SCOTUS/Healthcare: For those of you who want a sneak peak of the Oral Arguments.

[The Rabbi]

You're right. It's not your responsibility to look after my health. My questions have not been about YOUR responsibility. I have not asked you to pledge your life, fortune or sacred honor to me, nor would I.


But neither is it my right to remove from me the means by which you can survive. I cannot decide that your life is less valuable than mine and therefore, remove your right to life from you. That right is, as Jefferson said, unalienable. And he listed it first. In the first document of our country, the document that birthed our nation, the first right given to men, all men, by their Creator, is Life.

Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

But you're wrong. I've told you nothing. I've simply asked questions to illicit a response, gauge your thoughts on the subject and illustrate a point.

The real question, especially based on your answers so far, is it acceptable to trade one oppression for another?

We have been left with an either or proposition. Because the refusal to purchase their product means death. Either the oppression of the state, though the mandate, or the oppression of the corporation, through denial of service. A lesser of two evils choice is no choice at all.

No, that is a fallacy. That argument is unsound. Plenty of people refuse to puchase health insurance and walk around the streets every day. Ergo whatever you want to base on that premise is wrong.

You didn't present an argument. You just said , " Nuh uh" and I mentioned nothing about people refusing to buy anything, ergo you missed the point

So this does not mean people are refusing to buy anything?

Because the refusal to purchase their product means death.

???
I refuted your argument by pointing out the premise is wrong. You want to say that health insurance is indispensible for health. It is not.

 

[saveliberty]

I just need five reasonable people on a jury of nine.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What basis will Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Larry and Curly give for upholding ObamaCare, Commerce Clause?

 

[The Rabbi]

What basis will Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Larry and Curly give for upholding ObamaCare, Commerce Clause?

They dont actually seem so eager for it. I wouldn't be surprised to see the mandate struck down 9-0.

 

[Publius1787]

You're right. It's not your responsibility to look after my health. My questions have not been about YOUR responsibility. I have not asked you to pledge your life, fortune or sacred honor to me, nor would I.


But neither is it my right to remove from you
the means by which you can survive. I cannot decide that your life is less valuable than mine and therefore, remove your right to life from you. That right is, as Jefferson said, unalienable. And he listed it first. In the first document of our country, the document that birthed our nation, the first right given to men, all men, by their Creator, is Life.

Without Life, there can be no Liberty.

But you're wrong. I've told you nothing. I've simply asked questions to illicit a response, gauge your thoughts on the subject and illustrate a point.

The real question, especially based on your answers so far, is it acceptable to trade one oppression for another?

We have been left with an either or proposition. Because the refusal to purchase their product means death. Either the oppression of the state, though the mandate, or the oppression of the corporation, through denial of service. A lesser of two evils choice is no choice at all.

So what is a third option that can allow for life and liberty to be preserved? Is there one?

You see, as I said, all my questions have been to illustrate a singular point, that our rights are being diminished in either case.

So who do I choose to protect my rights? A government elected by the people? Or a corporate board of directors that I cannot vote out? If there is no third option, I choose the one that gives the people the power to vote out those who would oppress us.

And when you advocate our purchasing power as our voting rights, the words of your namesake:

“Debt is the slavery of the free” - Publilius Syrus

So as long as your life has not been lost by the force of another you have not lost any liberty. The lack of your ability to violate my liberty so you can have a special privilege at my expense does not infringe on your liberty. You have the right to succeed as well as fail, whether you want to fail or not, and you certainly have the right to live as well as die, whether you want to die or not. As long as I am not forcing you to die or forcing you to fail no liberty is lost. The third option that you beg for has already been stated. You failed to read it and understand it. The third option is firmly planted in the Declaration of Independence. The third option was firmly planted in the ORIGINAL meaning of the general welfare clause.

Publilius Syrus was never an influence on our founding fathers nor was his influence honored in western civilization or in modern law. John Locke, however, was among the top three quoted philosophers in the founder’s generation and had the Declaration of independence molded after his treatises. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Mason, and James Madison fully subscribed to John Locke’s philosophy (many founding fathers omitted). John Locke's treatises are the tool that most of modern law subscribes to in every country that strives to attain freedom. Please don’t attempt to counter Locke or Cicero with the likes of Publilius Syrus. His influence on western philosophy is nill and recognizing him only to add merit to your notions only shows that you reached in to the philosopher bucket and quoted any bum that came up in your favor.

