Supreme Court agrees to hear Obama healthcare law

Uh-huh. Because there is no way you new conservatives would EVER force a woman to carry a fetus to full term, force someone to die with no dignity or force families to put off allowing their unrecoverable loved ones to die (Terri Schiavo).

So don't hand me your bullshit on anybody forcing anything.

"Force a woman" to carry her fetus to full term as opposed to blithely "allowing" her to kill an innocent?

Force a person to die with no dignity? As opposed to what? What is the death with dignity thing you are commenting on? Assisted suicide, perhaps?

And as for the Terri Schiavo case, lots of conservatives disagreed with lots of other conservatives. The point was that it was NOT all that clear that Terri WAS actually beyond all hope. I kind of imagine she was. But there was other evidence and it's kind of "ok" not to presume that we know more about the marvels of the human brain than we actually DO know.

The POINT of the liberal position (on this health care issue) is that the GOVERNMENT purports now to have the Constitutional authority to TELL us what we MUST buy -- as long as it's for our own good. And yes. It IS a matter of compulsion. And yes, it is a very dubious authority that the libs lay claim to.

"The point was that it was NOT all that clear that Terri WAS actually beyond all hope."

1. "A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.
'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.
'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer."

Read more: Rom Houben: Patient trapped in a 23-year 'coma' was conscious all along | Mail Online

2. An Arkansas man who went into a coma after a serious car crash during his late teens has awoken nearly two decades later as a middle-aged man with an adult daughter.

Terry Wallis was 19 and newly married with a baby daughter when his truck plunged through a guard rail, falling 25 feet.

He was left paralysed and in a coma by the crash in the summer of 1984. One of his companions was killed outright.

He remained outwardly unresponsive for years, and news reports yesterday described his recovery as all the more remarkable because Mr Wallis was never given specialist care.

His father, a farmer, was reportedly too poor to afford a neurological examination and state medical insurance was reluctant to pay for a man not expected to return to the work force.

But, according to the popular legend now taking root which promises to turn Mr Wallis into a hero for the pro-life movement, the family never gave up hope. Brain Injury | Buzzle.com

Soooo.....you and Liability are in the column that you want government intervention to come in between what is supposed to be a familiy's decision?

And if it were your mother, father, grandparent lying there on life support (God forbid) and his or her doctor(s) assure you that there was no hope of recovery you would want to have to petition the government to make that decision for you????
 
Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.

Why is that the "right" thing? Simply because you don't like the law? Neither do I. But it's just wasting more time chasing this through the courts. We need to focus on getting the legislature to repeal it.
 
Helvering V. Davis.

1. The Court abstains from dismissing, sua sponte, as not properly within equity jurisdiction, a bill by a shareholder to restrain his corporation from making the tax payments and the deductions from wages required by Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, the bill alleging that the exactions are void and that compliance will subject the corporation and its shareholders to irreparable damage. P. 639.

The corporation acquiesced. The Collector and Commissioner of Internal Revenue intervened in the court below, defended on the merits, brought the case to this Court by certiorari, and here expressly waived a defense under R.S. ' 3224 and any objection upon the ground of adequate legal remedy, and urged that the validity of the taxes be determined.

2. The scheme of "Federal Old-Age Benefits" set up by Title II of the Social Security Act does not contravene the limitations of the Tenth Amendment. P. 640.

3. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 640.

4. In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary. P. 640.

5. The concept of "general welfare" is not static, but adapts itself to the crises and necessities of the times. P. 641.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

Ariticle One sec. 9



The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Cummings v. Missouri,

"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."
It seem's fairly clear that the section that requires a person to purchase healthcare is a "bill of attainder" and as such should be struck down. While I do not question the motives for wanting Americans to have low cost healthcare as well as make it available to all Americans, it does seem that punishing Americans is not only the unconstitutional way to go about it, it is also the wrong way. I am still of the opinion that things such as "pre-existing condition bills"can and still do have wide support among both parties as well as many other aspects of the the healthcare bill. However, the bill itself remains widely unpopular as well as an illustration of what congress should not do and the results of what happens when congress refuses to work together on matters that effect the entire nation. This habit has not changed much in congress , only the team jersey has. So it remains to be seen if the SCOTUS will overturn the entire bill, but as the court is divided as well it should prove very interesting considering this is the court that has decided corporations are now citizens, so if one is hoping for a constitutional decision on the healthcare matter, this court has a habit of going in very different directions that people think they will.

