New poll - Obamacare unconstitutional

[Quantum Windbag]

Even most Democrats think the law will loose in court. What does that say about all the posters here who keep saying Republicans are out of touch on Obamacare?

 

[The T]

*IF* The poll is to be belived? Looks bad for Obama and the Statists.

 

[Conservative]

doesn't matter what the people believe. It matters what the SCOTUS believes.

I'm not convinced they will find it unconstitutional.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

doesn't matter what the people believe. It matters what the SCOTUS believes.

I'm not convinced they will find it unconstitutional.

I am beginning to think they will.

 

[Listening]

doesn't matter what the people believe. It matters what the SCOTUS believes.

I'm not convinced they will find it unconstitutional.

What's not to find unconstitutional ?

If they do, we may need to find us a new SCOTUS.

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

Even most Democrats think the law will loose in court. What does that say about all the posters here who keep saying Republicans are out of touch on Obamacare?

Obama Care IS unconstitutional. But surely you recognize that the constitutionality of a law is not dependent on its popularity.

 

[BreezeWood]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Even most Democrats think the law will loose in court. What does that say about all the posters here who keep saying Republicans are out of touch on Obamacare?

Obama Care IS unconstitutional. But surely you recognize that the constitutionality of a law is not dependent on its popularity.

Quite true. I do, however, believe that the court learned from Roe v Wade and prefers to dodge controversy when it can. Striking down the mandate but allowing Obamacare to be dealt with by Congress would do it.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

They did? When? How?

 

[Oddball]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

Striking down a shit law isn't judicial activism....Making laws up out of whole cloth (Miranda, Roe) and refusal to enforce the Constitution (Kelo) is.

 

[BreezeWood]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

 

[Unknown_Soldier]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

and activist judge doesn't mean "made a ruling I don't like."

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The conservative SCOTUS has swayed public opinion to their principles over that of legislation passed by Congress ... a very ironic outcome to their own "stated" philosophy against judicial activism.

The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

 

[BreezeWood]

The simple act of passing Legislation does not somehow make it Constitutional. If it did we would not need a Supreme Court.

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

 

[RetiredGySgt]

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

No it was a fabricated "right" from the left. Ohh and as I recall there were FEDERAL laws against Abortion, so at least one Congress at some point passed laws on the issue.

 

[Oddball]

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

The very real right to privacy was stretched to a completely absurd extreme in the Roe case.

Abortion isn't anywhere near a 4th Amendment issue.

 

[jillian]

When it is convenient for the conservative philosophy otherwise there are three "equal" branches of gov't not to be superseded by "activist" judges ...

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

First of all, the "right of privacy" did not originate in Roe v Wade. That right was found to exist as a natural sequellae of the rights granted in the bill of rights. it recognized there were certain things in which government had no right to involve itself. You might want to first look at Griswold v Connecticut and Loving v Virginia. Perhaps you'll understand.

Why would it be an "act of congress"?

 

[BreezeWood]

One is required to provide EVIDENCE of claims the SCOTUS has made decisions not based on facts and the intent of the Constitution.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.

I know that the supposed right of privacy that suddenly existed for Roe Vs Wade was rather convenient.


That was not an act of "Congress".

No it was a fabricated "right" from the left. Ohh and as I recall there were FEDERAL laws against Abortion, so at least one Congress at some point passed laws on the issue.

so at least one Congress at some point passed laws on the issue.


That court was not philosophically opposed to (conservative defined activism) - this court has tempered itself not to interfere with the legislative branch irregardless the consequences some rights might be abused - when it has served the purpose of the 5 conservative Justices.

 

[Listening]

Just finishing up the the section in Robert Borks "The Tempting of America". Great Book !

As he explained in this section Harry Blackmun talked about everything in his 51 pages (called by some, even on the left, one of the poorest written decisions of all times) but why the SCOTUS has the right to rule on this law. In other words, there was no case because the USC never contemplated abortion as an issue.

Hence, under the 10th amendment and for almost 200 years, it was a states issue.

They should dig Earl Warren up, shoot and burn his carcas, and let the crows eat what remains.

May he rot in hell.