 

[saveliberty]

The state has not made a case for expanding commerce powers for Congress. The justices seem very concerned about where that would lead with other products. Our Constitutional Law President is about to get slapped really hard.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The state has not made a case for expanding commerce powers for Congress. The justices seem very concerned about where that would lead with other products. Our Constitutional Law President is about to get slapped really hard.

When will Obama release his Law Review articles, you know, the ones Kagan wrote for him

 

[saveliberty]

You seem willing to trade liberty for security Vidi. Soon you will have neither.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What basis will Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Larry and Curly give for upholding ObamaCare, Commerce Clause?

They dont actually seem so eager for it. I wouldn't be surprised to see the mandate struck down 9-0.

We'll see.

Did Kagan recuse herself?

 

[Liability]

What basis will Sotomayor, Ginsberg, Larry and Curly give for upholding ObamaCare, Commerce Clause?

They dont actually seem so eager for it. I wouldn't be surprised to see the mandate struck down 9-0.

We'll see.

Did Kagan recuse herself?

She's engaged in the oral arguments, which suggests that she is not likely to recuse her sorry ass.

 

[Liability]

The state has not made a case for expanding commerce powers for Congress. The justices seem very concerned about where that would lead with other products. Our Constitutional Law President is about to get slapped really hard.

When will Obama release his Law Review articles, you know, the ones Kagan wrote for him

The President will blame her only for the typos.

Oh wait.

He never wrote a law review article.

So, apparently, he must have edited her work by throwing it out.

 

[Vidi]

You seem willing to trade liberty for security Vidi. Soon you will have neither.

I dont see it as anything other than removing the chains from an enslaved people.

If wehave an individual right to life, then that right cannot be taken away from us without due process. If the only recognized adminstrator of due process if the Government ( ie execution because I'm a murder ), then no other outside force has the right to remove our right to life from us, including insurance companies that take premium payments then deny services once we get sick.

Therefore, if it is part of the governments job to defend our rights as an indidiual, ie defend the Constitution of the United States, the government must step in and either force the insurance companies to recognize our rights as a free individuals or force them out of the equation entirely.

 

[midcan5]

Will the SCOTUS Strike Out? If this court finds Obamacare unconstitutional it will go down in history as one of the most unimpressive and partisan courts of all time.

First they elect George W. Bush, who proceeds to almost topple the entire nation's economy, wastes billions on illegal invasions, and can't even catch Osama bin Laden.

Next they give corporations person-hood granting money the power to destroy an opponent, create a new slanted reality, and even govern and legislate the country. Money talks, as they say, now we see it does even more than just talk, it manages the nation.

What will history think of the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito? America moves back and forth, this group of four move only when the corporate pied piper plays.

Hopefully Kennedy will understand that markets are not an end but a means and sometimes federal law must manage them for the good of the people. All people.

 

[The Rabbi]

You seem willing to trade liberty for security Vidi. Soon you will have neither.

I dont see it as anything other than removing the chains from an enslaved people.

If wehave an individual right to life, then that right cannot be taken away from us without due process. If the only recognized adminstrator of due process if the Government ( ie execution because I'm a murder ), then no other outside force has the right to remove our right to life from us, including insurance companies that take premium payments then deny services once we get sick.

Therefore, if it is part of the governments job to defend our rights as an indidiual, ie defend the Constitution of the United States, the government must step in and either force the insurance companies to recognize our rights as a free individuals or force them out of the equation entirely.

Has anyone told you you're a fucking whack-job if you believe any of that tripe? I mean like today?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Will the SCOTUS Strike Out? If this court finds Obamacare unconstitutional it will go down in history as one of the most unimpressive and partisan courts of all time.

First they elect George W. Bush, who proceeds to almost topple the entire nation's economy, wastes billions on illegal invasions, and can't even catch Osama bin Laden.

Next they give corporations person-hood granting money the power to destroy an opponent, create a new slanted reality, and even govern and legislate the country. Money talks, as they say, now we see it does even more than just talk, it manages the nation.

What will history think of the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito? America moves back and forth, this group of four move only when the corporate pied piper plays.

Hopefully Kennedy will understand that markets are not an end but a means and sometimes federal law must manage them for the good of the people. All people.

Bush had more votes than Gore in Florida, why is that so impossible for you to understand?

