The cold splash of water is this:

1. Many of the "long term" politicians on the Hill are ok with letting things go away- for the next guy. They've made their millions and their kids are set with posh lobbyist jobs. It doesn't matter to them.

2. Many politicians on the Hill are also on important committees that direct industry. For example Maxine Waters is on the banking committee, while her husband just happens to be on the board of directors of a bank. So she doesn't need to make an insider "trade" per se, all she has to do is make sure that any legislation or actions within her committee create new "opportunities" for her husband's company. Similarly, Nancy Pelosi's son's construction/real estate company seems to be wonderfully talented in it's getting holdings before federal initiatives are enacted, seem very talented in their proposals as they get awarded work, and they seem to be available in the right areas when new work shows up.

So as you can see, they don't need insider trading to make money on the Hill. They just need to be on an important committee, toss a few pages into new 2,000 page bills that help out friends and family, and let their friends know of "opportunities" that might come up. Once they walk out of office they'll get huge consulting gigs with lobbyists, companies, and their kids will do the same. Clout within, clout outside.

It's a start (and a good one), but there's a long list of other issues leading to them padding their pockets.

Big pay cut for the Pelosi family. I just hope they can adjust.

Nah, there's bound to be loopholes. Members of Congress will continue to do what they're doing. They just hope this "law" is enough smokescreen for us to stop caring.

How Boehner and his wife feel about this?

Evil

They will continue to thumb their noses at we the 99% , just like they always have . As for the loop holes in that law. They are probably big enough to drive a semi sideways through. Just better hidden this time . Besides congress exempted them selves from those types of laws several years ago.

How will Pelosi and her husband feel about this?

Probably the same way that Mr. and Mrs. Boehner feel.

Evil Monkey already said that.............we should all endeavor to try and keep up here.......

We are sorry that you don't like the answer to your idiotic little question.

Our "public servants" watered down this bill so bad it is meaningless

-----Vote them all out...stop defending YOUR party cause they are all the SAME party - beholding to the wealthy and the bankers.

The "vote them all out" sentiment is, and always has been unrealistic. If you "vote them all out" that means you are voting someone else in. Who are you voting in? You don't know. You think that anyone is better than the Status quo. The Republicans thought that 2 years ago, and got co-opted by a bunch of extremists.

Besides, most people with that sentiment think that until they get to the voting booth, then they think " vote them all out, EXCEPT for my congressperson, he/she is alright".

This is one of those bills that shouldn't have ever had to be.

The fact that it was needed does not say much to the integrity for our Congress

this bill won't stop anything. You have to get caught to be found out about.

by the way, republicans are just as bad as democrats at this stuff, and insider trading is only part of the problem.

Sen. Ted Stevens of Alaska, the longest serving U. S. senator ever. Convicted on all 7 counts of falsifying official financial U.S. Senate reports.

Why would anyone in their right mind believe this story?

Who wrote this bill and for whom? Well laywers (congressional members, sharks) wrote the bill to limit other laywers (congressional members, sharks) in insider trading. They aren't stupid. They know just what to put in but more importantly, what not to include.

All this bill amounts to is a political "gee America" look what WE are doing to help YOU"; when in actuality the bill will do nothing.

And as far as the presidents' "fair playing field for all" - dream on jerk! People know the field is slanted to favor the rich and powerful and will continue that way. So don't try to offend America's intelligence by this "transparency".

I suggest, before all claim this bill is watered down, read it; it is very specific, it also includes staff members in the Congress and Senate, by the way it has always been a SEC violation to trade on insider information, however the SEC, is noted for being to late on almost all violations (Madoff, Sanford, to name the most known)

on a separate note, Obama has really stepped into a pile of hors ..t, with his remarks about the court; today the 5th circuit ordered the government (a on going case involving the afford ability act)to brief to the court , the governments position on why the courts are powerless to overturn a congressional act as in violation of the Constitution.

