URL: http://community.realitytvworld.com/cgi-sys/cgiwrap/rtvw2/community/dcboard.cgi
Forum: DCForumID6
Thread Number: 37404
[ Go back to previous page ]
Original Message
"Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 03-24-12 at 11:09 AM
This week is the showdown in the Supreme Court, and I'm already starting to feel like the newspapers and Web sites are reporting on all-Obamacare, all the time.

The court cases will proceed in 4 parts:

Monday (90 minutes): standing (in other words, is anyone even permitted to challenge Obamacare yet since the law mostly hasn't taken effect?). This issue has been grafted on to this case because it has been coming up in a number of cases over the past 20 years, and it's time for the Supreme Court to issue a definitive ruling one way or the other on such challenges. It's a gating issue here; if the court decides that there isn't standing, then the case goes away. However, it's being watched to see what general guidelines the court will create on this issue, which will extend way beyond Obamacare.

Tuesday (120 min.): constitutionality of purchase mandate. This is the heart of the Obamacare case. Once more, we examine the limits of the horrible (in my opinion) New Deal Supreme Court decision Wickard v. Filburn, albeit from a different perspective. To me, it seems highly likely that the Court will decide that there are limits on Commerce Clause power. Which leads to. . .

Wednesday (90 minutes): severance. Normally, the remaining provisions in laws passed by Congress that have a provision struck down by the courts take effect anyway. However, for Obamacare, Congress added a provision that, if the purchase mandate was struck down, the whole bill was void. This is an examination of that issue. Then, later in the day. . .

Wednesday (60 minutes): federal coercion. This bill threatens all kinds of draconian cutoffs of federal aid to states for states that do not comply with Obamacare. In another infamous Supreme Court decision, South Dakota v. Dole, the Supreme Court held 7-2 that Congress could cut off some federal highway aid to states that didn't adopt a minimum drinking age of 21. (The libertarian O'Connor and the liberal Brennan dissented.) Basically, since then, Congress has applied that rule as if there were no boundaries. This session is to determine whether there are any boundaries to it. Like Monday's session, the issue is not really focused on Obamacare, but it's relevant to Obamacare.

In short, of the four Supreme Court sessions, two are focused on issues that exist independently of Obamacare (standing and federal coercion), with Obamacare just being used as a peg for the re-examination of those issues. One (severance) is based on an exemption to an established rule that Congress included in Obamacare. And only one (purchase mandate) is really based on whether or not any part of Obamacare will ever become law, so that day (Tuesday) will be the real focal point.

Table of contents
Messages in this discussion
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by Estee on 03-24-12 at 12:44 PM
So given the way those issues break down, if we take out the whole 'no national health care' part, how much legal damage could this do?
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 03-25-12 at 09:00 AM
Well, the standing and federal coercion issues are only here because you needed the right case (preferably one with deep-pocketed parties involved) to fully brief and argue the issues. The question of standing comes up all the time, and so I think we'll finally get a more-or-less "bright line" rule for it. I've always believed that Dole v. South Dakota was decided incorrectly, yet there are now hundreds (if not thousands) of federal mandates tied to a cutoff of federal aid, and those would all have to be revisited if Dole v. South Dakota were reversed. Even if this part of the case turns out to be moot because of a decision in favor of jettisoning Obamacare, the arguments will allow the court to determine (perhaps for a future case) whether it believes that there are any limits here.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 03-24-12 at 12:52 PM
My guess?

With this court, the reasonable expectations are (IMO) that,

Point 1: Standing will be affirmed because it's been voted on and legally passed by the legislature and signed into law by the President, so it's a challengeable act even though it's not in effect. It's actually the optimum time for a supreme court review, regardless of which way the ruling goes. A moratorium for judicial review should be built into the majority of large ticket items passed by the legislative branch.

Point 2: The mandated purchase provisions of Obama-care will be declared unconstitutional. There are several constitutionally protected freedoms on which this decision could be based.

Point 3: Will be affirmed, no one can reasonably expect the constitutionality of such a qualifier to not be affirmed.

Point 4: will be moot because of the ruling on #2. I just don't see the Court making a ruling on federal coercion if the bill that would be responsible for the coercion is ruled unconstitutional. Not that they couldn't or wouldn't or haven't done similar things in the past, but I don't see them doing it here.

And of course, timing being what it is, this will certainly be a hot election year point of debate. I don't see this has helping Obama's chances, however, because either way, this will emphasize that his idea of health care in American is to remove citizen's free will from the equation with a mandate, and that's an anathama to a lot of people, liberal and conservatives alike.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by foonermints on 03-24-12 at 02:52 PM
»remove citizen's free will from the equation with a mandate«

CTgirl ObamaChupacabra Habla: Ha Ha HA!

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 03-24-12 at 03:30 PM
That would be enough to make a Chupacabra do the devil dance.
"A legal question."
Posted by Max Headroom on 03-24-12 at 06:17 PM
Political posturing aside, is there a realistic chance that the Supreme Court will overturn Obamacare?

"RE: A legal question."
Posted by AyaK on 03-25-12 at 09:22 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-25-12 AT 09:26 PM (EST)

That question turns in part on your opinion about a case called Wickard v. Filburn. We've discussed it before, but here it is in a nutshell:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it.

The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government.

Wickard was the underlying issue in the Supreme Court "medical marijuana" case, Gonzalez v. Raich, from 2005. That's why the four Democratic justices and Justice Kennedy voted that the Supreme Court could regulate medical marijuana. (Justice Scalia concurred, but for a different reason). Of the three dissenters (O'Connor, Rehnquist and Thomas), only Justice Thomas is still on the court, so he's a certain "no" vote. With regard to the other justices, the argument is that there is difference between prohibiting sn economic activity and mandating one. Despite this argument, Justices Ginsburg and Breyer are unlikely to change their position, and Justices Sotomayor and Kagan are likely to vote with them, which gets Obamacare the entire liberal bloc. Justices Scalia, Roberts and Alito are seen as likely to agree with this differentiation between prohibition and mandating, which leaves the Court at 4-4 and looking to Justice Kennedy. Kennedy has been willing to hold that, even despite Wickard, the Commerce Power is not unlimited (U.S. v. Lopez), but he has also upheld Wickard. So who knows how he'll vote?

My view, like Justice O'Connor's, is that Wickard was wrongly decided, so I'd probably side with Justice Thomas. But who knows for sure how everyone else will vote? Certainly not me.

If I had to guess, I'd guess that Justice Kennedy would rule that requiring citizens to engage in economic activity is not one of the powers that Congress has, and so a majority of the Supreme Court will vote to strike down the mandate. Actually, I think that's what most liberals expect, and so they're trying hard to make a Supreme COurt decision to that effect seem like an illegitimate political decision instead of a principled reading of the Constitution. See, for example, this article by far left lawyer/blowhard Dahlia Lithwick:

So let’s start by setting forth two uncontroversial propositions.

The first proposition is that the health care law is constitutional. The second is that the court could strike it down anyway. Linda Greenhouse makes the first point more eloquently than I can. That the law is constitutional is best illustrated by the fact that—until recently—the Obama administration expended almost no energy defending it. Back when the bill passed Nancy Pelosi famously reacted to questions about its constitutionality with the words, “Are you serious?” And the fact that the Obama administration rushed the case to the Supreme Court in an election year is all the evidence you need to understand that they remain confident in their prospects. The law is a completely valid exercise of Congress’ Commerce Clause power, and all the conservative longing for the good old days of the pre-New Deal courts won’t put us back in those days as if by magic. Nor does it amount to much of an argument.

Only an idiot or a politician could have written those words, and Lithwick isn't an idiot, despite how idiotic her statement is. The Obama administration spent little energy defending it because it does not believe in federalism. To them, Wickard, instead of being a controversial outer limit of Congressional power under the Commerce Clause, is an uncontroversial item well within the powers of the Federal Government. That's why it was the conservatives and libertarians, not the liberals, on the Supreme Court that supported medical marijuana.

