Will Obamacare's Loss be Obama's Gain?

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The court has taken a very radical shift. They've been actively engaged in legislating politics and judicial activism. Two things it seems conservatives use to be against.

That's been going on for over 70 years. How is it any different now?

 

[Sallow]

I don't know Sallow....I think the questions posed by the justices yesterday had a lot of merit. As Justice Kennedy pointed out, the individual mandate is an unprecedented flexing of the muscles of federal law and constitutional authority. Shouldn't there be a very heavy burden of legal justification?

As Justice Roberts pointed out, since when has the court said the government can only regulate the payment structure of an industry? You can either fully regulate it or you can't at all so once you open that door the government can do anything they want. And as he points out...today it might just be payment methods but tomorrow it might be something completely different and since justification for government intrusion has been established there won't be any way to stop it.

I don't think it's at all "judicial activism" to expect the justices to make the government prove it's case.

What merit? They kept asking the same questions. It was silly and scary at the same time. They all mentioned Brocolli. That's a right wing talking point. And of course the indivdual mandate is "unprecendented" as is most social legislation. But part and parcel with governance is the idea of the "common good", which, yes..the government is responsible for. The big mistake the Obama administration made..was taking a conservative idea. He should have went with single payer..which wouldn't have been "unprecendented". But he went with the market based solution to save the market created by Nixon. And this "industry" is unlike all others..as Kennedy..very belately..pointed out. In that if one person can't pay..everyone else does. And that has an adverse effect on society.

And I do think it's Judicial Activism when you start legislating from the Bench. Citizen's United and Heller are prime examples. As was Gore v. Bush.

Well we're not talking about those other cases; Gore v. Bush was a different set of justices, blah, blah, blah. The broccoli comparison i could care less about. The critical quotes I heard I posted in the OP of this thread. I am sorry, Sallow, I don't see a whole lot of political activism in those arguments. I see very sound and logical arguments on the constitutionality of this piece of legislation.

I don't. It was decided over a century ago that the government's power over commerce was extremely broad. And with good reason, a healthy economy is absolutely essential to the continuance of the country. Curtailing that now, for cheap political gain, is a VERY dangerous act. And it will in turn encourage both parties to use the court as a political pawn. Our legislative process, as it stand now, is almost completely crippled. It would be moreso if every piece of legislation were subject to a supreme court challenge.

 

[Zander]

Reality check. Obama (and all the democrats) will be severely hurt. His reelection prospects will be severely diminished. He'll be seen as another Jimmy Carter- an ideological loser who can't get shit done.

He spent the first 2 years of his administration ignoring the economy and focusing on jamming through this healthcare boondoggle without even 1 republican vote. He had to lie, cheat, and steal to pass this pile of steaming dog shit.

Remember all of the Tea Party outrage? The town hall meetings?? Americans were telling the tone deaf morons in DC that we do not want national healthcare, we do not want another government fix (sic). But instead of representing the people they were elected to represent, the democrats said "fuck you, you aren't smart enough. We know better than you." and jammed Obamacare down our throats on a straight partisan vote on Christmas eve. It was pathetic.

If the mandate is struck down, as is should be, Obama the "constitutional law professor,"will be proven to be a complete and total loser that wasted time and money on a partisan stunt that couldn't even pass constitutional muster. He'll be shown to be an incompetent moron.

 

[Sallow]

Kennedy isn't going to go that way in the end, IMO. That'd be radical for him.

The other thing to consider of course is that oral arguments are not the end of the arguments. The justices will circulate briefs between them and argue amongst themselves through them. It seems to me that everyone's opinion is pretty much written in stone, although Kennedy made a comment at the end that indicated he may not be as set as it appeared earlier. So the justices will make their own arguments to each other and it's certainly possible that Kennedy could be swayed by the argument of one of his colleagues one way or the other.

I think you are right. I was suprised by both Roberts and Scalia..however. Scalia especially because in recent interviews he's expressed some concern that the court was getting to involved in political scabbles.

Seems that was just talk for the media.

 

[kaz]

1. That assumes they'll strike down the whole law. It's far more likely they sever the mandate.

We'll see, but actually their choice legally because of the way the law was written is to strike it all down or none of it. Though the court only considers the constitution a suggestion so it could happen.

2 & 3. It won't happen, if only because businesses aren't that concerned about the law. Hiring lags because demand is still weak.