REMEMBER WELL, the courts are the peoples only weapon against a run wild government, it is the SWORD AND SHIELD OF THE PEOPLE, .

It's a small step in the right direction. If people keep pressuring them, we may get more steps...if not, they will probably pass bills to allow these types of activities again in the future.

Thermen Merman..........We voted em all out on 11/2/10......that went well...........

Thermen Merman

The "vote them all out" sentiment is, and always has been unrealistic. If you "vote them all out" that means you are voting someone else in. Who are you voting in? You don't know. You think that anyone is better than the Status quo. The Republicans thought that 2 years ago, and got co-opted by a bunch of extremists.

Besides, most people with that sentiment think that until they get to the voting booth, then they think " vote them all out, EXCEPT for my congressperson, he/she is alright".

And to think you voted for "HOPE" and "CHANGE", when all the time you are also of the belief is that there exists a "Status Quo". How idiotic and narrow minded is that.

Here are some more unrealistic beliefs, unfortunately, they're true and exists to this day:

1.) Gun Control. 99.99995378% of guns in America killed no one today, yesterday, day before yesterday, and about as far back as you want to realistically go, yet just about ever Liberal want a ban on gun ownership.

2.) 10% of the population cant afford or refuses to pay for health insurance, yet despite the fact that the remaining 90% are insured, Liberals want Lawa that not only force everyone to buy insurance or be penalized (TAXED), but they want someone else (except them) to pay for it. Adding insult to injury, Liberals want the Government to control it. Further adding insult to injury, the "Status Quo" Liberal A-holes that created, voted for and passed it, also elected to Exclude themselves from having to participate in it.

3.) The DOE, Jimmy "The Farmer Boy" Carter invented the wonderful politically appointed Federal Dept. of Energy in an attempt to ween American's off of Foreign oil, yet today, 35+ years on down the road, Americans are more dependent than before the DOE was created. Adding insult to injury, the DOE wastes more than $16,000,000,000 annually. Adding further insult to injury, Liberals don't want to allow drilling or the recovering of their own countries natural energy resources, while at the same time, they want less dependency on foreign energy resources.

4.) The U.S. Post Office hasn't turned a profit in more than 100 years, yet it still exists today.

5.) Billy "The Redneck Playboy" Clinton, aka America's First Black President, changed bank lending regulatory's to force lenders to provide low interest home loans to minorities that didn't have the collateral to substanciate the loan. Yet today, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are flat broke, the housing market took a jump off a shear cliff w/o a parachute, and Liberals are quick to blame GW Bush for the Housing Meltdown of 2008.

6.) The 1935 Government run "Social Trust Fund Act", aka "Social Security", aka "The Original Mutha of All Payroll Taxes" was created to help the elderly idiots and other idiots who didn't know how to save for a rainy day. Yet, today, and chiefly because the Federal Government was allowed to keep watch over this fund, it is today of course BROKE.

I can think of lots more wonderful examples of unrealistic beliefs that didn't stop the Liberal Status Quo from making a law or deleting a freedom, but you're probably already to busy doing the wikipikipika think and searching for a retaliatory smartass response. Good luck with that genius.

And in 2012 they're going to correct the mistake they made in 2010.

I wonder how Martha Stewart feels about this. Its funny that Congress could legally do it but she does it and lands in prison.

Toasty McGrath

And in 2012 they're going to correct the mistake they made in 2010.

so you're saying that all Democrats and Republicans will be voted out and we'll actually have people who give a @!$%#?

No, I'm saying all the teabaggers who the low-turnout election brought in will be rudely ejected by a high-turnout election.

What's the difference? I know you have this whole my side is better than your side thing but could you please explain the actual difference? What is so different about the things Obama has done than what Bush did? If Romney gets elected what will be the difference between him Obama and Bush?

I'll even go easy and give you one example and you can explain to me how one is better than the other okay?