Instead of a rational legal argument, Lithwick wants to paint this entirely in political terms. Frankly, this is the equivalent of saying that something controversial is "clearly" true, which I'll bet that most of us have done at least once or twice in college-level papers where we don't have the time or the skill to prove something.

But Lithwick also defers to Linda Greenhouse's argument, so let's see what she has to say in presenting the case:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/never-before/?scp=6&sq=health%20care&st=cse

Free of convention, and fresh from reading the main briefs in the case to be argued before the Supreme Court next week, I’m here to tell you: that belief is simply wrong. The constitutional challenge to the law’s requirement for people to buy health insurance — specifically, the argument that the mandate exceeds Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause — is rhetorically powerful but analytically so weak that it dissolves on close inspection. There’s just no there there. . . .

So I want to unpack the challengers’ Commerce Clause argument for what it is: just words.

Basically just one word, in fact: “unprecedented.” . . . If the commerce power extends to backyard marijuana growing (as it did to backyard wheat growing in the famous New Deal case of Wickard v. Filburn), the notion that Congress somehow lacks the power to regulate, restructure or basically do whatever it wants in the health care sector, which accounts for 17 percent of the gross domestic product, is far-fetched on its face.

In other words, Greenhouse's argument comes down to this: if Wickard was OK, then anything goes. I personally don't think the court will buy that, because that's at odds with its recent statements that Wickard stands at the far limit of Congressional power.

In fact, to show how much precedent matters (despite Greenhouse's moronic statement that "unprecedented" is "just words") --- I'll bet that no one, not even Obama, would believe that this law was OK if Wickard wasn't on the books. So precedent does matter -- and Greenhouse knows that but refuses to make a serious case for her own political reasons, which are similar to Lithwick's.

Here's what I think will happen, but this is little more than a guess.

Issue 1: the court will reverse the opinion of the one circuit that ruled that no one would have standing until 2014 to challenge the law.
Issue 2: the court, by a 5-4 margin, will strike down the purchase mandate.
Issue 3: the court will nevertheless uphold the rest of Obamacare, despite striking the purchase mandate, under the normal rule that only the constitutionally infirm positions are nullified.
Issue 4: the court will rule that Obamacare's coercion goes beyond the limits of South Dakota v. Dole and will strike several of the law's proposed reductions in state aid on federalism grounds. As I said before, to show how the tide has shifted on federalism, the vote on South Dakota v. Dole was 7-2 approving of virtually any law that Congress required the states to pass or lose federal aid. Frankly, I'd like to see the current court take such a jaundiced view of these laws that it even reverses South Dakota v. Dole, but I'll take whatever I can get (considering that the only member of the current court who heard that case was Scalia, and he voted IN FAVOR of federal coercion at the time).

And your guess is probably as good as mine.

"Day 1"
Posted by AyaK on 03-26-12 at 02:30 PM
91-page transcript. Interestingly, on this issue, both the government and the challengers agreed that the Anti-Injunction Act did not apply, but the 4th Circuit had held that it did -- and so the Supreme Court had to appoint special counsel to argue the 4th Circuit's position.

(Note: The issue of standing is an issue that a court can bring up sua sponte (on its own initiative), which is how it arose in this case without other side raising it.)

Transcript of Day 1 argument

Audio of Day 1 argument (need mp3 player)

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 03-27-12 at 02:26 PM
It's premature and probably not too smart to try to read the mind of the court as a whole right now based on the reported dialog, but since I am not really all that smart...it does seem as if it was pretty united in deciding that the case can and should be heard (day 1), and divided on the day two decision, slightly leaning to declaring the purchase mandate unconstitutional(day2).

Sometime in June the real decision will be revealed, they say.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 03-28-12 at 03:30 PM
The court releases all of its decisions from the cases heard during the 2011-2012 term by June 30, 2012.

This case should be no different.

"Transcripts"
Posted by AyaK on 03-28-12 at 09:07 PM
The transcripts were fascinating. Paul Clement upheld the reputation of former solicitors general as wonderful advocates. By Wednesday, it seemed as though the four liberal justices were the only ones still trying to defend the rotting carcass of Obamacare, because the current solicitor general, Donald Verrilli, was totally outclassed by Clement.

Naturally, the Obama White House, which has been wrong so often about so much, disagrees:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/03/28/10908784-white-house-defends-solicitor-generals-performance-before-court

Here are Tuesday's links:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-398-Tuesday

Here are Wednesday morning's links:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-393

And here are Wednesday afternoon's links, culminating with the solicitor general appealing to the justices' emotions (which seemed like an admission that he knew he'd lost on both the facts and the law -- the old legal maxim is, "when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table", and his conclusion seemed like table-pounding to me):
http://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_audio_detail.aspx?argument=11-400

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by Estee on 03-28-12 at 09:13 PM
"when the facts are on your side, pound the facts; when the law is on your side, pound the law; when neither is on your side, pound the table"

Having recently completed jury duty, I'll attest to this.

American politics: the table is all that's left. In fragments.

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by ginger on 03-29-12 at 03:58 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-29-12 AT 03:58 PM (EST)

"There is a market for health care. It’s a coordinated market. A heavily regulated market. Is Congress creating the market in order to regulate it? It’s not creating it! The market is there! Is it forcing people into it in order to regulate them? In every five-year period, 95 percent of the population is in the health-care market. Now, it’s not 100 percent, but I’d say that’s close enough for government work. And in any one year, it’s close to 85 percent. Congress isn’t forcing people into that market to regulate them. The whole thing is just a canard that’s been invented by the tea party and Randy Barnetts of the world, and I was astonished to hear it coming out of the mouths of the people on that bench."

Charles Fried
Former US Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan
Constitutional Scholar
Harvard Professor



"If you believe that the right of a fetus to be born is more important than any right the woman carrying the child might have, but do not believe in making sure that every child has access to adequate health care, education, or any of the other basic needs an individual requires to become a functioning, capable, productive member of society, then you are NOT pro-life. You’re just pro-birth." -- Devious Weasel

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by ginger on 03-29-12 at 03:59 PM
"What Chief Justice John Marshall said in 1824 is that if something is within the power of Congress, Congress may exercise that power to its fullest extent. So the question is really whether this is in the power of Congress.

Now, is it within the power of Congress? Well, the power of Congress is to regulate interstate commerce. Is health care commerce among the states? Nobody except maybe Clarence Thomas doubts that. So health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.

Here’s another thing Marshall said. To regulate is “to make the rule for.” Does this make a rule for commerce? Yes!"

Charles Fried
Former US Solicitor General under Ronald Reagan
Constitutional Scholar
Harvard Professor


"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by kingfish on 03-29-12 at 05:34 PM
LAST EDITED ON 03-29-12 AT 05:46 PM (EST)

Nice selective quoting. But it's not the end of the story. We'll see the next chapter in June. Then you will be able to add quotes from this court. Perhaps Scalia or Roberts, two actual SC Judges (it would be nice to be able to quote an actual majority opinion SC Judge, wouldn't it?) will have words that you can use in the future.

I sentence you to buy Broccoli!.

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by ginger on 04-04-12 at 02:38 PM
I found the opinion of a Constitutional scholar and attorney of several decades, a Republican, who served at the highest level of Reagan's federal legal wing, to be illuminating; presumably, you cannot accuse him of having a pro-Democrat bias.

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by kingfish on 04-04-12 at 03:24 PM
You're presupposing that I'm accusing him of a bias?

Two selected opinions that agree with what seems to be your bias isn't illuminating for me.

Are there Democrats that disagree with Fried? Are there other Constitutional scholars and/or attorneys that agree with Fried? What do they have to say?

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by AyaK on 04-04-12 at 07:27 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-04-12 AT 07:31 PM (EST)

You have to remember that Fried is the solicitor general who lost the horrific Dole v. South Dakota case, which allowed Congress to set a national drinking age of 21. How? My speculation, from listening to him in class, is that Fried does not actually believe in federalism.

