View Full Version : Justice Kennedy: Individual Mandate Fundamentally Changes Relationship of Govt.
Americans are generally "slipping back into an authoritarian moral mode", and if this thing goes right, it could be the turning point for getting sanity back into our Government.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2012/03/27/kennedy_individual_mandate_fundamentally_changes_r elationship_of_govt.html
Click for vid.
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: The key in Lochner is that we were talking about regulation of the States, right, and the States are not limited to enumerated powers. The Federal Government is. And it seems to me it's an entirely different question when you ask yourself whether or not there are going to be limits in the Federal power, as opposed to limits on the States, which was the issue in Lochner.
SOLICITOR GENERAL VERRILLI: I agree, except, Mr. Chief Justice, that what the Court has said as I read the Court's cases is that the way in which you ensure that the Federal Government stays in its sphere and the sphere reserved for the States is protected is by policing the boundary: Is the national government regulating economic activity with a substantial effect on interstate commerce?
JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.
An interesting opinion piece from the DailyCaller with regards to ObamaCare, and why you would want it upheld.
If the court upholds the constitutionality of the individual mandate in June, conservatives and libertarians will loudly and justifiably protest the result. This anger, however, will lead many of them to explore alternatives in pursuit of upholding the Constitution and fighting the federal government. In that endeavor, they might soon learn that there are other effective ways to challenge the federal government’s encroachment upon the powers of the people.
http://dailycaller.com/2012/03/27/why-conservatives-should-want-the-supreme-court-to-uphold-obamacare/
MOO: The monies provided for social programs have essentially strangled the 10th amendment with the implied "if you don't do X we won't provide money for Y" arm twisting of the states by the government. So while not explicitly encroaching on states rights, the Feds, through funding which many states have come to rely on and include de facto in the state budget, and programs which most people take for granted, have essentially free reign in most state's politics. Another thought to ponder: A decent chunk of Federal taxes[1] goes to these programs, with some of the money ultimately going back to the states in the form of said funding. With a high Federal tax rate, even the most liberal states(well except maybe CA and NY :D ) are loath to raise taxes to a point where all of the tax payers flee en-mass. This vicious cycle only increases the state's dependency on Federal funding, more so as these social programs are pushed by liberal state and federal governments. The point is, the states need that straw that broke the camels back in order to get off Uncle O's Kool-aid for once and for all. Turn these programs over to the individual states and leave the Federal government out of it. Ultimately, drawing these programs down except for those that truly need it, will be the real answer, but I don't see that happening in my lifetime...
My .002
[1] http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258
Badger52
03-28-2012, 13:22
...funding which many states have come to rely on and include de facto in the state budget, and programs which most people take for granted, have essentially free reign in most state's politics.The states have themselves to blame; look at the heat a state takes (pick a program) when it correctly ponies up & says, "we don't want to play because of the strings attached."
This vicious cycle only increases the state's dependency on Federal funding, more so as these social programs are pushed by liberal state and federal governments.Precisely; we are seeing that in Wisconsin RIGHT NOW on a smaller level. Those municipalities who are looking at not being tied to the noose of a monopolistic health insurer for teachers and see opportunity are seeing surpluses, no layoffs, and no crocodile tears about wanting to increase property taxes - even though their officials ran on the opposite. Life is better; they were liberated, quite literally.
Those still whining who, only 1 year hence, want a mulligan and support the recall of the current Governor have simply not gotten past their hysteria, OR, they will never change because they are tied to the HUGE sums of money that came with being part of that extortionist insurer of the High Church of Academia.
It is about being weaned off the teat.
Mr Furious
03-28-2012, 14:16
Day three is in the books. For anyone that cares to read them, you can find the transcripts of the SCOTUS sessions at this link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx
I’ve read through them so I can compare with what the MSM is spinning. The subject is near and dear for me. Our company as a small business belongs to NFIB and supports them. I don't agree with every position they take, but 95% of what they do aligns with our needs. I think they did a good job, and now it’s in the hands of those who will decide its fate.
For Obamacare hit the links on that page for (3-26 through 3-28): 11-398-Monday, 11-398-Tuesday, 11-393, and 11-400.
also since you happen to be there, and if interested, for Stolen Valor (2-22): 11-210.
Day three is in the books. For anyone that cares to read them, you can find the transcripts of the SCOTUS sessions at this link: http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts.aspx
I’ve read through them so I can compare with what the MSM is spinning.