The Patriot Act, it was a pile of crap when Bush enacted it correct? It was still a pile of crap when Obama not only extended it but added to it correct? Will it be no less a pile of crap if Obama gets a second term and/or Romney gets elected and (more than likely) will extend and add even MORE crappiness to it?

What a pathetic spectacle. It is unbelievable that we would need a special law to keep our elected officials from engaging in the same behavior which would put ordinary citizens in jail. And these scoundrels would not have ever passed this law if CBS News had not outed them on their ability to enrich themselves LEGALLY doing things which are illegal for everyone else.

Well, this is a good start. Now ... we want you worthless pieces of crap to give US the same all-inclusive free health-care coverage that we taxpayers provide to you, out of our pockets; and we want you to give US the same generous retirement benefits that we taxpayers provide to you, out of our pockets; and we want YOU to be required to abide and be accountable to ALL LAWS of the United States which apply to us, your fellow citizens.

And if you can't do that, then GET OUT!!!!

Duphus - you need to check all your facts. If you are going to blame liberals for everything, the truth will never be known. I could counterpoint all of your points, but I'd prefer to think you have enough skill to research your points yourself. Besides it IS that easy to find the truth.

Raychel, I wasn't talking about Presidents, I was talking about the 2010 election. I'm not going to take the bait and let you change the subject.

For those of you that argue that both sides of the aisle are equally bad, then your zeal to, "throw all the bums out," is politically naive to the point of laughable.

What's the point of of sharing your pointless cynicism with us? You people have NO workable solutions save to dismantle the system to satisfy your own pitiful little one-upmanship games and two-down egos, at the expense of everyone else. If you believe "the government" is "corrupt," either you work within the system to change it to benefit the most amount of people, or you're just wasting your energy rationalizing the gripe and the blame.

At least in this case, this new law makes it harder for this kind of improper financial influence to continue on without negatively sanctioned consequences; thus, believe it or not, it IS a step in the right direction. And if you've programmed yourself with your peers to be so cynical that you don't believe it, then don't waste your time trying to convince me and everyone else of your suspicions, paranoia and hatreds, because this is a public forum with different opinions that can take a turn against even the most clever of respondents that no one can accurately predict.

But if you keep it up with this, "Democrats and Republicans are all the same," B.S., then don't expect anyone to see you come up with any other opinion with more intelligent validity that can withstand this NewsVine section's reputation with respondents' fact-checking gauntlets.

And frankly, I see a lot less 'fact-checking' with the right-wing opinions, than I do with the observations of centrists or the progressives -- but that's just my opinion, and I don't give a damn if you like it or not... So back your emotional claims with facts and figures, and not hyperbole, echoed labels, Fox News speculation, or loaded conjecture and you just might get some respect from some readers that have become so jaded that nothing you say or claim surprises them any more, nor enlightens anyone.

As someone with years of exposure and field experience in public relations and in the academic field of communications as part of my tech career -- and I'm taking to you right-wingers -- people will believe you more, if you stop making @!$%# up !

Democrats and Republicans are all the same? ....Yeah, riiiiight.

...and "Duphas"

Got objective substantiation for your emotionally negative claims about the President, past Presidents, "Liberals" Democrats and Social Security?

Personally, I think that "Thermen Merman" is correct, when he posted up this comment:

------------------------------------------

The "vote them all out" sentiment is, and always has been unrealistic. If you "vote them all out" that means you are voting someone else in. Who are you voting in? You don't know. You think that anyone is better than the Status quo. The Republicans thought that 2 years ago, and got co-opted by a bunch of extremists.

Besides, most people with that sentiment think that until they get to the voting booth, then they think " vote them all out, EXCEPT for my congressperson, he/she is alright".

edwin: There are so many loopholes in the Act that it will accomplish nothing. It's just a bi-partisan publicity stunt to try to show the American people that their elected Representatives are honest. Do you think that a pauper can no longer get elected to Congress and in 2 years become a millionaire?