Here's an example, which Scalia discussed in the transcript: Fried told Congress that it had the power to pass a law to require everyone to buy vegetables. Yes, even broccoli.

Harvard Law's Fried: A Broccoli Mandate is Constitutional

BTW, Fried was an Obama supporter in 2008. But I don't think his view was influenced by that. I just don't think he really believes in federalism.

The only two liberals that I saw even acknowledge the case that Obamacare's individual mandate was unconstitutional were not lawyers: Howard Dean (who is a doctor, not a lawyer) and Paul Starr of Princeton (who studied law at Yale but has a Ph.D in sociology, not law). Here was Starr's comment:

The Mandate Miscalculation

<In 1993>, the Supreme Court also set no effective limits on the use of the interstate commerce clause as a basis of federal authority. But . . . things have changed since then. . . . <B>eginning in 1995, the Court set limits on the application of the commerce clause. . . . <T>he Court’s general movement in restricting use of the commerce clause should have made Democrats wary of resting the mandate’s constitutionality primarily on that basis when they could almost certainly have made the law bulletproof by framing it unambiguously under the taxing power of Congress. In one alternative, for example, the law could have imposed a tax to pay for health care, while providing an offsetting credit to those with insurance. The effect would have been identical to the mandate. To congressional Democrats, however, the use of a tax was politically inconceivable.

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by AyaK on 03-29-12 at 09:10 PM
I had Charles Fried for Con Law at HLS. As usual, he's wrong.

In fact, I could give you a whole list of cases in which Fried was full of hooey, but I'll settle for two:

http://masscases.com/cases/sjc/422/422mass126.html
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1056001.html

I'm happy to discuss the travesty of each of these cases. At length, even.

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by ginger on 04-04-12 at 02:48 PM
I'll pass.



I remember you explaining why McCarthyism was actually a good idea, at great length.

And the calm reasoning involved in statement about Obama being the worst president ever, and his goal being to destroy America? Yeah, about that.

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by AyaK on 04-04-12 at 04:22 PM
>I remember you explaining why McCarthyism was actually a good idea,
>at great length.

I don't think so. I remember saying that McCarthyism was an inaacurate name for the Communist scare of the 1950s, which was actually a partisan effort by Republicans to smear Democrats, but I don't remember ever stating that witch hunts or blacklists against supposed onetime Communists "was actually a good idea."

In fact, Joe McCarthy would probably be proud of you for having made that charge at someone from the other party.

>And the calm reasoning involved in statement about Obama being the
>worst president ever, and his goal being to destroy America?

I may well have posted that. But, actually, James Buchanan is still the worst President ever, because he almost succeeded in destroying America. Obama hasn't reached that level. Yet.

But I doubt Obama's goal is actually to destroy America. That would imply that he's competent enough to achieve a goal. Instead, I think his real goal is to play golf at fancy country clubs 365 days a year.

"RE: Transcripts"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-04-12 at 04:27 PM
I think his real goal is to play golf at fancy country clubs 365 days a year.

I disagree, but if it were his goal, wouldn't it have been simpler and quicker for him to just kill his wife and then try to get away in a white Bronco?

"Obama: open mouth, insert foot"
Posted by AyaK on 04-03-12 at 08:13 PM
Proving once again that this country in in the very best of hands, former constitutional law instructor Barack Obama yesterday showed that he knows nothing about the subject. You have to feel sorry for the people who paid big bucks to go to an elite law school and got stuck with him.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/02/us-obama-healthcare-idUSBRE8310WP20120402

"Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress," Obama said at a news conference with the leaders of Canada and Mexico.

Ignoring Obama's hyperbolic description of a 219-212 vote in the House as being a "strong majority", any real law-school graduate would know (apparently unless you had Obama for Con Law) that the Supreme Court has been overturning laws passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, when the Supreme Court struck down part of the Judiciary Act of 1789, which was one of the first bills passed by the first Congress (and which passed by a lot bigger majority than 50.8% to 49.2%). What Obama claimed to be "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" has actually been one of the primary activities of the Supreme Court for almost its entire life.

Obama tried to carefully skate around his blunder in answer to a reporter's question today:

Reporter: "Mr. President, you said yesterday that it would be 'unprecedented' for a Supreme Court to overturn laws passed by an elected Congress. But that is exactly what the court's done during its entire existence. If the court were to overturn the individual mandate, what would you do, or propose to do, for the 30 million people who wouldn't have health care after that ruling?"

Obama: "Well, first of all, let me be very specific. Um <pause>, we have not seen a court overturn <pause> a <pause> law that was passed <pause> by Congress on <pause> a <pause> economic issue, like health care, that I think most people would clearly consider commerce. A law like that has not been overturned <pause> at least since Lochner, right? So we're going back to the '30s, pre-New Deal."

However, the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals decided that it wanted to determine whether Obama's statement represented the current view of his administration.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.

The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. . . . The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.

The court order makes sense only if you believe that Obama is competent. By now, most of America should know better.

"RE: Obama: open mouth, insert foot"
Posted by bondt007 on 04-04-12 at 02:04 PM
Fortunately, in order to call Obama out on how ridiculous he really is, the national media, entertainment industry, OT, talk shows, comedians, etc., etc.; caught this and it’s getting a fair amount of play -
<cricket>


"RE: Obama: open mouth, insert foot"
Posted by samboohoo on 04-04-12 at 03:31 PM
Kind of like when he told the GOP to "go to the back of the bus>'

*eyeroll*


Samboobree, brought to life by Arkie


"RE: Obama: open mouth, insert foot"
Posted by AyaK on 04-04-12 at 08:23 PM
Is this story a reference to Obama-Biden 2012?

Original 'Dumb & Dumber' duo signed on for sequel

"The Explanation"
Posted by dabo on 04-04-12 at 07:22 PM
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/carney-obamas-comments-to-supreme-court-reverse-of-intimidation/

“He certainly was not contending that the Supreme Court doesn’t have as its right and responsibility to overturn laws passed by Congress as unconstitutional,” Carney said during a fiery exchange with White House reporters. ”He was referring to 85 years of judicial precedent, of Supreme Court precedent, with regard to matters like the one under consideration.”

...

“His point about Congress was simply that the Supreme Court, since the New Deal, has deferred to the legislature, those who are elected by people around the country, to write laws for them and, in this matter, on matters of national economic importance, to pass laws that regulate the economy and regulate areas of the economy like our health care market,” he said.

So, who wants to research every SCOTUS decision since the New Deal? Where can I find an exact transcript of President Obama's original statement?

"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by AyaK on 04-04-12 at 07:42 PM
Transcript:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/04/02/joint-press-conference-president-obama-president-calderon-mexico-and-pri

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected 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.

This should put paid to Carney's attempts to whitewash Obama's stunning lack of knowledge about Marbury v. Madison.

"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by KeithFan on 04-04-12 at 09:32 PM
I'm sure for someone in your position Obama's lecturing everyone on this subject has to be about as frustrating as herding cats. But he's not playing to the likes of you here. As long as The Chosen One speaks it there is a scarily large percentage of people who will believe it, and an even larger percentage of the media that will carry his water for him, like Maurine Dowd

At this point for Obama it's all about how many votes he can save/gain, regardless of what is true.



Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan

"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by dabo on 04-04-12 at 09:39 PM
I see. Full comments

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Outstanding.

All right, I think that we’re going to take a question from each press delegation. So I’ll start with Julianna.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. After last week’s arguments at the Supreme Court, many experts believe that there could be a majority, a five-member majority, to strike down the individual mandate. And if that were to happen, if it were to be ruled unconstitutional, how would you still guarantee health care to the uninsured and those Americans who've become insured as a result of the law?