SCOTUS Poised to Strike Down Healthcare Law
Here's the gist of the Obamacare BS:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story
The Supreme Court's conservative justices said Wednesday they are prepared to strike down President Obama’s healthcare law entirely.
Picking up where they left off Tuesday, the conservatives said they thought a decision striking down the law's controversial individual mandate to purchase health insurance means the whole statute should fall with it.
The court’s conservatives sounded as though they had determined for themselves that the 2,700-page measure must be declared unconstitutional.
"One way or another, Congress will have to revisit it in toto," said Justice Antonin Scalia.
Agreeing, Justice Anthony Kennedy said it would be an "extreme proposition" to allow the various insurance regulations to stand after the mandate was struck down.
Meanwhile, the court's liberal justices argued for restraint. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said the court should do a "salvage job," not undertake a “wrecking operation." But she looked to be out-voted.
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said they shared the view of Scalia and Kennedy that the law should stand or fall in total. Along with Justice Clarence Thomas, they would have a majority to strike down the entire statute as unconstitutional.
An Obama administration lawyer, urging caution, said it would be "extraordinary" for the court to throw out the entire law. About 2.5 million young people under age 26 are on their parents' insurance now because of the new law. If it were struck down entirely, "2.5 million of them would be thrown off the insurance rolls," said Edwin Kneedler.
The administration indicated it was prepared to accept a ruling that some of the insurance reforms should fall if the mandate were struck down. For example, insurers would not be required to sell coverage to people with preexisting conditions. But Kneedler, a deputy solicitor general, said the court should go no further.
But the court's conservatives said the law was passed as a package and must fall as a package.
The justices are scheduled to meet Wednesday afternoon to debate the law's Medicaid expansion.
Snip
Justice Scalia invokes the 8th Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment when commenting on whether or not the SCOTUS would have to read the entire 2700 pages of Obamacare. :D
JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?
(Laughter.)
JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to — to give this function to our law clerks?
Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?
MR. KNEEDLER: Well -
Link (http://freebeacon.com/scalia-likens-obamacare-to-cruel-and-unusual-punishment/)
Badger52
03-29-2012, 12:07
Justice Scalia invokes the 8th Amendment forbidding cruel and unusual punishment when commenting on whether or not the SCOTUS would have to read the entire 2700 pages of Obamacare. :DCongress didn't.
;)
Congress didn't.
;)
The only people who have read that shit are the marxists who wrote it.
It's just a preface to the single-payer bill, anyway. Many will read that piece of work, believe me.
Nancy Pelosi's evil twin says you have to render that 2,700 page POS unconstitutional in order to find out what's in it.
An opinion piece that seems to view the Supreme Court's role in context.
MARCH 30, 2012 12:00 A.M.
Conservative Interpretations
It’s not the Supreme Court’s job to design our health-care system.
By Jonah Goldberg
NRO
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg likes the Indian Health Care Improvement Act and other ingredients of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka “Obamacare.” Why, she asked toward the end of three days of hearings, shouldn’t the court keep the good stuff in Obamacare and just dump the unconstitutional bits?
The court, she explained, is presented with “a choice between a wrecking operation or a salvage job. And the more conservative approach would be salvage rather than throwing out everything.”
“Conservative” is a funny word. It can mean lots of different things. It reminds me of that line from G. K. Chesterton about the word “good.” “The word ‘good’ has many meanings,” he observed. “For example, if a man were to shoot his grandmother at a range of 500 yards, I should call him a good shot, but not necessarily a good man.”
Conservative can mean cautious in temperament — a man who wears belts and suspenders. Similarly, it sometimes suggests someone who’s averse to change. It can also refer to the political ideology or philosophy founded by Edmund Burke and popularized and Americanized by people like Barry Goldwater, Ronald Reagan, William F. Buckley, and George Will. Things can get complicated because these different meanings can overlap. Many strident liberals can have conservative temperaments, and many philosophical conservatives can have private lives that make a brothel during Fleet Week seem like a retirement-home chess club. Conservatives in America love the free market, which is the greatest source of change in human history. Liberals, alleged lovers of change and “progress,” often champion an agenda dedicated to preserving the past. Just consider how much of the Democratic party’s rhetoric is dedicated to preserving a policy regime implemented by Franklin Roosevelt nearly 80 years ago.
