />
&#8220;The Act authorized a deduction from the pay of seamen for the purpose of funding medical care for seamen.&#8221;  They did not impose this deduction on ALL American&#8217;s or make it a condition of citizenship.</p>
<p>2)<br />
There was a simple solution to the problem you talk about (uninsured people&#8217;s inability to afford insurance).  The government could have changes the Insurance Regulation to force Insurance companies to put ALL self-employed and self-insured people in a group and give them group rates, using the same calculations used for big employers.  There I solved the problem in under 2,400 pages!</p>
<p>The above does not force those who do not want insurance from buying it, they can continue to pay the higher costs associated with not having insurance.</p>
<p>3) Really, you interpret &#8220;the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness&#8221; as meaning &#8220;all Americans should have a right to healthcare&#8221;??!!!  Really?!  Wow, that is a first.  It says&#8230; Life, not good health.  Or perhaps we should all be kept on life support FOREVER since the we have a right to life&#8230;not death.  Can&#8217;t wait to hear how you interpret &#8216;pursuit of happiness&#8217;!</p>
<p>I&#8217;m with the majority here, disgusted with all three branches of government.  But I don&#8217;t blame the government, I blame &#8216;we the people&#8217; because we enable them.  &#8216;We the people&#8217; have for far to long remained silent, while the government socialised our children, perverted our society, twisted the constitution and brainwashed/bought the masses.   This has all happened slowly so as not to catch anyone&#8217;s attention.  I&#8217;m afraid my like minded posters that when you speak of this decision with your friends/coworkers and family you will mostly get, &#8220;so what&#8217;s the big idea&#8221; followed by the glossing over of their eyes as you try to explain it to them.  </p>
<p>Any suggestions on other Countries we can migrate to?  Starting to look like a viable option!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: misty</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187222</link>
		<dc:creator>misty</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:45:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187222</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[30 % of people are not registered to vote.  This election is too important, we have to get control of both houses of congress and get Obama out.  Are you registered?  you may think you are, but are not.  Go to glennbeck.com and click on the box 1234 and then on 2 and find out if you are.  I know because my son moved to a new  location in town, which moved him to a different polling station, but he did not know he could not just go and vote where he had in previous  years, so this is really important.  There are many people who donate to conservatives,  but they are not even registered to vote.  while donations are nice, votes are what is needed.  Please talk to like minded people you know and make sure they are registered.  Thanks.

We don&#039;t need community organizers to get out the  vote, if we each get the word out to people we know, we can get more voters registered who will vote these devils out.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>30 % of people are not registered to vote.  This election is too important, we have to get control of both houses of congress and get Obama out.  Are you registered?  you may think you are, but are not.  Go to glennbeck.com and click on the box 1234 and then on 2 and find out if you are.  I know because my son moved to a new  location in town, which moved him to a different polling station, but he did not know he could not just go and vote where he had in previous  years, so this is really important.  There are many people who donate to conservatives,  but they are not even registered to vote.  while donations are nice, votes are what is needed.  Please talk to like minded people you know and make sure they are registered.  Thanks.</p>
<p>We don&#8217;t need community organizers to get out the  vote, if we each get the word out to people we know, we can get more voters registered who will vote these devils out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: ntrepid</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187205</link>
		<dc:creator>ntrepid</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:29:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187205</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Look it up.

Ntrepid
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Look it up.</p>
<p>Ntrepid<br />
Proud Redstate Member since April 2006</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: inovrmihd</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187204</link>
		<dc:creator>inovrmihd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:28:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187204</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eric, do you seriously believe that this will result in congressional restraint?  When has Congress ever passed a law becasue they knew that the Supreme Court would overtunr it?  Can you give me one example?   Now Congress can do whatever they want knowing that if it the penalty is the functional equivalent of a tax, it will be upheld.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eric, do you seriously believe that this will result in congressional restraint?  When has Congress ever passed a law becasue they knew that the Supreme Court would overtunr it?  Can you give me one example?   Now Congress can do whatever they want knowing that if it the penalty is the functional equivalent of a tax, it will be upheld.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: OccamsRazor</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187186</link>
		<dc:creator>OccamsRazor</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:16:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187186</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Fall in line slaves. This is affirmation. It&#039;s amusing to me that with only the general will of the people, will a bad decision such as this be changed.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fall in line slaves. This is affirmation. It&#8217;s amusing to me that with only the general will of the people, will a bad decision such as this be changed.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Finrod</title>
		<link>http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/06/28/the-supreme-court-forces-us-to-deal-within-the-political-system/#comment-187171</link>
		<dc:creator>Finrod</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jun 2012 16:11:33 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.redstate.com/erick/?p=16223#comment-187171</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Democrats wouldn&#039;t even say what was in the bill, don&#039;t you remember Pelosi infamously saying &quot;We have to pass the bill to find out what&#039;s in it&quot;?

This bill was railroaded through Congress and if you think Democrats were ever going to allow Republicans to have any say in it, well then, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma I&#039;d like to sell you.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Democrats wouldn&#8217;t even say what was in the bill, don&#8217;t you remember Pelosi infamously saying &#8220;We have to pass the bill to find out what&#8217;s in it&#8221;?</p>
<p>This bill was railroaded through Congress and if you think Democrats were ever going to allow Republicans to have any say in it, well then, I have some beachfront property in Oklahoma I&#8217;d like to sell you.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