And then a President for President Calderón and Prime Minister Harper. Over the weekend, Governor Mitt Romney said that the U.S. used to promote free enterprise around the world, and he said, “Our President doesn’t have the same feelings about American exceptionalism that we do, and I think over the last three or four years, some people around the world have begun to question that.” My question to the both of you is whether you think that American influence has declined over the last three to four years.

And, President Obama, if you’d like to respond to that, too.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, on the second part of your question, it’s still primary season for the Republican Party. They're going to make a decision about who their candidate will be.

It’s worth noting that I first arrived on the national stage with a speech at the Democratic Convention that was entirely about American exceptionalism, and that my entire career has been a testimony to American exceptionalism. But I will cut folks some slack for now because they're still trying to get their nomination.

With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.

I think it’s important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.

The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That's part of this law.

Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.

So that’s just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.

And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected 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.

Q You say it's not an abstract conversation. Do you have contingency plans?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I'm sorry. As I said, we are confident that this will be over -- that this will be upheld. I’m confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld. And, again, that’s not just my opinion; that’s the opinion of a whole lot of constitutional law professors and academics and judges and lawyers who have examined this law, even if they're not particularly sympathetic to this particular piece of legislation or my presidency.

It makes more sense in light of the full remarks, portions of the law are already in effect, having positive impact in various regards, and it actually would be disruptive for the court to strike down active legislation. From something I read ages ago, when Roberts was first announced for Chief Justice, he would be wary of overturning the acting portions of the law.

Interesting.

Yes, though, President Obama did choose his words poorly in the portion extracted for Obama bashing purposes and media funtimes.

"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-05-12 at 08:09 AM
It makes more sense in light of the full remarks, portions of the law are already in effect, having positive impact in various regards, and it actually would be disruptive for the court to strike down active legislation.

Even after reading the full context, I see nothing there that would qualify as (or even hint at) a legal basis for upholding this law. 'Beneficial' and 'disruptive' don't cut it. We are a nation founded on the rule of law based in the Constitution, not mob rule.


U.S. Government: Doing everything you used to do yourself for you since 2008.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by dabo on 04-05-12 at 12:11 PM
Be that as it may, SCOTUS does as SCOTUS decides. And the Justices do take their job very seriously, should not be affected by political nonsense into a "we'll show him" position in their deliberations.

Chief Justice Roberts, while conservative, is practical on matters of active law, and may be reluctant to overturn those portions of Obamamcare that are active and beneficial. Not that he should be affected by what Obama said, but that these matters should be part of the deliberations anyway.

And in context of the Q&A Obama is actually making an assessment that, in his opinion, the good portions of the healthcare initiative should not be thrown out. Not as well worded as it should have been, but hardly the assualt on SCOTUS that appeared in the media storm.

"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by AyaK on 04-05-12 at 12:03 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-05-12 AT 12:07 PM (EST)

Here's the paragraph before the one that I quoted before:

And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

The only way I can read this statement is a claim that this is a political debate, not a legal debate, and the Supreme Court should take that into account.

Obama's statement is probably correct politically, but that's immaterial legally.

Then let's look at this, which is his lead paragraph.

With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.

I searched Judge Silberman's DC Circuit opinion (the only conservative appellate court judge that wrote an opinion upholding Obamacare) in vain for the phrase "close case". What I saw was a discussion about both the government's argument and the plaintiff's argument being novel (pp. 29-33)

http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/DC-aca-opinion.pdf

Judge Silverman takes the approach that the Wickard v. Filburn case gives Congress an unlimited Commerce Clause jurisdiction, even though that he admits that is not what the Constitution specifies for Commerce Clause power, and the only precedents drawing back Wickard are not the same as this case (since both parties are making novel arguments here). Perhaps someone with no legal knowledge would read that to mean that this "wasn't even a close case." But no constituitonal lawyer would do that.

Sorry, the full quote doesn't make Obama seem any more knowledgeable of a lawyer than the last paragraph of the quote does.

"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by ginger on 04-05-12 at 05:51 PM
It's a little like the famous, often quoted line of Pelosi's - I get this from Republicans a lot - "we'll have to read it to see what's in it."

The full quote is -

“You've heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don't know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention-it's about diet, not diabetes. It's going to be very, very exciting. But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.”

So the oft-used initial quote is technically accurate, but it would be more accurate to say that she was pointing out that the hyperbole surrounding the bill and its passage was obscuring the facts of what is in the bill, what it is intended to do, and what it will accomplish - a completely appropriate statement.


"RE: The Explanation"
Posted by AyaK on 04-05-12 at 08:53 PM
I completely agree about Rep. Pelosi's quote, which was ripped out of context in an effort to smear the Obamacare bill.

But there's a significant difference between her quote and Obama's. Pelosi's quote had to be taken out of context to be used against her. Obama's is ludicrous in context.

I think what Obama was trying to do was sound like the conservatives who whine when courts strike down their legislation, but he just doesn't understand the conservative arguments well enough to echo them. It wasn't until he demonstrated hius inability to articulate the argument that his friends and aides had to bail him out.

For example, look at the otherwise-dumb screed by the Family Research Council about DOMA:

http://www.frc.org/pressrelease/frc-praises-house-of-representatives-for-affirming-defense-of-marriage-act

Note how the FRC states that the House vote "sends a clear signal to the courts" and accuses DOJ and the courts of "judicial activism" without ever saying that the courts don't have the power to strike the bill dead (which, thank heavens, they are doing)? I think that's what Obama was trying to do, but it came out like a tone-deaf man composing music.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by KeithFan on 04-05-12 at 00:30 AM
So lemme get this straight.

Obama is mad at the Supremes for considering the constitutionality of Obamacare, but it's ok for the Administration to do the same on the DOM act? (Not arguing the validity of the act)

So Obama wants to control all 3 branches of government? Good thing he IS the chosen one.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by dabo on 04-05-12 at 01:05 AM
No, you don't have it straight.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by bondt007 on 04-05-12 at 03:05 PM
Yes - that seems correct to me...



"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 04-05-12 at 05:24 PM
Boy, I've never heard W complain about the leftist activist on the Court, never heard Gingrich say he wanted to wipe out certain courts or call them before Congress on rulings he didn't agree with, never heard a TX Senator say some ruling may lead to violence in the court room, never hear a pub say anything bad about activist judges.

Nope, never happen. Both side do it. Here in Michigan the Pubs control all 3 branches and the SC here has made very political bias rulings upholding all sorts of tricks and retro laws as paybacks. The Dems did the same thing when they controlled the courts here. They all suck! So take off your blinders and look around.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by ginger on 04-05-12 at 05:54 PM
"...I am confident that the Supreme Court will not... overturn law..."

is not the same as

"the Supreme Court does not have the authority to overturn this law."


"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 04-05-12 at 08:20 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-06-12 AT 10:34 AM (EST)

You know I'm not lawyer so I'm not evening going to get into the Constitutionality of it because I just don't know enough about it.

What I do know if we are turning into the haves and the have nots. The US use to be a place where if you were poor you still had good schools so you could be more, you had caring doctors who took care of everyone and they handled the bills, what test were needed, how long he/she sat and talked, etc. It was a place where you could come up with something new and make it big. You lived and played by the rules and you had a good life that you wanted. If you wanted to be a worker you still could be middle class. If you wanted more, hard work and a brain would pay off.

Now, it's greed. Make your money now and damn the future and those under you. You've got yours who cares about the rest of the company and the workers. Cut, cut, and cut more in the name of profit so Wall Street will be happy, the board will be happy and you'll have so much money that you and your next 12 generations can live like kings. Cut corner, lie, cheat, steal, make it political, make clicks, etc. We've done it to ourselves too as we wanted all things cheap, fast, and disposable. So it feed the greed machine and jobs went to Mexico first, then SE Asia and finally China. We have high gas prices but we ship 2.9 million barrels of oil and refined products out everyday. Free enterprise....the market has set the price that is now over 50% speculation built into it.