You can also be conservative with respect to a given institution while being un-conservative in every other respect. The most ardent Communists in the Chinese or Cuban politburos are often described as “conservatives.” The same holds true for every left-wing institution in America: Someone has to be the “conservative” at PETA or Planned Parenthood — i.e., the person who is risk-averse when it comes to scarce resources or the group’s reputation.
Anyway, sometimes people like to play games with the indeterminacy of the word “conservative” in order to sell a liberal agenda (and in fairness, conservatives often do the same thing with “progressive”).
Which brings us back to Justice Ginsburg. She would have people believe that if the Court rules the individual mandate unconstitutional, the conservative thing to do would be to preserve the rest of Obamacare. She suggests that “wrecking” the whole thing would be an act of judicial activism, while “salvaging” it would be an act of conservation.
In other words, she’s playing games with the word. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a conservative institution in that it serves as a backstop for the excesses of the other branches. Political conservatives, by extension, argue that the court should defer to Congress, the most democratic branch, when constitutional issues are not at stake. Hence, liberals contend, a “conservative” court should take a scalpel to Obamacare, not an axe.
It sounds reasonable, but it isn’t. As Justices Scalia, Kennedy, and Roberts noted, if the court simply removes the requirement that everyone buy health insurance, they are left with the task of essentially rewriting the act. That prospect caused Justice Scalia to exclaim, “What happened to the Eighth Amendment [barring cruel and unusual punishment]? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?*.*.*.*Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?”
The conservative thing to do — and I don’t mean politically conservative — is to send the whole thing back to Congress and have it done right. Leaving aside the fact that Obamacare largely falls apart if you remove the mandate, it’s not the Supreme Court’s job to design our health-care system from the scraps Congress dumps in its lap. What Ginsburg proposes is akin to a student handing in a sloppy, error-filled term paper, and the professor rewriting it so as to give the student an A.
Some liberals note that one option Congress could pursue would be to pass a far more left-wing piece of legislation that mandates a single-payer system, i.e., socialized medicine. That would — or at least could — be constitutional. And that’s true: Congress could do that, and I’m sure Justice Ginsburg would be pleased if it did.
And if that happened, the right and conservative thing for the court to do would be to let it happen.
http://www.nationalreview.com/author/56454/latest
An opinion piece that seems to view the Supreme Court's role in context.
Too bad half the SCOTUS doesn't look at it that way. How comforting to know that we have a couple maroons on the bench that think the Constitution is invalid.
"We're just throwing a boatload of money at the states to give to poor people for health care." :rolleyes:
Does that woman (Ginsburg) even hear what she just said?
I mean really, she says that parts of the bill are unconstitutional and then won't vote to get rid of it?
"Really sonny, your speedometer said 120, and you knew that the limit was 75, but you weren't really breaking the law?" WTF over?
I'm annoyed we have to wait until June for their decision. They voted, let's have the judgement already.
I'm annoyed we have to wait until June for their decision. They voted, let's have the judgement already.
Ditto.
Why is that, anyway? I never bothered to research it.
Ditto.
Why is that, anyway? I never bothered to research it.
They must have time to write the opinions. Considering there is nearly 3000 pages of junk, I am surprised it will happen as soon as June.
Ditto.
Why is that, anyway? I never bothered to research it.
They have to write the pro and con opinions. They want to be more precise than the monstrosity they are ruling on.
Pat
Too bad half the SCOTUS doesn't look at it that way. How comforting to know that we have a couple maroons on the bench that think the Constitution is invalid.
We are just one Supreme Court justice away from a nightmare.
"We're just throwing a boatload of money at the states to give to poor people for health care." :rolleyes:
And just where does she think that boatload of money came from...
We are just one Supreme Court justice away from a nightmare.
...and one election.
What Conservative Legal Revolution?
A 5-4 ruling against ObamaCare is the least Republicans should expect given the number of justices they've been able to appoint.
By JOHN YOO
WSJ
"This week's Supreme Court arguments over ObamaCare have left opponents of the law quietly crossing their fingers. Questions from the bench hint that the court's conservative wing may hold together to strike down the individual mandate, which requires all American adults to purchase health insurance. But this week's arguments also reveal the risky gamble of placing all hopes of stopping ObamaCare in the courts, and they underscore the pivotal importance of this year's elections to restoring limited government.