Duphas: You left one out.

87.6349% of statistics are just made up.

The U.S. Post Office hasn't turned a profit in more than 100 years, yet it still exists today.

As it was originally constituted, the Post Office was never supposed to be a profit-generating entity. It was originally part of the cabinet, and provided a public service, with much of its operations subsidized through tax dollars. However, in 1971, it became a separate entity known as a government corporation, in which the bulk of its operations are paid for directly through stamps and other direct forms of revenue. Unfortunately, revenue has fallen sharply in the last decade due to the rise of the internet. Furthermore, Congress has deemed that the Postal Service must also fund 75 years worth of health care benefits, which vastly stretches its budget.

I'd rather see the post office go back to being part of the cabinet, with more tax dollars going to help it maintain its long-term viability. Otherwise, mail service will become yet another consumer good to divide the haves and the have nots.

“The powerful shouldn’t get to create one set of rules for themselves and one set of rules for everyone else," Obama said at the signing."

This bill is the watered down version and the rules are still different for themselves than the ones for rest of us.

Maybe we should wait until we can read the law before passing judgments.... If there are loopholes, then we'll find them. Based on "common" knowledge, we know that 98% of politicians are crooks, but come on its a known fact that absolute power corrupts absolutely, and you can't make it to the top on your own unless you were born into millions of dollars. Why don't one of you complainers start trying to run for Congress and see if your road paved with good intentions will lead you to heaven?

Re-pub law makers could not help but show support for this law AFTER it the insider trading problem became public knowledge. They all knew about this problem long before "60 minutes" made this issue public knowledge.

Tim Walz (D-MN), US Representative, introduced HR 1148, the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) Act, on Mar. 17, 2011 with four co-sponsors including Louise Slaughter (D-NY) the previous sponsor of the STOCK Act. Other co-sponsors include Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), David Loebsack (D-IA), and Niki Tsongas (D-MA).

In a series of procedural moves, the bill was referred to six House committees (Financial Services, Agriculture, House Administration, Judiciary, Ethics, and Rules) on Mar. 17, 2011, then re-referred and "discharged" from five of those committees (all but Rules) and referred to all six committees again on Mar. 29, 2011. On June 1, 2011, the bill was referred to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution.

Not only were Re-pubs no help, they opposed any move to end this problem.

In conclusion, some Democratic and ALL Re-pub members of congress do not deserve the votes of any American. ESPECIALLY an American who would refer to himself as conservative.

Well, they will still have plenty of opportunities.

Like pushing for a road that just happens to go right through a piece of property that they just acquired.

Like pushing legislation that helps a company that they have held stock in for years.

etc, etc,etc,,

@Duphas

Here are some more unrealistic beliefs, unfortunately, they're true and exists to this day:

Well, you're right about the "unrealistic" part, anyway. The rest... ehhhh, not so much. Let's take a look, shall we? (Thanks for enumerating; it's so much easier to debunk an organized list of BS than the usual random stream-of-consciousness stuff we get around here.)

1.) Gun Control. 99.99995378% of guns in America killed no one today, yesterday, day before yesterday, and about as far back as you want to realistically go, yet just about ever Liberal want a ban on gun ownership.

I'll definitely agree that the vast majority of guns in America killed no one today. I doubt the percentage is factual, but we'll assume you're exaggerating slightly to emphasize your point. The "every liberal wants a ban on gun ownership" line, however, is patently UNtrue, and is just a right-wing scare tactic to make the gullible get out and vote for their preferred brand of pro-gun conservative candidate. There may be a few nuts who want to ban gun ownership, but the vast majority of liberals just want reasonable controls on gun commerce so that not just any angry nutjob (of ANY political stripe) can go get one at a moment's notice or stockpile weaponry for a personal army. Heard about all those drug cartel killings down in Mexico? Many if not most of them are being done using arms obtained legally in this country. Speaking personally, I don't want to ban firearms, I just want to make it harder for criminals and maniacs to get them quickly and en masse. Your "pro-gun" politicians don't give a rat's rectum about personal freedom. All they care about is the money put in their pockets by "pro-gun" lobbies like the NRA. And guess what? The NRA doesn't care about personal freedom either; all they want is for the companies they represent (i.e., arms manufacturers and dealers) to make more money by (duh!) selling more guns faster and in bigger quantities.