Hiring lags because demand is weak is true, but you're freaking crazy businesses aren't concerned about the law. Unless you mean we (I own two businesses) are going to just can insurance completely. Which of course was the intent of the Democrats in writing the law to speed going to single payer.

[/B]4. I don't think health care will be big campaign issue, but it could make the courts a winning issue for Democrats, between this case and Citizens United.

Self delusion. The polls overwhelmingly show people already think the law is unconstitutional. But if it makes you feel better to believe this, go for it.

 

[Sallow]

Reality check. Obama (and all the democrats) will be severely hurt. His reelection prospects will be severely diminished. He'll be seen as another Jimmy Carter- an ideological loser who can't get shit done.

He spent the first 2 years of his administration ignoring the economy and focusing on jamming through this healthcare boondoggle without even 1 republican vote. He had to lie, cheat, and steal to pass this pile of steaming dog shit.

Remember all of the Tea Party outrage? The town hall meetings?? Americans were telling the tone deaf morons in DC that we do not want national healthcare, we do not want another government fix (sic). But instead of representing the people they were elected to represent, the democrats said "fuck you, you aren't smart enough. We know better than you." and jammed Obamacare down our throats on a straight partisan vote on Christmas eve. It was pathetic.

If the mandate is struck down, as is should be, Obama the "constitutional law professor,"will be proven to be a complete and total loser that wasted time and money on a partisan stunt that couldn't even pass constitutional muster. He'll be shown to be an incompetent moron.

Doubtful.

It will hurt..but not the way you probably hope.

This country is extremely polarized now..and it's independents that are going to make the difference. You aren't going to get any Democrats to go for Romney..and vice versa.

This could be seen as an extremely partisan move on the part of conservatives..by independents. Which would turn them off to Republicans.

 

[kaz]

I think you are right. I was suprised by both Roberts and Scalia..however. Scalia especially because in recent interviews he's expressed some concern that the court was getting to involved in political scabbles.

Seems that was just talk for the media.

Sure, Democrats once again ignoring the 10th amendment is just a political squabble.

 

[kaz]

This could be seen as an extremely partisan move on the part of conservatives..by independents. Which would turn them off to Republicans.

You can always dream. Funny how the polls don't show that. Funny how the more partisan you Democrats are the more anyone could only oppose you out of partisanship. Hmm..."funny" isn't the word...

 

[slackjawed]

While I am not a supporter of obama I would not classify him as zander has. This is not the first time congress has passed a bill which was then signed into law and later found unconstitutional. In recent tmes the presidential line item veto comes to mind.
The founders seemed to anticipate a federal government that continually seeks more power. Pres. Obama has been taking on that role, just as he said he would when running for office.
A truely ineffective moron would not have achieved getting to this point at all.
President obama has been very effective and appears to me to be far from moronic.

The truely moronic thing here is the villainization from both firmly entrenched sides towards the other.

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[BluePhantom]

I don't. It was decided over a century ago that the government's power over commerce was extremely broad. And with good reason, a healthy economy is absolutely essential to the continuance of the country. Curtailing that now, for cheap political gain, is a VERY dangerous act. And it will in turn encourage both parties to use the court as a political pawn. Our legislative process, as it stand now, is almost completely crippled. It would be moreso if every piece of legislation were subject to a supreme court challenge.

I guess we just view it differently. i think every piece of legislation should be subject to judicial review, and there's a difference between broad powers and absolute powers and it seems to me that that is what the justices are concerned about....and if so I agree with them.

 

[Polk]

For those saying the bill is "super unpopular", you're forgetting a sizable chunk of those opposed are opposed because they want single-payer. A lot of people who support the ACA are going to move in to that pro single-payer column if the ACA is struck down, as that'll be their only path.

 

[Polk]

1. That assumes they'll strike down the whole law. It's far more likely they sever the mandate.

We'll see, but actually their choice legally because of the way the law was written is to strike it all down or none of it. Though the court only considers the constitution a suggestion so it could happen.

That's not accurate. The case law on severability generally requires a clause saying something isn't severable.

2 & 3. It won't happen, if only because businesses aren't that concerned about the law. Hiring lags because demand is still weak.

Hiring lags because demand is weak is true, but you're freaking crazy businesses aren't concerned about the law. Unless you mean we (I own two businesses) are going to just can insurance completely. Which of course was the intent of the Democrats in writing the law to speed going to single payer.