All the while Dems and Pubs divide and make one side hate the other. We break into our groups and tear into each other leaving a wake of distrust and pain.

If the Pubs win in the November god help us because I've seen what they've done here in Michigan but the Dems are no different. All out for them and not out for the greater good. There is no solutions only sound bites as they prep for the next elections.

We are all truly screwed.



sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 04-06-12 at 08:09 PM
I don't want to blow past this discussion; I'm just not sure that I can spend the time to do justice to it.

What I do know if we are turning into the haves and the have nots. The US use to be a place where if you were poor you still had good schools so you could be more, you had caring doctors who took care of everyone and they handled the bills, what test were needed, how long he/she sat and talked, etc. It was a place where you could come up with something new and make it big. You lived and played by the rules and you had a good life that you wanted. If you wanted to be a worker you still could be middle class. If you wanted more, hard work and a brain would pay off.

I disagree, but not for the reason you might think. First, I'd contend that, except for a small period in U.S. history, this has ALWAYS been a nation of the haves and have-nots, with people motivated primarily by greed. That's why the "robber barons" came along. That's why we had the terrible working conditions of the pre-WWI era that turned a number of otherwise regular Americans into Communists.

The factor that changed things for Hobbs' idyllic period was the back-to-back blasts of the Great Depression and WWII. The Great Depression eliminated a lot of the gap between rich and poor by wiping out a number of fortunes. And WWII eliminated the normal gap between rich and poor in the army because of universal conscription. As a result, we had a new American dream: one of shared sacrifice, because (frankly) America (at least in its own mind) almost lost WWII and only survived because everyone pulled together.

By the era of Vietnam, universal conscription was gone (see "Bush, George W." or "Cheney, Richard"), and soon all conscription would be gone -- and that sense of shared sacrifice disappeared along with it.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 04-11-12 at 10:23 AM
Yes, you are right I should have stated during my lifetime weer we seemed to have moved pass the haves and the haves not. We were seeming growing together and healing some of the Vietnam, racial, women liberty/issues, etc. wounds that were very deep.

But we have so many who want to go back to "those great years" it's scary to me that we would want to go backwards instead of growing into a much greater country.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 04-05-12 at 08:59 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-05-12 AT 09:00 PM (EST)

>"...I am confident that the Supreme
>Court will not... overturn
>law..."
>
>is not the same as
>
>"the Supreme Court does not have
>the authority to overturn this
>law."

That's a straw man argument, because no one (except maybe you) is arguing that Obama said your second quote.

Obama said two things, as the transcript shows. Your first quote is accurate, and it's a statement of opinion. Obama's second quote was that it would be unprecedented for the Supreme Court to strike down a law passed with a strong majority of Congress, and that is a blatantly false statement of fact.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by ginger on 04-06-12 at 05:22 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-06-12 AT 05:23 PM (EST)

"The "unprecedented, extraordinary" step he noted the justices would be taking if they were to overturn the Affordable Care Act was, of course, not the step of exercising judicial review, as the court has done ever since Marbury v. Madison in 1803, but the step of second-guessing congressional judgments about how best to regulate a vast segment of the national economy. No one in the world -- certainly none of the justices -- can have been surprised to learn that Obama believes his signature domestic achievement fully complies with the Constitution and ought to be upheld -- or that the Supreme Court has a decades-old tradition of treading lightly when major regulations of interstate commerce come before it.

I was among those who took that view while others suggested that, as the entire nation continues to discuss the constitutionality of a vital economic measure, artificially muzzling the nation's chief executive ill serves the purposes of open public debate on important issues.

That's something about which people can reasonably differ. But there's no reasonable basis for seeing in the president's comments either a challenge to the court's authority as an independent branch of government or a clumsy attempt to pressure it politically or to influence its deliberations."

Laurence H. Tribe



"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 04-06-12 at 07:12 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-07-12 AT 01:12 PM (EST)

Like I said, Obama's buddies are trying to find ways to paper over his ignorance.

"But there's no reasonable basis for seeing in the president's comments either a challenge to the court's authority as an independent branch of government or a clumsy attempt to pressure it politically or to influence its deliberations."

I agree with both prongs of this statement. Because the court has already voted on the case, attempts at political pressure are futile. I also agree that Obama wasn't trying to challenge the court's authority; he was just showing that he didn't understand that it frequently uses that authority.

"No one in the world -- certainly none of the justices -- can have been surprised to learn that Obama believes his signature domestic achievement fully complies with the Constitution and ought to be upheld -- or that the Supreme Court has a decades-old tradition of treading lightly when major regulations of interstate commerce come before it."

Again, two prongs. Tribe is certainly correct that no one should be surprised about any Obama belief. For all we know, Obama believes that the world is flat and that the moon is made of green cheese.

Tribe is less correct on the second point, though. I think most health-care spending is intrastate spending, and the Constitution doesn't give Congress any authority over intrastate spending. Congress's authority over intrastate spending comes entirely from the Supreme Court decision in Wickard v. Filburn, which I firmly believe to have been wrongly decided (as did at least four different Supreme Court justices within the last decade).

Basically, this prong of Tribe's argument comes down to: "Judiciary branch, you've rolled over for the executive branch in the past, so keep rolling over." I doubt the Supreme Court is likely to do that, especially when supporters of Obamacare (such as Charles Fried) point out that a yes vote on Obamacare equals agreement that there are no limits on federal power to mandate commerce.

Personally, I'm waiting for Obama to force everyone to buy his last crappy book.

"ABA President speaks"
Posted by AyaK on 04-09-12 at 09:35 AM
In case anyone is inclined to give Larry Tribe's comments any credibility other than that of a rabid partisan:

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/office_president/robinsonstatementobamaonhealthcare.authcheckdam.pdf

President Barack Obama’s remarks on Monday speculating about the Supreme Court’s potential decision in the health care legislation appeal are troubling. Particularly worrisome was his suggestion that the court’s decision in this case could serve as a “good example” of what some commentators have cited as “judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint” by an “unelected group of people.”

We’re gratified that the president recast his remarks Tuesday. He clarified appropriately that “the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it.” .
* * * *

The legitimacy of judicial review was settled more than 200 years ago in the landmark case Marbury v. Madison, which established such review as a key safeguard of the separation of powers doctrine. The Framers of our Constitution clearly understood that an independent judiciary is critical to the maintenance of our democracy and freedom.

It is incumbent on all of our elected officials—including those aspiring to hold office—to continually demonstrate that the courtroom is not a political arena. It is a measure of a free society that individuals are able to openly disagree with court decisions, but we should expect our leaders to refrain from partisan statements aimed at judges fulfilling their constitutional role and responsibilities.

Wm. T. (Bill) Robinson III
President, ABA

"AyaK's blunder"
Posted by AyaK on 04-06-12 at 06:52 PM
I'm not amending my previous post, because I need to admit that I am wrong in the previous post. Although most people understood Obama's quote, someone WAS asserting that Obama had said that he didn't believe the judiciary had the power to strike down unconstitutional legislation -- 5th Circuit Judge Jerry Smith, discussed above.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/judge-demands-obama-pledge-allegiance-to-federal-courts/

“I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday… a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General in the Department of Justice in regard to the recent statements by the President — stating specifically, and in detailed reference to those statements, what the authority is in the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review,” Smith told a government lawyer in a recording of the hearing released by the court.

Bleh.

"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by ginger on 04-09-12 at 04:10 PM
You should put all of this time and energy and analysis you spend being unhappy about Obama and put it into advancing your legal career. You could be crafting precedent instead of moderating chatrooms.

