More blowback from Obama's Supreme Ct. threat

[BluePhantom]

I never heard of the idea that Congress passing a law automatically makes it Constitutional, where did Obama learn that?

The Supreme Court assumes a law to be constitutional unless they find a legal reason to rule otherwise. Just like "innocent until proven guilty" the presumption of the court is "constitutional until proven unconstitutional".

But that's different than it BEING Constitutional.

A guilty person who gets arrested is presumed innocent in the EYES of the LAW. That doesn't mean he is actually innocent. If he were actually innocent, he shouldn't even hvae gotten arrested.

But in the real world, everyone who has ever been properly convicted was, at one time, legally deemed to be innocent.

Well sure. I agree, but I am just saying that the SCOTUS presumes a law is constitutional until they can show otherwise. Just because Congress passes a law does not mean it's automatically constitutional obviously, but simply that the courts start with the "presumption of innocence."

 

[Liability]

The Supreme Court assumes a law to be constitutional unless they find a legal reason to rule otherwise. Just like "innocent until proven guilty" the presumption of the court is "constitutional until proven unconstitutional".

But that's different than it BEING Constitutional.

A guilty person who gets arrested is presumed innocent in the EYES of the LAW. That doesn't mean he is actually innocent. If he were actually innocent, he shouldn't even hvae gotten arrested.

But in the real world, everyone who has ever been properly convicted was, at one time, legally deemed to be innocent.

Well sure. I agree, but I am just saying that the SCOTUS presumes a law is constitutional until they can show otherwise. Just because Congress passes a law does not mean it's automatically constitutional obviously, but simply that the court's start with the "presumption of innocence."

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

 

[BluePhantom]

Look...God forbid anyone accuses me of defending Obama. His comments were ignorant, strategically unsound, and flat out embarrassing. On the other hand I didn't interpret his comments as looking at the SCOTUS saying "go ahead; make my day". I heard him give typical political rhetoric in support of his position...like most arguments from the left it was a straw man argument that made him look like a dip shit....but it wasn't exactly throwing down the gauntlet either.

Everyone is free to interpret it as they wish of course and if Justice Kennedy reads his comments and says "oh yeah? I will show you" I will go with it and be happy as a clam. But again....in all fairness I think more is being made of this than is justified.

 

[regent]

Of course a law passed and signed is Constitutional. At this time we may be obeying a law or laws that are if taken to court might be found to be unconstitutional. You may rest assured that Marbury is well known, it is probably the most famous court case to date. It is taught in most high school government classes, along with the other basic cases like Dartmouth College, McCollough v. Maryland and others on the usual list, but probably little remembered. How about Midnight judges?

 

[DontBeStupid]

But that's different than it BEING Constitutional.

A guilty person who gets arrested is presumed innocent in the EYES of the LAW. That doesn't mean he is actually innocent. If he were actually innocent, he shouldn't even hvae gotten arrested.

But in the real world, everyone who has ever been properly convicted was, at one time, legally deemed to be innocent.

Well sure. I agree, but I am just saying that the SCOTUS presumes a law is constitutional until they can show otherwise. Just because Congress passes a law does not mean it's automatically constitutional obviously, but simply that the court's start with the "presumption of innocence."

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

 

[BluePhantom]

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

I am not arguing.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

It's pretty tough to argue strongly when you don't have a leg to stand on. General Verrilli looked like an incompetent ass not because he lacked skills but because he was arguing an indefensible position and the justices saw right through it. That's what the justices are supposed to do. That's why they are sitting in judgement while Verrilli is not.

 

[The T]

Well sure. I agree, but I am just saying that the SCOTUS presumes a law is constitutional until they can show otherwise. Just because Congress passes a law does not mean it's automatically constitutional obviously, but simply that the court's start with the "presumption of innocence."

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

let the Mandate go...and the engine to pay for the LAW goes...

 

[BluePhantom]

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

let the Mandate go...and the engine to pay for the LAW goes...

Well #1 even the mandate wont pay for the law in the first place, and #2 if the rest is left what we have is a money sucker that will bankrupt the insurance industry and the states and we will never get the 60 votes in the Senate to fix it. It will bleed us dry for decades. They have to toss the whole thing out or they may be doing as much harm as leaving it alone completely.

 

[Liability]

Of course a law passed and signed is Constitutional. At this time we may be obeying a law or laws that are if taken to court might be found to be unconstitutional. You may rest assured that Marbury is well known, it is probably the most famous court case to date. It is taught in most high school government classes, along with the other basic cases like Dartmouth College, McCollough v. Maryland and others on the usual list, but probably little remembered. How about Midnight judges?

Your position is unsound. If (by way of extreme example), Congress "found" that racial disaffection was causing problems in the military's ability to have the troops adhere to orders from the Chain of command, Congress COULD pass a law (overriding the President's veto for purposes of this example) requiring that the military immediately be segregated by race again.

And suppose the President having VETOED it initially on Constitutional grounds was now faced with the supposed "duty" to enforce that law.

Should he? Or should he instead comply with his OATH to protect and defend the Constitution?

I say, fuck that bogus law and refuse to comply with it. DECLARE by Presidential edict that it is a violation of the Constitution and deem it a legal nullity. Oh nozies. Now the case is "ripe" for the Courts to intervene. The Case quickly goes to the SCOTUS.

They agree with the President (we hope) and scuttle the law. Now I'm even more glad that the President gave it no effect. It was void from jump street. Any law in derogation of the Constitution is a legal nullity from the very start. Great.

But what if the SCOTUS jurists disagree with the President? What if they find it to be Constitutional? Should the President NOW comply with that still bullshit unConstitutional Act?

My answer remains unchanged. I STILL say "no."