 

[Liability]

* * * * If this court finds Obamacare unconstitutional it will go down in history as one of the most unimpressive and partisan courts of all time.

Rubbish. Utter nonsense.

If this SCOTUS strikes down the bullshit ObamaCare "mandate," this Court will go down in history as a terrific Court that actually DID what the SCOTUS is SUPPOSED to do.

First they elect George W. Bush, * * * *

No. They didn't. They DID prevent the FLORIDA high Court from naming his opponent (illegally) as the winner, though. Get over it. That, too, was the right call by the SCOTUS.

Next they give corporations person-hood

No they did not. They merely recognized the already existing state of facts. Corporations ARE (by dint of long-established and proper legal fiction) already deemed to be "people."

granting money the power to destroy an opponent,

Wrong again. What they DID was uphold free speech. Much to your consternation.

create a new slanted reality,

Wrong again. That's what YOU are presently attempting to do. Fortunately, all you are doing is offering a distorted picture consistent with no reality at all. Your musings are dishonest and silly.

* * * *

What will history think of the likes of Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, and Alito?

Biased dishonest liberal historians (the guys you prefer) will revile them. Honest intelligent historians, however, (the guys you cannot abide) will respect them. Thanks for "asking."

* * * *

Hopefully Kennedy will understand that markets are not an end but a means and sometimes federal law must manage them for the good of the people. All people.

Blather. It is instead to be hoped that Justice Kennedy will honor his oath and defend what the Constitution actually calls for. This would upset you. But it would be very good for America.

 

[Vidi]

You seem willing to trade liberty for security Vidi. Soon you will have neither.

I dont see it as anything other than removing the chains from an enslaved people.

If wehave an individual right to life, then that right cannot be taken away from us without due process. If the only recognized adminstrator of due process if the Government ( ie execution because I'm a murder ), then no other outside force has the right to remove our right to life from us, including insurance companies that take premium payments then deny services once we get sick.

Therefore, if it is part of the governments job to defend our rights as an indidiual, ie defend the Constitution of the United States, the government must step in and either force the insurance companies to recognize our rights as a free individuals or force them out of the equation entirely.

Has anyone told you you're a fucking whack-job if you believe any of that tripe? I mean like today?

To believe that we have a right to life as defined by the Declarartion of Independence?

yeah, I guess the Loyalists thought our Founding Fathers were whack jobs too. I like the company youve placed me into. Thank you.


Tell me...why did we dump the Tea in the Harbor?

And dont give me the "Taxation without Representation" answer. Thats what they teach third graders...along with the boogie man and Sanata Claus. Its far more than that.

What exactly was the tax were they protesting and why was it enacted?

 

[Vidi]

No, that is a fallacy. That argument is unsound. Plenty of people refuse to puchase health insurance and walk around the streets every day. Ergo whatever you want to base on that premise is wrong.

You didn't present an argument. You just said , " Nuh uh" and I mentioned nothing about people refusing to buy anything, ergo you missed the point

So this does not mean people are refusing to buy anything?

Because the refusal to purchase their product means death.

???
I refuted your argument by pointing out the premise is wrong. You want to say that health insurance is indispensible for health. It is not.

45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Statistics disagree with you.

Think about that number. Forty Five THOUSAND a year.

Thats FIFTEEN 9/11's every year!

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

We're willing to spend 514 billion dollars to avenge 3,000 people but not a dime to save 45,000 a year?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You didn't present an argument. You just said , " Nuh uh" and I mentioned nothing about people refusing to buy anything, ergo you missed the point

So this does not mean people are refusing to buy anything?
???
I refuted your argument by pointing out the premise is wrong. You want to say that health insurance is indispensible for health. It is not.

45,000 American deaths associated with lack of insurance

Research released this week in the American Journal of Public Health estimates that 45,000 deaths per year in the United States are associated with the lack of health insurance. If a person is uninsured, "it means you're at mortal risk," said one of the authors, Dr. David Himmelstein, an associate professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School.

Statistics disagree with you.

Think about that number. Forty Five THOUSAND a year.

Thats FIFTEEN 9/11's every year!

Cost of War to the United States | COSTOFWAR.COM

We're willing to spend 514 billion dollars to avenge 3,000 people but not a dime to save 45,000 a year?

How many people have died every year with healthcare coverage?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Commerce Clause does NOT mean that the Federal government gets to regulate ALL commerce