On the other hand, having just checked out some commentary in the local paper, it is certainly refreshing to read comments about Obama that do not contain any of the following words:

Soros
Communist
Wright
Terrorist
Racist
Socialist
Ayres
Traitor
Liar
Muslim
Muslin
Messiah
Hitler


"If you believe that the right of a fetus to be born is more important than any right the woman carrying the child might have, but do not believe in making sure that every child has access to adequate health care, education, or any of the other basic needs an individual requires to become a functioning, capable, productive member of society, then you are NOT pro-life. You’re just pro-birth." -- Devious Weasel

"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by AyaK on 04-09-12 at 04:27 PM
Actually, I was recently responsible for an important precedent in a tax case, but you're still probably right!
"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by kingfish on 04-09-12 at 10:17 PM
There's also an argument to be made for not wasting time trying to invent justifications and googling biased quotes to support a failed president.
"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by ginger on 04-10-12 at 12:43 PM
LAST EDITED ON 04-10-12 AT 12:44 PM (EST)

Reagan's Republican chief solicitor is a "biased quote" because he believes HRC to be constitutional? I quoted him because he's been a lawyer and a constitutional scholar for fifty years or so and, combined with his right wing background, I thought his opinion might be more credible than mine, or the opinion of a nonRepublican constitutional scholar who not so obviously trusted by Ronald Reagan.

Sometimes other people express the constitutional arguments much better than I can. Even longtime Republican Reagan cronies.

As for failed presidency, it is always amusing to hear that from people who voted for W, twice. Obama ain't perfect but we're better off than we were in 2008.


"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 12:57 PM
I agree with ginger regarding Charles Fried's quote. While he and I don't agree on several issues (and have disagreed face-to-face on some of them, ranging from finality vs. fairness in court decisions to federalism vs. centralization in U.S. government), I'd never accuse Fried of uttering a biased quote.

He's stating what he believes, and his beliefs are internally consistent. Whether they're correct or not on Obamacare depends upon your own position on federalism vs. centralization, but that's not a question of partisan bias.

"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by kingfish on 04-13-12 at 08:52 PM
OK then, quotes selected to "stick it" to the Republicans, if you prefer (and be honest now, it wasn't for "eloquence" that you selected those quotes), along with invented arguments, and now invented voting records (or to whom is it you are referring?).

Obama sure isn't perfect, and as a result, we are in a much worse position than we were in 2008.

"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by Starshine on 04-10-12 at 03:29 AM
Yeah we need to do something about all this darned muslin, it's a terrorist plot that I can't get my stocks crystal clear
"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by kingfish on 04-10-12 at 09:20 AM
Mecca my socksa clean!
"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by Starshine on 04-10-12 at 09:53 AM
Ya don't Ayers them long enough!
"RE: AyaK's blunder"
Posted by newsomewayne on 04-10-12 at 10:28 AM
Terrorist no reason for complaint if beink done for you!
"Anyway"
Posted by dabo on 04-10-12 at 12:13 PM
So, what are the possible outcomes of all this? Place your bets!

1. Law upheld in entirety with up to four dissenting opinions.

2. Portion of law found unconstitutional, remainder left standing, multiple decisions and multiple opinions.

3. Entire law thrown out. I think this unlikely but made possible by the failure of Congress to provide for the possibility that a portion of the bill could be found unconstitutional but the remainder could be left standing.

4. Judicial activism. Portions of law found unconstitutional ordered rewritten by SCOTUS into a constitutional framework as guided. And the country spends the next 100 years contending with the previously failed government option, ie. we end up with a one provider system within ten years as private enterprise removes itself from the medical insurance business.

Yeah, right. I don't really consider this much of a probability, mainly because counsel for the administration did such an abysmal job on the brocolli issue, which I think was plainly not equitable in the analogy but the point really wasn't made in arguments.

5. Decision defered and returned to lower courts for bickering. BWUAAA-HAHAHAHAHAAAAAAA!

Seriously, four years ago I never would have thought the Swiss version of universal coverage, mandating that everyone buy thier own health insurance, would have been the option approved by Congress. Any Congress regardless of its composition. On the other hand I never would have predicted then that the Pubs would be such universal stick in the muds that they would almost universally refuse to participate in the process of crafting a healthcare reform law, and they don't deserve any rewards for being such do-nothings. They don't like what was passed, well screw 'em they didn't participate in trying to make things better anyway.

6. Other (explain).

I am here not out to predict what SCOTUS will decide, though I do think there will be multiple decisions resulting in one majority opinion and various dissenting opinions both right and left, which will confuse the course of things for many years to come.

In the end my philosophy of government descends not to what is constitutional but to what is right and good in terms of a "more perfect union." I admit that freely, in my opinion government is and should be working for the people. We are a progressive nation always seeking what is better than before. Improving towards perfection yet unattained.

"RE: Anyway"
Posted by AyaK on 04-10-12 at 01:09 PM
For various reasons, I'm unable to offer any thoughts about the Supreme Court decision here. But I do want to comment on this:

On the other hand I never would have predicted then that the Pubs would be such universal stick in the muds that they would almost universally refuse to participate in the process of crafting a healthcare reform law, and they don't deserve any rewards for being such do-nothings. They don't like what was passed, well screw 'em they didn't participate in trying to make things better anyway.

For years, Max Baucus (D-MT) and Charles Grassley (R-IA) had worked together in the Senate Finance Committee to craft compromise legislation that would pass with bipartisan majorities. That was the original intent on healthcare, as well. However, the way it worked out was the Obama told Baucus what was going to be in the bill, and Baucus has no option but to present it to Grassley on a "take-it-or-leave-it" basis.

Until Obama, I never thought anyone could break up the Baucus-Grassley pairing. But Baucus had little flexibility as a result of leadership pressure, and then the shift in public opinion left Grassley with little flexibility as well.

"RE: Anyway"
Posted by dabo on 04-11-12 at 12:51 PM
Granted, the Dems don't come out of it all squeaky clean. The shame is that with some more time and effort they could have crafted the healthcare initiative in a better form, at least one that would have not been as easy to challenge on Constitutional grounds. But the president wanted his landmark accomplishment, applied a lot of pressure on even the more reasonable members of his own party.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by cahaya on 06-25-12 at 07:01 PM
The ruling should come out soon this week.

Meanwhile the Arizona (and other states) immigration laws are effectively struck down except for the more onerous provision of having to proof of citizenship or a visa while being questioned by local law authorities.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 06-25-12 at 07:16 PM
LAST EDITED ON 06-25-12 AT 07:19 PM (EST)

Relocating to a more apropos thread.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 06-25-12 at 07:25 PM
except for the more onerous provision of having to proof of citizenship or a visa while being questioned by local law authorities

Considering that federal law already mandates that, why is it more onerous?

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by cahaya on 06-25-12 at 07:37 PM
While the federal law permits the requirement of proof of citizenship or an entry visa (and the wording may be different in the federal law, I haven't looked it up), there is considerable latitude given here in the states' power to determine under what circumstances such proof is required. And what circumstances are those? A felony crime? A misdemeanor? A spurious traffic stop because the officer didn't like the looks of the driver? A parent seeing their kid off who didn't look like they "belonged" board a school bus?

This line was left open. And sure, it may ferret out those who don't belong here, but it will also subject those who actually do belong here to interrogation when it is unwarranted.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 06-26-12 at 00:45 AM
it will also subject those who actually do belong here to interrogation when it is unwarranted.

Doesn't any law do that? If I pass a law, as the US has done, that requires resident aliens to carry proof of legal residency in the US at all times, how could I possibly enforce that law without checking people who are not resident aliens?

The balancing factor is that the period of detention is limited, because the police are only permitted to do Terry stops when they have nothing more than reasonable suspicion to go on. Under federal law, the US government is required to provide an answer on immigration status of any individual within ten minutes. (Part of the Obama administration's argument here was that the federal government under Obama was too incompetent to meet this requirement.) And police are already permitted to do Terry stops for reasonable suspicion of a crime, so this provision isn't even an extension of existing law; it's just a restatement of current law, which is why it had to be approved.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by Starshine on 06-26-12 at 02:35 AM
Thank you AyaK. I couldn't work out how the court could uphold the "check immigration status" bit when the "you must carry papers at all times" provision had been struck down.

"Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 11:35 AM
So. Which wonderful rights-based non-socialist country will y'all be moving to?
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by kingfish on 06-28-12 at 11:54 AM
Romneyland.
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 12:10 PM
I said rights-based, not Rights-based. The two have become mutually exclusive.

*shrug* We're all forced to pay income tax if we make over a certain amount. We're forced to pay school taxes whether we have kids or not. We're forced to pay tolls, tariffs, service charges, tickets for laws that exist only to have tickets issued... What's one more bill? After all, the money not being paid by the richest of us for any of the above will trickle down eventually.

Seriously. Those pennies have to fall out of their loafers sometime.

But overall, what this should mean is that people will not die who otherwise would have been stalled, 'pre-existing condition'ed, or outright turned away. And that would be a net positive -- except that I expect Congress and the red states to turn this into the 1940s Southern equivalent of a black voter literacy test. Go ahead, read that sentence. Sure, it's in German and the person issuing the test can't read it either, but that's not the point. This is the hoop. Jump. And if you get through, there's a lake of fire on the other side.

This could work out for the best -- but it'll be a long fight with thousands of battlegrounds. And I'll be personally disappointed if someone doesn't try to declare mortality as the ultimate pre-existing condition for voiding out the whole thing.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 12:41 PM
LAST EDITED ON 06-28-12 AT 12:47 PM (EST)

The Court determined it was a tax and that is within Congress’ power to enforce. Obama stated on numerous occasions that this was in no way a tax.
ETA
A tax is on something you choose to buy or participate in. You don’t have to drive a car or buy a house. If you choose to do so, you will be taxed.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 12:46 PM
According to urban legend, this is the same government which once determined ketchup was a vegetable -- and locally, is very much in the process of turning sugar into a controlled substance with legal penalties for possession. I'm pretty sure I could get them to declare day as night if I found the right bribe lobbyist. Nothing any part of the system says surprises me any more unless they somehow manage to think. And the last time that happened?

Actually -- and the first time that happened?

So it's a tax. Now the burden shifts to the accountants for finding ways not to pay it.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 12:49 PM
So it's a tax. Now the burden shifts to the accountants for finding ways not to pay it.

Yep. Wonderful progress.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by cahaya on 06-28-12 at 01:11 PM
So now what?

Am I going to see yet another sub-form pop up in Turbo Tax next year, complete with boxes to fill to declare who I (and my family) are ensured by and what our policy numbers are?

Is the IRS actually going to go out and verify this information? Or will they require SS numbers of patients from the insurers and/or the doctors in the medical community to cross check against the tax forms?

How much is this added paperwork going to cost in terms of productivity and time (the taypayer and everyone else) and in terms of money (the processing cost of information to ensure compliance)? Millions, tens of millions, more?

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 01:32 PM
Yes.

Yes.

Lots.

And yet I almost want to turn on Faux News just to see if the set has broken in half.

America is sunk, y'know.

The waves lap at the anchors' feet as they turn to each other and declare "Gentlemen, it's been an honor propagandizing with you."

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 01:46 PM
Ok so maybe I’m an idiot (and that notion has been proposed and enthusiastically endorsed by many) but now Congress can tax me on something I choose not to do?
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 01:57 PM
You can be a total pacifist and your income tax will still go towards military funding -- and then we've got the school taxes for the childless, and so on down the line. We're not exactly in new territory here.

On the other hand, you could always try the A4V gambit.

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/3057/can-i-avoid-paying-a-tax-bill-by-writing-accepted-for-value-on-it

I'm guessing those numbers might be going up.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 02:05 PM
You are correct. But I can choose to generate income, I can choose to buy a house and pay taxes, I can choose to buy a 48 ounce soft drink. But if I choose NOT to buy health insurance I can be taxed?
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 02:10 PM
Believe me, I can hear the state's insurance companies drooling over the legal chance to charge full mandatory auto insurance to non-drivers. This is not comforting territory to be in and the first thing anyone does with a new system is find ways to exploit it. I'm just hoping the holes get filled in as quickly as they open.

Yes, I know that's a lost cause.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 02:42 PM
This decision has certainly opened that door.
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Tummy on 06-28-12 at 03:14 PM
*head tilt

I didn't know you could choose not to have a heart attack, have an appendix rupture, break a leg, ect.

I don't think that argument goes far.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 03:38 PM
Well, you can choose not to be born American...

Or so they keep telling me.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 03:48 PM
I'm sorry Tummy, I just don't see your point. What are you trying to say?
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Tummy on 06-28-12 at 05:00 PM
The way I read your post was that you can choose not to drive a car (hence not pay for insurance) so why should you be penalized or taxed if you choose not to carry insurance. My point is that those that pay tax is paying for catastrophic insurance for those that don't have ins, basically.

If I'm wrong in how I read it my sincere apology.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 06-28-12 at 05:32 PM
LAST EDITED ON 06-28-12 AT 05:34 PM (EST)

That's how I read it as well.

The problem with choosing not to have insurance is when people fall victim to a serious medical problem and they're whisked off to hospital, have an emergency procedure done ... who's going to pay for it if the patient doesn't have insurance or any money? You don't get to 'choose' when to get sick, which is a completely different situation from being able to choose not to drive (and therefore not get automobile insurance).

Frankly, I do not understand all this squabbling over being forced to have health insurance. I believe everyone should, period, and it's much less of a stressor on the mind if you know you're covered in a worst-case scenario.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by bondt007 on 06-28-12 at 05:50 PM
I don't. I think that everyone should have medical care, though.
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Tummy on 06-28-12 at 05:57 PM
Just curious, how did you read it? I re-read and still walk away with that.

I'd say color me confused but it might muddle up the pretty pink I am today.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by dabo on 06-29-12 at 11:21 AM
But everyone in the US does have medical care. Show up, be brought to, an emergency room, they are legally obligated to see you. With or without insurance. They cannot refuse you medical care. Even in extreme situations, think widespread natural disaster (earthquake, hurricane, etc.), where individual facilities can be overburdoned and close to new arrivals, you would get sent on to a facility that would have to deal with you. Everyone, no matter who they are, whether they know it or not, everyone, is part of the system.

With the end result being that all who do pay into the system pay extra for those who don't. Hospitals, like any other business, cannot just write off all their unpaids, they have to make it up somehow, enough of it, to at least be able to stay in business. And the percentage of unpaids the medical system has been dealing with has just been growing larger and larger for many many years now, even in good times.

Don't have insurance, get that massive bill from the hospital on top of that bill from the ambulance company on top of having to pay full price for your prescriptions and on and on, reasonably you should go talk to the hospital people and work something out, pay what you can. But if you don't want to be reasonable you can just throw it in the garbage and get a free ride at everyone else's expense.

But now the free ride is over, under Obamacare everyone who can afford to pay into the system will pay into into the system; and the financial burdon on the medical system is alleviated a little bit, and everyone's cost for health insurance in a bit of time will adjust to be more equitable.

That's a good start. Obamacare doesn't go far enough in fixing all the problems that need fixed in the medical system, but it is a start.


"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by AyaK on 06-30-12 at 09:41 PM
LAST EDITED ON 06-30-12 AT 09:43 PM (EST)

Actually, most ERs CAN refuse you medical care, if they so choose, if you do not have a means to pay for the care. It's just that their decision to refuse you medical care might cause the state in which the ER is located to re-examine the ER's nonprofit status. Generally, U.S. hospitals pay no taxes, federal, state or local, because they are classified for federal purposes as nonprofits and for state purposes as some form of charity. To prevent problems with the state and local governments, hospitals generally choose to offer charity care through their ERs (when the emergency nature of the injuries makes demanding a means of payment potentially life-threatening).

But they do not have to do so. They simply choose to behave as charities. In an Obamacare world, the question about what level of charitable behavior is expected will be less clear, because hospitals simply won't be able to afford to do this. As reimbursements shrink, hospitals will have no choice but to abandon this "safe" nonprofit model.