2.) 10% of the population cant afford or refuses to pay for health insurance, yet despite the fact that the remaining 90% are insured, Liberals want Lawa that not only force everyone to buy insurance or be penalized (TAXED), but they want someone else (except them) to pay for it. Adding insult to injury, Liberals want the Government to control it. Further adding insult to injury, the "Status Quo" Liberal A-holes that created, voted for and passed it, also elected to Exclude themselves from having to participate in it.

You need a source for that "10% uninsured/90% insured" claim, for starters, or you've got no argument. The individual mandate part of the ACA (the part that says you gotta have insurance or pay a penalty fee) was actually the brainchild of conservative "A-holes" and our "pinko commie librul" president Obama didn't want it. It was added because: 1) as a cost-saving measure, it's NOT a bad idea, and; 2) the proponents of the bill were trying to compromise (fancy that!) by including some conservative ideas so it would appeal to more people and garner some Republican votes. Unfortunately, the GOP decided it would rather go against its own ideas just to spite Obama and voted in lockstep against it.

3.) The DOE, Jimmy "The Farmer Boy" Carter invented the wonderful politically appointed Federal Dept. of Energy in an attempt to ween American's off of Foreign oil, yet today, 35+ years on down the road, Americans are more dependent than before the DOE was created. Adding insult to injury, the DOE wastes more than $16,000,000,000 annually. Adding further insult to injury, Liberals don't want to allow drilling or the recovering of their own countries natural energy resources, while at the same time, they want less dependency on foreign energy resources.

Again, you need to cite a source for that $16 billion number or you've got nothing. Once again, most "liberals" aren't against domestic development of energy resources, but they DO want it done responsibly. Big Oil tends to view environmental regulations as a speedbump and they're right, but it's a necessary one. Given the tremendous amount of money they make off of the public, I don't think it's unreasonable to have regulations in place that force them to shoulder the cost of acting in the public interest of not heedlessly trashing the environment in the name of more/faster profit. I dunno about you, but I don't want them dumping the gunk leftover from fracking in my water supply just because they can since lack of regulation would allow them to "save money" by screwing the rest of us, or have them shrugging and saying, "Too bad!" if they cut corners in their extraction processes to save money and ended up dumping a ton of oil on our beaches when an accident happens, like BP tried to do a couple summers ago. If they could be trusted to police themselves, we wouldn't need regulations at all, but they can't.

4.) The U.S. Post Office hasn't turned a profit in more than 100 years, yet it still exists today.

That's probably an exaggeration, too, but the argument that the USPS is failing and has been for quite some time now is definitely on point. However, it's also irrelevant as the USPS is a separate entity that functions independently from the government, and it's neither a liberal invention nor issue.

5.) Billy "The Redneck Playboy" Clinton, aka America's First Black President, changed bank lending regulatory's to force lenders to provide low interest home loans to minorities that didn't have the collateral to substanciate the loan. Yet today, the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are flat broke, the housing market took a jump off a shear cliff w/o a parachute, and Liberals are quick to blame GW Bush for the Housing Meltdown of 2008.

If you mean he was complicit in signing the Republican bills that did that stuff, then you're absolutely right, but don't try to make it sound like it was all Clinton's fault. You can thank our neo-con congressmen who basically spent the 10 year period of 1996-2006 slanting the economic board in the favor of themselves and their rich benefactors at the expense of everyone else in this country for the legislation, and you can thank greedy banks and lenders for approving loans to deadbeats for the vast majority of the housing and financial meltdown. Nobody forced them to do that; they did it of their own volition in the name of quick/easy profits. Bush is completely culpable because he signed off even more legislation in the early 2000s to further deregulate the industry, allowing those greedy banks and lenders to do what they did. People are quick to blame him because he IS to blame. He's not the ONLY one to blame, but he certainly earned and definitely deserves a fair portion of the blame.

