The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Supreme Court be master debatin' the [Patient Care and Affordability Act]
As of currently, the Supreme Court is on day 3 of its marathon of debate surrounding the Patient Care and Affordability Act (dubbed "Obamacare" by its critics). Particular focus is being given to the individual mandate, which requires US citizens who are able to purchase healthcare coverage or be subject to fines, and whether or not it is Constitutional under the interstate commerce clause.
You can read more about it in some of these fine articles:
Some interesting questions have been raised by the justices, painting an all-too typical partisan divide. These questions include:
“Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” - Justice Kennedy
Justice Alito asked Mr. Verrilli to “express your limiting principle as succinctly as you possibly can.”
Justice Breyer asked whether people entered the health care market simply by being born.
Solicitor General Donald B. Verrilli's handling of the questions has been described as muddy at best, convoluted at worst. Now there's discussion of which (if any) portions of the Law could survive without the mandate, a sign that does not bode well for its supporters.
What are your thoughts on some of these questions, and how the justices are interpreting the law and the Constitution?