People keep making this argument, but it doesn't make sense. Why would you drop coverage when there is a penalty for not providing in when you could drop it today without any penalty at all?

[/B]4. I don't think health care will be big campaign issue, but it could make the courts a winning issue for Democrats, between this case and Citizens United.

Self delusion. The polls overwhelmingly show people already think the law is unconstitutional. But if it makes you feel better to believe this, go for it.

The polls show no such thing.

 

[Sallow]

I think you are right. I was suprised by both Roberts and Scalia..however. Scalia especially because in recent interviews he's expressed some concern that the court was getting to involved in political scabbles.

Seems that was just talk for the media.

Sure, Democrats once again ignoring the 10th amendment is just a political squabble.

I think one good thing that might arise out of this..is that the right of a state having supremacy over an indivdual that the federal government doesn't have will be questioned. A state can have a mandate and the federal government cannot? What about constitutional supremacy? This might really create a backlash. Especially given:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This might open some floodgates most conservatives don't want opened.

 

[Sallow]

For those saying the bill is "super unpopular", you're forgetting a sizable chunk of those opposed are opposed because they want single-payer. A lot of people who support the ACA are going to move in to that pro single-payer column if the ACA is struck down, as that'll be their only path.

Amazing isn't it?

Most people want something done.

 

[BluePhantom]

Self delusion. The polls overwhelmingly show people already think the law is unconstitutional. But if it makes you feel better to believe this, go for it.

The polls show no such thing.

Pfft....according to Gallup even most Democrats think it's unconstitutional.

Americans Divided on Repeal of 2010 Healthcare Law

 

[Zander]

Obama touts his credentials as "a constitutional professor. He loses face if "Obamacare" is found to be unconstitutional. It will be devastating to Obama and the Democrats. There is no amount of "spin" that will change that..............

 

[dblack]

If the PPACA is struck down, I'll definitely feel more comfortable with Obama as president than if it stands. Especially if the Rethugs keep at least the House or Senate.

 

[slackjawed]

I think you are right. I was suprised by both Roberts and Scalia..however. Scalia especially because in recent interviews he's expressed some concern that the court was getting to involved in political scabbles.

Seems that was just talk for the media.

Sure, Democrats once again ignoring the 10th amendment is just a political squabble.

I think one good thing that might arise out of this..is that the right of a state having supremacy over an indivdual that the federal government doesn't have will be questioned. A state can have a mandate and the federal government cannot? What about constitutional supremacy? This might really create a backlash. Especially given:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This might open some floodgates most conservatives don't want opened.

See the date up there? These "floodgates" have been open since 1791 and should be welcomed by all us citizens.

The fact is our system is working as it was intended. The fact is that should be welcome news to all us citizens.

The fact is that when the supreme court issues it's decision we the people will respect it, no matter if we agree or not.



Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

 

[BluePhantom]

Obama touts his credentials as "a constitutional professor. He loses face if "Obamacare" is found to be unconstitutional. It will be devastating to Obama and the Democrats. There is no amount of "spin" that will change that..............

Well it won't stop them from trying. How effective it will be I don't know. I don't have a lot of faith in the intelligence of the average American voter. Do you?

 

[Sallow]

Sure, Democrats once again ignoring the 10th amendment is just a political squabble.

I think one good thing that might arise out of this..is that the right of a state having supremacy over an indivdual that the federal government doesn't have will be questioned. A state can have a mandate and the federal government cannot? What about constitutional supremacy? This might really create a backlash. Especially given:

Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.

Article IV - The States

Section 1 - Each State to Honor all others

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section 2 - State citizens, Extradition

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths

All Debts contracted and Engagements entered into, before the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Amendment 9 - Construction of Constitution. Ratified 12/15/1791.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

This might open some floodgates most conservatives don't want opened.

See the date up there? These "floodgates" have been open since 1791 and should be welcomed by all us citizens.

The fact is our system is working as it was intended. The fact is that should be welcome news to all us citizens.

The fact is that when the supreme court issues it's decision we the people will respect it, no matter if we agree or not.



Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

Depends..like I said.

This might show that the more conservative judges are ideologues.

And not fair and impartial.

In any case..either thing is good for conservatives. Turning people off to politics is the true agenda.