(Underlined Portion)

^And since this portion of the bill contains the necessary finances, much of the rest of the bill wallows.
 
Last edited:
Rightwingnuts believe anything that contradicts their fundamental beliefs is Unconstitutional:cuckoo:

And Left Wing Whackjobs forget we have a Constitution.

See how this works?

Idiot.

no. not really. it's more apparent that rightwingnuts lie about what it requires and what it permits because they have little understanding of the caselaw. so viewing the document in a vacuum leads them to say perverse and ignorant things.

I've had conversations in here with any number of 'lefties' who do not understand, misquote, or otherwise mangle the Constitution.
 
And if it were your mother, father, grandparent lying there on life support (God forbid) and his or her doctor(s) assure you that there was no hope of recovery you would want to have to petition the government to make that decision for you????

Not to derail, but that was always my issue in the Schiavo case. I didn't like the decision to pull the plug, but if it were me, in that bed, I'd want my wife to be able to make that decision without Big Government stepping in. I trusted her enough to promise to love honor and cherish her for the rest of my life. I trust her enough to make that call.

I never understood why traditionally small government types cheered the loudest when the government started stomping on what was essentially a family's decision.
 
Hopefully, they will do the right thing and declare this whole mess unConstitutional and get rid of it forever.

Why is that the "right" thing? Simply because you don't like the law? Neither do I. But it's just wasting more time chasing this through the courts. We need to focus on getting the legislature to repeal it.

Then Bachman is the one you will want to vote for. It's her signature goal in life. Just think.. A White Republican Woman in the white house.. a first.. something we call all be proud of.



:eusa_angel:
 
1. "A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.
'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.
'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer."

Read more: Rom Houben: Patient trapped in a 23-year 'coma' was conscious all along | Mail Online

2. An Arkansas man who went into a coma after a serious car crash during his late teens has awoken nearly two decades later as a middle-aged man with an adult daughter.

Terry Wallis was 19 and newly married with a baby daughter when his truck plunged through a guard rail, falling 25 feet.

He was left paralysed and in a coma by the crash in the summer of 1984. One of his companions was killed outright.

He remained outwardly unresponsive for years, and news reports yesterday described his recovery as all the more remarkable because Mr Wallis was never given specialist care.

His father, a farmer, was reportedly too poor to afford a neurological examination and state medical insurance was reluctant to pay for a man not expected to return to the work force.

But, according to the popular legend now taking root which promises to turn Mr Wallis into a hero for the pro-life movement, the family never gave up hope. Brain Injury | Buzzle.com

What you present here are exceptional cases. Such exceptional examples cannot be afforded anymore weight than how negligible their likelihood is. They certainly don't justify an overly intrusive government legislating the matter for the family.
 
The thing that's interesting, that is pointed out in liability's link, is that opposing the health care bill is actually difficult for conservative jurists because there are two schools of "conservative" thought. one, which is the more traditional, is limited judicial review in deference to congressional action unless it is patently unconstitutional. the other is a vigorous judicial review in order to zealously defend "individual liberties".

but a conservative court overturning this law would be endangering 60 years of legislation. it is unlikely.

i wouldn't be shocked if they actually refused to upend it based on 'political question' doctrine, which would make it nonjusticeable and get them off the hook.

That's one of the reason's why I mentioned the Citizens United case was because sometimes the court decides cases not on constitutional merit but rather on political merit. As I mentioned in the previous post though, it seems fairly clear that Article I sec 9 spells out that by imposing a tax on a person who does not purchase healthcare is a Bill of Attainder and is therefor unconstitutional. However, does this make portions of the the whole unconstitutional? no it doesn't in my humble opinion, such as the requirements for companies engaged in interstate commerce to accept those with "pre-existing" conditions. On a side note the other issue you have is should Justice Thomas recuse himself from this case based on the actions of his wife in lobbying against this issue, which is a clear conflict of interest? My contention is and always has been the healthcare bill in adding the requirement for everyone to purchase healthcare and imposing a penalty for those who didn't ran into a conflict with the constitution and further with the sheer number of good ideas out there to address the problem it was not needed in the first place.
 
How is a court being activist by upholding the Constitution?

Its when they ignore it and the law and make their own rules that we have activism.

And, of course, you're the authority on constitutional interpretation, as opposed to they, yes?
 
By definition if something opposes the Constitution it's unconstitional.

Everyone believes in the bible. Some people just give more weight to different Gospels.