How about you?

 

[DontBeStupid]

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

let the Mandate go...and the engine to pay for the LAW goes...

And I've never suggested otherwise.

But that is different from saying "It is unconstitutional to allow 26 year olds to be on the parent's insurance plan"

 

[BluePhantom]

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

let the Mandate go...and the engine to pay for the LAW goes...

And I've never suggested otherwise.

But that is different from saying "It is unconstitutional to allow 26 year olds to be on the parent's insurance plan"

No one is challenging that. But it was Congress who decided to go for the brass ring and get an "all or nothing" situation. Congress can pass a law that allows 26 year old to remain on their parents' insurance plans tomorrow and I highly doubt there would be much argument from either side. But the Democrats wanted the whole burrito so, assuming the SCOTUS agrees with me, back to the drawing board we go.

 

[The T]

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

let the Mandate go...and the engine to pay for the LAW goes...

Well #1 even the mandate wont pay for the law in the first place, and #2 if the rest is left what we have is a money sucker that will bankrupt the insurance industry and the states and we will never get the 60 votes in the Senate to fix it. It will bleed us dry for decades. They have to toss the whole thing out or they may be doing as much harm as leaving it alone completely.

No arguement here...and isn't that why $500B was set aside from Medicare by Obama...and double counted?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukaIZ7pmabo&feature=player_embedded]Shimkus Questions Sebelius on Budget Gimmicks in the Health Care Law - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Liability]

Well sure. I agree, but I am just saying that the SCOTUS presumes a law is constitutional until they can show otherwise. Just because Congress passes a law does not mean it's automatically constitutional obviously, but simply that the court's start with the "presumption of innocence."

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

EITHER -- the entire law goes when the mandate goes (since it is the money grabbing engine for the entire fucking Act -- or because the Act by its own terms need not have to be salvaged by the non-severability clause, inasmch as they didn't bother to include the severability clause)

-- OR -- parts of the Act may be salvaged. Without the money to pay for large sections of it, it would be a blessing to scuttle the entire fucking mess. Let the Congress start over.

Fuck it. Maybe they can cobble together something rational next time that still manages to comply with the Constitution.

It could happen.

 

[The T]

let the Mandate go...and the engine to pay for the LAW goes...

And I've never suggested otherwise.

But that is different from saying "It is unconstitutional to allow 26 year olds to be on the parent's insurance plan"

No one is challenging that. But it was Congress who decided to go for the brass ring and get an "all or nothing" situation. Congress can pass a law that allows 26 year old to remain on their parents' insurance plans tomorrow and I highly doubt there would be much argument from either side. But the Democrats wanted the whole burrito so, assuming the SCOTUS agrees with me, back to the drawing board we go.

And should go. Without serious Tort reform? ANY Reform of healthcare will fail.

 

[BluePhantom]

let the Mandate go...and the engine to pay for the LAW goes...

Well #1 even the mandate wont pay for the law in the first place, and #2 if the rest is left what we have is a money sucker that will bankrupt the insurance industry and the states and we will never get the 60 votes in the Senate to fix it. It will bleed us dry for decades. They have to toss the whole thing out or they may be doing as much harm as leaving it alone completely.

No arguement here...and isn't that why $500B was set aside from Medicare by Obama...and double counted?

That is interesting isn't it?

 

[The T]

And I agree. The default probably OUGHT to be that Congress intended to draft the law in whatever way is minimally necessary to validate it in Constitutional terms.

But sometimes, no matter how finely you try to slice it, the fact that they screwed the pooch becomes inescapable.

The claim by some legal "scholars" in support of ObamaCare is pretty laughable considering how shitty the presentation was by the Administration in support of the Act when challenged before the SCOTUS.

They are saddled with the facially ABSURD proposition, for example, that INACTIVITY constitutes COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY having an effect on interstate commerce.

Fuck 'em. They deserve to LOOK like fucking assholes if THAT'S their notion of Constitutional analysis.

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

EITHER -- the entire law goes when the mandate goes (since it is the money grabbing engine for the entire fucking Act -- or because the Act by its own terms need not have to be salvaged by the non-severability clause, inasmch as they didn't bother to include the severability clause)

-- OR -- parts of the Act may be salvaged. Without the money to pay for large sections of it, it would be a blessing to scuttle the entire fucking mess. Let the Congress start over.

Fuck it. Maybe they can cobble together something rational next time that still manages to comply with the Constitution.

It could happen.

Exactly.

When the Congress decides to construct law with respect to the Constitution? We can avoid these types of discussions.

 

[The T]

Well #1 even the mandate wont pay for the law in the first place, and #2 if the rest is left what we have is a money sucker that will bankrupt the insurance industry and the states and we will never get the 60 votes in the Senate to fix it. It will bleed us dry for decades. They have to toss the whole thing out or they may be doing as much harm as leaving it alone completely.

No arguement here...and isn't that why $500B was set aside from Medicare by Obama...and double counted?

That is interesting isn't it?

Isn't it though?

 

[BluePhantom]

No arguement here...and isn't that why $500B was set aside from Medicare by Obama...and double counted?

That is interesting isn't it?

Isn't it though?

"You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later". I'll get you first thing tomorrow.

 

[The T]

That is interesting isn't it?

Isn't it though?

"You have given out too much reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later". I'll get you first thing tomorrow.

Not needed. Seriously.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The problem with discussions like this is that so many people assume the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional. That's not true. To my knowledge, only the Mandate is being looked at as possibly unconstitutional. It will be interesting if the Court decides the Mandate has to go, and therefore the ENTIRE law must go. That might be a first.

I believe there is a non-severability clause in the law so if one part is struck down the whole thing is invalidated.