6.) The 1935 Government run "Social Trust Fund Act", aka "Social Security", aka "The Original Mutha of All Payroll Taxes" was created to help the elderly idiots and other idiots who didn't know how to save for a rainy day. Yet, today, and chiefly because the Federal Government was allowed to keep watch over this fund, it is today of course BROKE.

Remember Al Gore's campaign from 2000 when he kept using that term "lock box" all the time? He was talking about making social security funds off-limits to congress. You can blame Dubya and the congress under him for raiding social secruity's "piggy bank" and leaving behind nothing but a bunch of IOU's to fund their spendaholic ways.

I can think of lots more wonderful examples of unrealistic beliefs that didn't stop the Liberal Status Quo from making a law or deleting a freedom, but you're probably already to busy doing the wikipikipika think and searching for a retaliatory smartass response. Good luck with that genius.

Nope. No need to look up anything on "wikipikipika" (...Herman Cain, is that you?) and I bet you probably can think of more wonderful examples of ways the government has boned us over the course of the past two decades, but to blame "the Liberal Status Quo" (whatever the heck that means) is naive. Wake up and smell what your party and preferred media outlets are shoveling.

I don't dabble in the stock market so I'm not sure but I thought insider trading was always illegal. If that's the case, why this legislation?

WAIT, is this the "do nothing Congress" doing something?

Pretty ironic that the only thing they can do is pass a "law" with no teeth.

I totally agree!!!!!

Exactly!!! When are we going to get it? The Corporations run our country. The politicians are all bought and do what they are told (and not by the voters). I work with Seniors (60 and older). If the politicians had to go through what our seniors do to enroll in medicare, medicare part B, D, etc. they would change it in a heart beat. It is very confusing and expensive and 'stupid'. This new 'stock law' is just a smoke screen to pacify a few.

Go to Faux News, you'll find all the Republican lies about the president that you want to hear.

Lies? Really? When you hear the words coming directly from the president himself.

Evil...how about you go to almost ANY news agency, except MSNBC?

You can even google it and get the story.

But MSNBC REFUSES to even report it.

"The powerful shouldn't get to create one set of rules for themselves, and one set for everybody else ..."

Congratulations Mr. Obama for contadicting yourself yet again ! That is, unless all those Democrats who voted for Obamacare will INDEED be subject to the very same law they voted for ..... without reading it !!

This does, however, blow a big hole in the claims of libtards who constantly whine about Republicans obstructing everything.

I wonder if Republicans can get Obama to submit a realistic budget proposal.

Angry wrote, "Lies? Really? When you hear the words coming directly from the president himself."

When you watch FAUX NEWS you are hearing cut and spliced sound bites. Important statements and words are cut out so that when they are finished you are NOT hearing anything directly from the president himself! They've been doing this for years. You've been ANGRY because of it. FAUX sighs and say, "Job well done."

Suckers.

It is amazing how MSNBC carefully chooses which news to print.

I also notice no reporting on the findings that the NBC Today Show intentionally and maliciously edited the 911 call by George Zimmerman in the Martin shooting to erroneously make Zimmerman appear to be racist. NBC's crack investigation showed "an error made in the production process."

GOSH, how big of them! Instead of saying who made the edit, why they made the edit, and who told them to make the edit, they bury the information in some nebulous statement.

http://gawker.com/5898876/nbc-apologizes-for-editing-george-zimmermans-911-call-on-today-show

Way to go NBC, way to get on THAT story and assure us that your news organization is impartial and unbiased. No wonder Fox News is cleaning your clock.

.