Yep. There's a reason that we have 6787987234 different denominations in Christianity (slight exaggeration). Everyone can be handed the exact same document, and everyone will interpret what it clearly means in a different way. Your only hope would be to write it up as a fairly strict axiomatic system in formal logic, and even then you'd have issues when you ran into a problem the axiomatic system didn't have the language to deal with.
 
Helvering V. Davis.

1. The Court abstains from dismissing, sua sponte, as not properly within equity jurisdiction, a bill by a shareholder to restrain his corporation from making the tax payments and the deductions from wages required by Title VIII of the Social Security Act of August 14, 1935, the bill alleging that the exactions are void and that compliance will subject the corporation and its shareholders to irreparable damage. P. 639.

The corporation acquiesced. The Collector and Commissioner of Internal Revenue intervened in the court below, defended on the merits, brought the case to this Court by certiorari, and here expressly waived a defense under R.S. ' 3224 and any objection upon the ground of adequate legal remedy, and urged that the validity of the taxes be determined.

2. The scheme of "Federal Old-Age Benefits" set up by Title II of the Social Security Act does not contravene the limitations of the Tenth Amendment. P. 640.

3. Congress may spend money in aid of the "general welfare." P. 640.

4. In drawing the line between what is "general" welfare, and what is particular, the determination of Congress must be respected by the courts, unless it be plainly arbitrary. P. 640.

5. The concept of "general welfare" is not static, but adapts itself to the crises and necessities of the times. P. 641.

Helvering v. Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)

Ariticle One sec. 9



The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a Tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.
The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.

Cummings v. Missouri,

"A bill of attainder, is a legislative act which inflicts punishment without judicial trial and includes any legislative act which takes away the life, liberty or property of a particular named or easily ascertainable person or group of persons because the legislature thinks them guilty of conduct which deserves punishment."
It seem's fairly clear that the section that requires a person to purchase healthcare is a "bill of attainder" and as such should be struck down. While I do not question the motives for wanting Americans to have low cost healthcare as well as make it available to all Americans, it does seem that punishing Americans is not only the unconstitutional way to go about it, it is also the wrong way. I am still of the opinion that things such as "pre-existing condition bills"can and still do have wide support among both parties as well as many other aspects of the the healthcare bill. However, the bill itself remains widely unpopular as well as an illustration of what congress should not do and the results of what happens when congress refuses to work together on matters that effect the entire nation. This habit has not changed much in congress , only the team jersey has. So it remains to be seen if the SCOTUS will overturn the entire bill, but as the court is divided as well it should prove very interesting considering this is the court that has decided corporations are now citizens, so if one is hoping for a constitutional decision on the healthcare matter, this court has a habit of going in very different directions that people think they will.

(Underlined Portion)

^And since this portion of the bill contains the necessary finances, much of the rest of the bill wallows.

Ropey, one of the reason's why I put the Social Security case up there was because it's my humble opinion that this case is also going to revisit the boundries of the "general welfare" clause. Generally, in the last many years the courts have tried to shy away from rulings that changed the nature of that definition and have actually expanded on the role of " general welfare" as it applies to the power of the Federal Govt. and rather the the Madison view of limited Govt. This should be a landmark case in my humble opinion and should have impact for many years to come well beyond our years. As for the rest of the bill, because it is a mix of several power's , some of which are a bit of a stretch in my opinion and others it can be argued are well within the scope of the Federal Govts. ability to regualte commerce, I'm sort of the feeling that the entire bill will not be struck down, but perhaps parts they agree with and parts they do not, then again I hate to predict on the actions of this court because they have ruled in so many directions.
 
1. "A car crash victim has spoken of the horror he endured for 23 years after he was misdiagnosed as being in a coma when he was conscious the whole time.
Rom Houben, trapped in his paralysed body after a car crash, described his real-life nightmare as he screamed to doctors that he could hear them - but could make no sound.
'I screamed, but there was nothing to hear,' said Mr Houben, now 46, who doctors thought was in a persistent vegatative state.
'I dreamed myself away,' he added, tapping his tale out with the aid of a computer."

Read more: Rom Houben: Patient trapped in a 23-year 'coma' was conscious all along | Mail Online

2. An Arkansas man who went into a coma after a serious car crash during his late teens has awoken nearly two decades later as a middle-aged man with an adult daughter.

Terry Wallis was 19 and newly married with a baby daughter when his truck plunged through a guard rail, falling 25 feet.

He was left paralysed and in a coma by the crash in the summer of 1984. One of his companions was killed outright.