Overturning ObamaCare by a mere 5-4 margin would show the tenuousness of the 40-year conservative campaign to alter the Supreme Court. In the four decades since Richard Nixon first made the Supreme Court a campaign issue, Republicans have controlled the White House for seven presidential terms and Democrats for only four. Yet conservatives and liberals can claim four seats each on the court, with Anthony Kennedy happily floating about in the middle.
Republican presidents nominated justices such as Harry Blackmun, John Paul Stevens and David Souter, who became dependable liberal votes. Democrats have yet to make a similar mistake.
As a result, the conservative revolution in constitutional law has fizzled. The court has reaffirmed the right to abortion, intervened in wartime military decisions, upheld distortions of the separation of powers such as the independent counsel statute, and barely nibbled at the outer reaches of the New Deal expansion of federal power over the states.
While the high court has not conjured forth as many new constitutional rights as it once did, it may soon impose gay marriage on the country when it gets the case of Perry v. Brown. Only in the area of criminal procedure, where the solid liberal bloc sometimes suffers defections, has the court seriously rebalanced constitutional law.
The winner of this November's presidential election may enjoy the chance to appoint three new Justices. By the end of the next president's term in 2016, Ruth Bader Ginsburg will be 83, Antonin Scalia and Justice Kennedy will turn 80, and Stephen Breyer will be 78.
This points to a remarkable increase in longevity on the court. Before World War II, justices were on average 69 years old at retirement. After World War II they were 73, and for justices appointed after 1968, they were 80. Until 1968, justices averaged about 15-16 years on the court; after that the figure shot up to 24 years. By 2016, Justice Scalia will have served for 31 years, and Justice Kennedy for 29. Plainly, the next president will have the chance to lock into place a conservative court majority or to launch a liberal counterrevolution. Should President Obama win re-election, he may even appoint a majority of the Supreme Court that conceivably could be in a position to reverse any decision this year blocking ObamaCare.
The prospect of a new liberal court displays the dangers of placing all the conservative eggs in the judicial basket. Republicans today should heed the advice of their party's first, and greatest, president. "If the policy of the government, upon vital questions, affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court," Abraham Lincoln declared in his first inaugural address, "the people will have ceased, to be their own rulers, having to that extent, practically resigned their government, into the hands of that eminent tribunal."
Only conservative control of both the executive and legislative branches can replace ObamaCare with sensible, pro-market health-care reforms. Winning a Senate majority could give Republicans the leverage to moderate Obama's Supreme Court nominees in a second term. But it cannot override a presidential veto, one sure to greet any bills repealing ObamaCare. Conservative control of the White House and both houses of Congress will stop further adventures beyond the Constitution's limits, relieving the need for a judicial salvation that may never come."
Mr. Yoo is a professor at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law who served in the Justice Department under President George W. Bush. He is the author of the just-released "Taming Globalization" (Oxford University Press).
They have to write the pro and con opinions. They want to be more precise than the monstrosity they are ruling on.
Pat
Well, of course, bro-but why are they given that much time?
Let's face it, it might take that long to write a 2700-page bill, but over 60 days to flesh out a yay or nay?
It boils down to three words, really-it ain't Constitutional.
The SC kinda' crossed the bridge and burnt it behind them with Wickard v Filburn.
The SC kinda' crossed the bridge and burnt it behind them with Wickard v Filburn.
IMO, they crossed it with Engel v. Vitale and burnt it with Roe v. Wade.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html
President Barack Obama voiced confidence Monday that the Supreme Court will uphold his health care law in his first public remarks on the issue since the three days of oral arguments last week.
In a rare instance of a president weighing in on a high court case in which the ruling has not yet been released, Obama suggested that the high court would be guilty of “judicial activism” if it overturned the law. He also argued that the justices should uphold the individual mandate, saying it’s a key — and constitutional — piece of the law.
“We are confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” Obama said at a joint news conference at the White House with Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mexican President Felipe Calderon.
During three days of hearings last week, conservative justices signaled skepticism toward the individual mandate, which requires nearly all Americans to buy health insurance or pay a fine. Based on their questions, the conservative justices did not appear to support the idea of upholding the law if they were to strike down the mandate.
Obama said the individual mandate must remain in the law for it to function.
“I think it is important and I think the American people understand, and I think the justices should understand that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to insure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care,” he said.
Some liberal groups are preparing to attack the court for judicial activism should the mandate be overturned, and Obama laid the groundwork for that argument on Monday, as he reminded conservatives of their fears of overreaching courts.