"The powerful shouldn't get to create one set of rules for themselves, and one set for everybody else ..."

Congratulations Mr. Obama for contadicting yourself yet again !

How did the president contradict himself? This bill would have eliminated the benefits that the powerful had over the powerless... until republicans in the House Gutted it and pulled its teeth.

How many Senators and Congressmen will be subject to the rules of Obamacare genius ?

How about the President himself, is HE subject to Obamacare ????

Apparently, my second sentence (Obamacare clearly referenced) went zzzzzzoooooooommmmmmmmm right over your head !

MSNBC doesn't want liberal fools reading bad things about Obama.

FOX NEWS LIES

http://foxnewslies.net/

rradiko "FOX NEWS LIES http://foxnewslies.net/"

Seems like some have a hard time differentiating between the Fox News and Fox opinion. Everyone listed on that bogus site has an opinion show, funny how none of the actual Fox News anchors are listed. Amazing the lengths the liberals will go to try and silence opposing views.

No need to even mention how NBC spliced the Zimmerman 911 tape to try and incite racial tensions, and reported it on their nightly news cast. Of course liberals can easily find justification for those lies.

Comon folks, give the Liberals the benefit of doubt. After all, they REALLY understand the political climate:

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCXot2HQT00&feature=related

Hmmmm, guess NOT !!

What are you asking? Of course Obama knows that the Supreme Court has the authority to strike down laws passed by the Congress and signed by the president -- if they are unconstitutional. That was established in 1803 in Marbury vs. Madison, and the president has taught Constitutional Law.

If you're talking about the Affordable Health Act, it's been upheld by more federal courts than not in previous challenges because it meets the requirements of "providing for the general welfare" and because health insurance is undeniably interstate commerce.

If there is to be a nullification of the Constitution, it will come from the Supreme Court itself if it strikes down the law and will be a radical change in our system of governance.

And the United States of America's next President is...(shake-shake-shake) oops-now he's gone Romney? ha ha ha ya-Right. The world leaders would never believe anything that guy would tell them, neither could anyone here in America. We'd be in the same boat as Amaneedanutjob is on credibility.

WHERE IS THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT STORY!!! I'm starting to believe that MSNBC has a political agenda.

Not the first totalitarianism test balloon Obama has floated. Let's just neuter the Judicial Branch...one more step to communism.

Rober Maxwell:

If you're talking about the Affordable Health Act, it's been upheld by more federal courts than not in previous challenges because it meets the requirements of "providing for the general welfare" and because health insurance is undeniably interstate commerce.

WOW, where were you last week when our Community Organizer in Chief needed you! Sounds like you would have done a better job that Donald B. Verrilli, the Solicitor General. I mean, the law is consituation, becase you think so! Did you even listen to the questions from the Supreme Court or do you simply get your news from MSNBC and the DNC?

Suggest you send your resume to:

Office of the President

Solicitor General Seach Committee

1600 Pennsylvania Avenue

Washington DC, 20500

.

seriously CherylLM & Bolog? If you were unable to find the story listed among the top headlines, did you even try to use the search function?

Brad, we've had to listen to the doom and gloom fearmongering from the left for so long that it seems to be the STANDARD these days.

Could YOU answer my question above about why MSNBC won't report on a Circuity Court INSTRUCTING the Justice Department to answer whether the Obama administration believes in the Constitution or not?

Oh wait, I forgot it's not really "important", is it? After all, it's ONLY the Executive Branch of government basically saying the the Judicial Branch of government can't strike down anything the Executive signed because they are an "unelected group".

Of course it's a THOUSANDS of "unelected" people that are also interpreting the Executive's law and telling this nation what the "rules" are. But they don't count, since they agree with the Executive.

CherylLM,

I can't answer your question because I'm not on the 5th Circuit Court..I don't read minds. I'd like to suggest that it is poltically motivated, as was Obama's comments..But then Obama is a poltician and judges are supposed to not be a politician, but rather impartial. What purpose does it serve for the judges to require this? None..