He remained outwardly unresponsive for years, and news reports yesterday described his recovery as all the more remarkable because Mr Wallis was never given specialist care.

His father, a farmer, was reportedly too poor to afford a neurological examination and state medical insurance was reluctant to pay for a man not expected to return to the work force.

But, according to the popular legend now taking root which promises to turn Mr Wallis into a hero for the pro-life movement, the family never gave up hope. Brain Injury | Buzzle.com

What you present here are exceptional cases. Such exceptional examples cannot be afforded anymore weight than how negligible their likelihood is. They certainly don't justify an overly intrusive government legislating the matter for the family.

"...exceptional cases. Such exceptional examples cannot be afforded anymore weight than how negligible their likelihood is."


Was that your view in death penalty cases where the penalty was about to be carried out?
Or did you hold out that the perp might be innocent?
 
Was that your view in death penalty cases where the penalty was about to be carried out?
Or did you hold out that the perp might be innocent?

Generally, my view on the death penalty is somewhat different than most people. I've always felt that the death penalty should be an option open only in cases that meet significantly higher standards of evidence (perhaps one piece of that puzzle would be to adopt new, more lenient rules for reexamining and introducing new evidence for things like witnesses recanting, etc). Other than that suggestion I can't really offer a specific approach to accomplish that goal. Maybe it's nothing more than a wishful ideal. But considering that we've had plenty of people be executed who were later able to be exonerated, there's obviously a problem. Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many, and to me is indicative of a government that holds too much power over the people without sufficiently matching accountability. That's not to say the death penalty itself is an inappropriate power for the government to possess (it may be, I've never been able to come to a firm conclusion yes or no on that particular answer).
 
Its all on Kennedy.

You have 4 sane, pro-America justices in Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts and 4 lying radicals who want to disarm us and turn us into a Socialist Utopia like North Korea or Cuba; Kennedy is always a coin flip.

Yes, we know. Everyone that doesn't agree with you on issues is an insane person who wants to destroy America.
The Obama admin together with the formerly democrat controlled Congress has done everything in it's power to remake the US into a socialist utopia.
 
Let's be sensible. The ACA law will not be repealed.
It is my opinion The Court will overturn parts of the Law that will render it useless.
Congress probably will not repeal the law in it's entirety.
Parts of it may be defunded. Repealed? No.
Repealing a law actually requires the drafting of a new bill which counteracts or outlaws an existing law. That bill once passed,must go to the President for his signature to become law. Obviously Obama would Veto any such bill.
SCOTUS, at least the conservative justices will not strike down the entire law . Conservative justices do not want to 'legislate from the bench'.
The most probable outcome is the SCOTUS will defer to the lower courts or legislatures in individual states.
 
Was that your view in death penalty cases where the penalty was about to be carried out?
Or did you hold out that the perp might be innocent?

Generally, my view on the death penalty is somewhat different than most people. I've always felt that the death penalty should be an option open only in cases that meet significantly higher standards of evidence (perhaps one piece of that puzzle would be to adopt new, more lenient rules for reexamining and introducing new evidence for things like witnesses recanting, etc). Other than that suggestion I can't really offer a specific approach to accomplish that goal. Maybe it's nothing more than a wishful ideal. But considering that we've had plenty of people be executed who were later able to be exonerated, there's obviously a problem. Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many, and to me is indicative of a government that holds too much power over the people without sufficiently matching accountability. That's not to say the death penalty itself is an inappropriate power for the government to possess (it may be, I've never been able to come to a firm conclusion yes or no on that particular answer).

" Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many,..."


I certainly don't mind you dodging the original question...many do.
But the line that I object to is the one above when used as an excuse not to apply the mandate of government.

1. Studies have shown "...each execution carried out is correlated with about 74 fewer murders the following year....The association was significant at the .00005 level, which meant the odds against the pattern being simply a random happening are about 18,000 to one. Further analysis revealed that each execution seems to be associated with 71 fewer murders in the year the execution took place."
Capital Punishment Works - WSJ.com


2. And, of course, with far less significance at stake, such as saving gasoline, 2000 innocent are sacrificed.
"Back in 2002, the National Academy of Sciences did a study on the effects of CAFE. They found that over the three decades CAFE has been in effect, downsizing of cars and trucks for fuel economy has cost us about 2,000 lives per year."
PJ Media » The Hidden Death Toll of Higher CAFE Standards

So, forgive me if I laugh out loud at "Even one innocent person put to death for a crime he/she did not commit is one too many,..."


Man up.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top