Overturning the law would be “an unprecedented, extraordinary step” since it was passed by a majority of members in the House and Senate,” he said. “I just remind conservative commentators that for years we’ve heard that the biggest problem is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That a group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”
Snip
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0412/74743.html#ixzz1qunqegna
The president's train of thought takes longer leaps of fantasy than the paranoid inner dialog of a graduate student standing in the middle of a grocery store with a contact high during the Clinton administration.
As an erstwhile "professor" of constitutional law, the president should know that the framers took steps to limit the impact of popular opinion on the supreme court.
To be clear, I don't take exception to a chief executive using the bully pulpit to get the message out. I do resent a chief executive doing it ineptly.
The president's train of thought takes longer leaps of fantasy than the paranoid inner dialog of a graduate student standing in the middle of a grocery store with a contact high during the Clinton administration.
As an erstwhile "professor" of constitutional law, the president should know that the framers took steps to limit the impact of popular opinion on the supreme court.
To be clear, I don't take exception to a chief executive using the bully pulpit to get the message out. I do resent a chief executive doing it ineptly.
How many chief executives, historically, have openly despised the Constitution?
This guy obviously detests the Founders. Have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HeoxAmmxnI
How many chief executives, historically, have openly despised the Constitution?The argument that a president is stepping outside of the boundaries of the constitution is not new. Similar charges have been lobbed at every war time president as well as at those chief executives who have been in office during ferocious debates over controversial public policies.
The founders anticipated conflict among the branches of the federal government. Hence, the constitution puts in place mechanisms for checks and balances. Therefore, is it beyond the pale when those in power seek redefine the lines of authority and/or expand the portfolios of their offices? Or does this criticism apply only when the other guy does it?
Two questions I frequently asked a friend when we'd debate the merits of Bush the Younger's administration were:
Was Bush a "terrible" president because, according to critics, he circumvented the constitution, or was he a remarkably effective president because he could achieve his goals in the face of staunch political opposition?
Is it a president's responsibility to perform the checks and balances that fall into the briefs of the other two branches of the government?
This guy obviously detests the Founders. Have you seen this?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HeoxAmmxnIThe founders themselves had some intense rivalries and doubts about each other. These deeply held divisions were downplayed and understudied in the Consensus historiography that followed the Second World War. However, historians have greatly expanded our understanding of how turbulent a time the early national period actually was.*
In short, I think there's much more to be gained politically from criticizing the president for his mishandling of present day issues, his inchoate political philosophy, his profound lack of intellectual depth, his self-serving opportunism, and his poorly-disguised contempt for his supporters and opponents alike, than for his relationship to and understanding of America's past.
YMMV.
________________________________
* A convenient discussion of these three issues--and many others--is available in Robbie J. Totten, "Security, Two Diplomacies, and the Formation of the U.S. Constitution: Review, Interpretation, and New Directions for the Study of the Early National Period," Diplomatic History, 36:1 (January 2012): 77-118. And by "convenient" I mean the article is within arm's reach. I do not mean "accessible" nor necessarily "enjoyable."
The argument that a president is stepping outside of the boundaries of the constitution is not new. Similar charges have been lobbed at every war time president as well as at those chief executives who have been in office during ferocious debates over controversial public policies.
The founders anticipated conflict among the branches of the federal government. Hence, the constitution puts in place mechanisms for checks and balances. Therefore, is it beyond the pale when those in power seek redefine the lines of authority and/or expand the portfolios of their offices? Or does this criticism apply only when the other guy does it?
Two questions I frequently asked a friend when we'd debate the merits of Bush the Younger's administration were:
Was Bush a "terrible" president because, according to critics, he circumvented the constitution, or was he a remarkably effective president because he could achieve his goals in the face of staunch political opposition?
Is it a president's responsibility to perform the checks and balances that fall into the briefs of the other two branches of the government?
The founders themselves had some intense rivalries and doubts about each other. These deeply held divisions were downplayed and understudied in the Consensus historiography that followed the Second World War. However, historians have greatly expanded our understanding of how turbulent a time the early national period actually was.*
In short, I think there's much more to be gained politically from criticizing the president for his mishandling of present day issues, his inchoate political philosophy, his profound lack of intellectual depth, his self-serving opportunism, and his poorly-disguised contempt for his supporters and opponents alike, than for his relationship to and understanding of America's past.
YMMV.