You also mention doom and gloom. That's all we've heard from the Right since Obama took office, while Obama himself is trying to give us hope and allow us to reach our dreams. While I know you don't see it that way, but I do, and I'm entitled to my opinion, as you are too..But, I wonder where we'd be if the Right hadn't fought and fillibustered everything in the Senate he's tried to do. The Right wouldn't even let bills to the floor where they could have been discussed and amended in a compromising fashion..They didn't even want to legislate.

"Obama himself is trying to give us hope and allow us to reach our dreams" I bought that line the first time and voted for him. I teach my kids you reach your dreams thru hard work, not government reliance. What hope has Obama given my children regarding their future debt? Until Obama and the Democrats can produce a budget with serious budget cuts there is no hope Independents like me will vote for Obama again. We live for our future and our childrens future. Right now there is no hope coming from Obama and the Democrats for my children's future.

MSNBC JOURNALISM.....a classic oxymoron akin to JUMBO SHRIMP!

This is just like the blind trust laws and the Super-pack crap. Like they have no idea and have no control where that darn money of theirs goes. Ya Right. How insulting. First the eleit write up law, backed by the SCOTUS a designed loop hole protecting them from conflict of interests which is called the Blind Trust, Then the SCOTUS designs the death of democracy, the Super-packs and now we have this. Do you see a trend with the folks with power and money? Well you'll get a belly full and all of the above with Romney. And he's proud of lie after lie even when called out on them. He thinks this is all just some rich man's game for the rich and powerful. And sadly, that's about all it is now and that game is a two bit etch-a-sketch.

Steve The Traveled,

I agree..You reach your dreams through hard work and not government reliance. Obama on 2 seperate occasions tried to work with Boehner and Cantor (no relation), and both times they walked away.Is that Obama's fault? He offered cuts to entitlements and a $4 trillion deficit reduction plan..But, the Right walked away. It's not from the lack of trying..If some of his job bills would have been passed, rather than fillibustered, such as the Transportation Bill to fix our broken infrastructure, millions of jobs would be created thus increasing tax revenues..But no, the Right blocks it..If Obama proposes it, they are against it. They purposefully hurt American and Americans to acquire political power, and you vote for them lock stock and barrell..

Brad,

Thanks for the civil discourse, hard to find these days. I didnt find the budget from either party at that time serious enough. It would not have mattered either way, both parties are pushing the debt on to our future. The most recent one of Ryan budget has serious flaws but in terms of serious cuts in spending it far exceeds anything the democrats are willing to do.

This country needs to wake up and quit living in the now and think about the future. I dont put the all the blame one party, they are both equally at fault with where this country is headed.

The Ryan plan does have serious flaws..It adds trillions to the debt. You just can't reduce the debt with cuts alone; especially the drastic cuts in the plan. We must increse revenues. There are several ways to do that. Maybe we just disgree how to get there. Reagan, who would be primaried today, and Clinton, both raised taxes when needed. I think Reagan did it 11 times..Something has to be done..And all the name calling and arguing won't solve our problems. We need to get rid of the Senate fillibuster so bills can get out of Committee so they can be debated, amended, and passed..Not buried like they are today

Brad-

I honestly think that the Senate should first pass a budget before they get crazy with something like a bill. No filibuster there, just have 'em get it done.

Right on, bubba! No need to pile on additional laws for things that are already illegal. Just hold Congress to the same laws everyone else has to follow.

Chicago is still in the U.S. Besides, they have Rahm Emanuel there. Could we export him somewhere ?

No ones going to enforce this! The Supreme Court should have enforce the law that the exemption was written on and struck that down, now they would have to rule that UN-constitutional and prosecute everybody that profited from insider trading. They don't want to do that, that is why you see a couple of the justices standing in that picture going along with this idea of passing this illegal law of "FIXING THIS".