________________________________
* A convenient discussion of these three issues--and many others--is available in Robbie J. Totten, "Security, Two Diplomacies, and the Formation of the U.S. Constitution: Review, Interpretation, and New Directions for the Study of the Early National Period," Diplomatic History, 36:1 (January 2012): 77-118. And by "convenient" I mean the article is within arm's reach. I do not mean "accessible" nor necessarily "enjoyable."
Reckon Bush would do an interview in which he basically whines about being shackled by the intentions of the Founders?
Reckon Bush would do an interview in which he basically whines about being shackled by the intentions of the Founders?Maybe the country would have been better off if Bush the Younger had initiated a conversation that invited Americans to square the ideas and concepts of the founders with the difficult choices of GWOT.
The current president certainly has gained a lot of support within his base for filling in the silence.
The current president certainly has gained a lot of support within his base for filling in the silence.
A paperhanger with a f.cked up half-moustache did something very similar.
I'm annoyed we have to wait until June for their decision. They voted, let's have the judgement already.
That is a very good question - as I understand things that vote - that you refer to - is merely a straw vote. Theoretically, the justices are not bound by that vote at this time.
One must start somewhere to see where the group of justices stand on the case before them - that vote is merely the beginning of negotiations for a variety of matters pertaining to this case.
What is most likely going behind the scenes is some horse trading for votes and what is and what is not to be included in the written decision itself.
Thus, you see the President lobbying in the press for his preference - subsequent to that vote.
We may or may not receive the actual decision by June.
That is a very good question - as I understand things that vote - that you refer to - is merely a straw vote. Theoretically, the justices are not bound by that vote at this time.
I heard that...it annoyed me as well. :D
Mr Furious
04-05-2012, 19:44
Just wow. Here’s a blast from the past...from the Clinton/Obama debate. In particular view - (0:45-1:35 5:15-6:15 8:34-8:51)
So it wasn’t really Obamacare after all, and he didn't want to impose the individual mandate because he knew better.
http://tinyurl.com/cl6soo7
What is most likely going behind the scenes is some horse trading for votes and what is and what is not to be included in the written decision itself.
I'm not an attorney, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn, but....... :)
I have had various reasons to read legal decisions, with a need to understand them. The major portion of the effort *seems* to be in the words that will follow "because......"
Those words will tell future lawmakers what similar laws and actions have a passing chance of being upheld by the court, and what falls into the "don't even try...." category. That can preclude a lot of wasted time in the future for lawmakers and judges alike.
I'm not an attorney, nor did I sleep at a Holiday Inn, but....... :)
I have had various reasons to read legal decisions, with a need to understand them. The major portion of the effort *seems* to be in the words that will follow "because......"
Those words will tell future lawmakers what similar laws and actions have a passing chance of being upheld by the court, and what falls into the "don't even try...." category. That can preclude a lot of wasted time in the future for lawmakers and judges alike.
Spot on.
This decision has the potential to be one of the more important decisions issued in recent memory regarding limited government and how far the federal government can reach into the private lives of the citizenry.
What is stated in the body of this decision - and what is not stated - will potentially be with us for generations.
May God grant these justices the wisdom to make the right call and to articulate their decision in a manner that serves us well as a country.
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act#.T4y9B5tX4fY.twitter
:munchin
http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/102620/individual-mandate-history-affordable-care-act#.T4y9B5tX4fY.twitter
:munchin
Here's why that BS won't fly (or shouldn't).
From your link:
"One could argue that the laws for seamen and ship owners mandated purchases from people who were already engaged in some commerce..."
F.cking A Skip you could argue that point.
Einer Elhauge is a professor at Harvard Law School. He joined an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the mandate.
http://www.law.harvard.edu/faculty/elhauge/cv.php
EMPLOYMENT
Petrie Professor of Law, Harvard University
Subjects: Antitrust, Contracts, Health Law Policy, Statutory Interpretation.
Director, Petrie-Flom Center for Health Law Policy, Biotechnology and Bioethics.
Chair, Obama Campaign’s Antitrust Advisory Committee
Co-Chair, Obama Campaign’s Blogs and Op-eds Committee
Member, Obama Campaign’s Health Policy Advisory Committees.
Member, Advisory Board for the Journal of Competition Law & Economics.
Member, Advisory Board for the Social Sciences Research Network on Antitrust Law & Policy.
Member, Advisory Board for the Social Sciences Research Network on Telecommunications & Regulated
Industries.