But that's OK. After all, Big Daddy Barack will provide.'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P36x8rTb3jI

"It was the most memorable time of my life. It was a touching moment because I never thought this day would ever happen. I won't have to worry about putting gas in my car. I won't have to worry about paying my mortgage. You know, if I help him, he's gonna help me."

And how's that working out?

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 06:07 PM
LAST EDITED ON 06-28-12 AT 06:27 PM (EST)

Pepe
I agree that everyone should have health insurance but isn’t that a personal decision? What if one chooses to put money in the bank every month to insure themselves in case of catastrophe? Should they have to pay taxes on a product they choose not to buy?

And to Tummy’s point that "those that pay tax is paying for catastrophic insurance for those that don't have ins, basically.". Is this really fair? If one can afford to pay for their own insurance, or put money away for these occasions, should they then also have to pay for people who don’t pay taxes or have health insurance? It seems to me that the best choice of action in this scenario is to quit one’s job, cancel all insurance, and let someone else pay for it.

ETA

My point specifically is that a tax is defined as “a sum of money demanded by a government for its support or for specific facilities or services, levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc. - Webster’s”. The Supreme Court called it a tax. It isn’t. It’s a mandate. You can’t tax people for not buying something. You can, however, force them to pay fees or penalties. Just trying to call a spade a spade.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 06-28-12 at 07:25 PM

>I agree that everyone should have
>health insurance but isn’t that
>a personal decision?

Do you really trust half of the population to make a smart decision? I don't. Why should children or other dependents (young or old) have to suffer for the stupidity of certain people?


>What if one chooses to put money
>in the bank every month
>to insure themselves in case
>of catastrophe?

Again, you're assuming that half of the population have the smarts or the means to do so. There are a lot of people who aren't as well-off or have other "priorities" in their lives (i.e. drugs or Gameboys) that for them, putting money aside in case of a catastrophic situation isn't up their on their lists. I have heard story after story of well-meaning families ruined because they were caught at the wrong time when some medical catastrophe came up - meanwhile, I have heard almost no stories of bankrupties or houses being sold as a result of a medical situation here in Canada (other than cases where a rare disease caused families to go overseas in search of a cure).

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 08:39 PM
So because half of the population is irresponsible means the other half should pay for them and get taxed on something they didn't buy?
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by cahaya on 06-28-12 at 09:25 PM
Yeah, that's an evil, although it's still perhaps the lesser of two evils compared with a minority who can't get insured (with pre-existing conditions and in other cases such as genetic predisposition) even if they did want to be responsible. In some cases, it's the profit-driven insurance companies who would be irresponsible to deny (or from the shareholders' perspective, provide) any coverage for a non-profitable policy holder.

Pick your poison. Deny those who wish to be responsible, accept those who are willing to pay, and ignore those who, responsible or not, can't afford to pay?

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-29-12 at 08:14 AM
Why couldn’t Congress pass a law that doesn’t allow insurance companies to discriminate against pre-existing conditions and set up a government health insurance program for people who can’t afford it? And the rest of the population can do whatever they want.
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-29-12 at 08:36 AM
LAST EDITED ON 06-29-12 AT 08:36 AM (EST)

That would be called Single Payer and the reason why they went this way was to get Snowe and other moderate Republicans to go along with it. Then they all bailed.

Second this law does deal with those pre-existing condition, why would you have two laws when you are trying to get votes. You put things in that people can't vote against thus they vote for things that they might not if it was a up and down vote on it's own.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by AyaK on 07-02-12 at 10:58 AM
LAST EDITED ON 07-02-12 AT 10:59 AM (EST)

>Why couldn’t Congress pass a law that doesn’t allow insurance companies
>to discriminate against pre-existing conditions

Let's say I don't have insurance. Then I find out I have cancer and need chemo. I can't afford chemo. But wait, I can buy insurance and make the insurance company pay for my medical treatment, even though my medical treatment will cost 10x more than my premiums will generate for the insurer!

The only way to make a program where insurers don't discriminate against pre-existing conditions work is twofold: 1) mandate that everyone have insurance (which is a police power that the US government does not have) and 2) make the coverage under all insurance policies the same. Those are key parts of Obamacare. If all plans aren't the same, and people can transfer with pre-existing conditions, then anyone with an illness would transfer to the company that offers the most coverage for it. That's why there's the tax on so-called "Cadillac plans" (actually just regular health plans that offer above-minimum coverage), which is the part of the plan that probably generates the most resistance.

>and set up a government health insurance program for people
>who can’t afford it?

Where does the money come from? The government can't even fully fund Medicare.

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by frankz on 06-28-12 at 01:36 PM
Google “obamacare IRS hiring 2012” and you will find a wide variety of answers. Anywhere from 1,054 to 16,500 (or more) IRS agents needed to enforce this. I’d provide a link but I couldn’t find a website I feel comfortable in citing. Everyone has their own agenda.
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by Estee on 06-28-12 at 01:52 PM
He did promise jobs creation...
"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-28-12 at 02:08 PM
LAST EDITED ON 06-28-12 AT 02:10 PM (EST)

Fact check that and you'll see that is a total lie. There is no 17,000, 16,500 or 1,054 new IRS agents in the bill.

Now the IRS back in 2008 did ask for more agent for enforcement, I think that is were the 1,054 comes from, but that was before Obamacare passed and the request was for them to be assigned to Wall Street I believe. It was voted down by R and D's.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-28-12 at 02:06 PM
From my understanding:

No, there will be a box added to your W-2 for your employer to put it's cost of your health care in. In 2018 there is a tax on "Cadillac Plan" that kicks in.

They won't go out and verify but falsifying anything on a W-2 does have it's own penalties.

Unknown on cost but seems like a simple box added to me and modify your database to add it to the W-2's as my employer now already tracks this and has since I started working here way before Obama care.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by angelworth29 on 06-28-12 at 04:14 PM
My guess, as an employee of a very (very) large health insurer, would be something similar to what is done in MA. Every year around tax time, a form is sent out by the insurers showing that you have coverage with them. I think it's a 1099-HC. The IRS has been very clever recently - if you don't have that info, they would apply the penalty. This worked in my favor a year or two ago when I wasn't aware of a certain tax credit; they took the liberty of applying it for me. Thanks!

Anyway, I imagine we'll develop an automatically generated form that goes to all our members. We do this all the time, though for many different reasons.



"RE: Upheld, 5-4."
Posted by cahaya on 06-28-12 at 06:56 PM
Ah, there it is, the future Turbo Tax 1099-HC!

I knew it.

"Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by Estee on 06-29-12 at 07:47 AM
My local Wandering Tea Partiers were in one of the parking lots this morning, ranting and raving about the SCOTUS result and how this meant the doom of America. I won't go into detail about what that doom entailed because racist and phobic language isn't welcome on the board and I didn't want to get close enough to ask them for the full step-by-step apocalypse because they would have attacked, but I did make out this bit:

"Just wait until November when we vote those @#$%ing justices out!"

Behold the intellectual powers of the strict constitutionalists.

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 08:20 AM
There is lemonade to be made.

Buy Health Insurance Company stock.

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by KeithFan on 06-29-12 at 08:51 AM
Just don't hang onto it for too long. They will be going away. It will be the inevitable outcome, and the outcome preferred by the left. Health insurance plans now have a shelf life of about 5 years from 2014, unless we start subsidizing them. So in effected we will be paying them to use their product and then paying them on the other side as well.

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 10:27 AM
Sounds like win-win for them. And their stockholders. A government provided clientele, and a government subsidy.

The taxpayers lose, the health insurance people win.

A collateral beneficiary will be personal injury and medical malpractice lawyers who will have lawsuit targets with even deeper pockets.

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by Estee on 06-29-12 at 10:42 AM
As with the reelection chances, name a scenario where, upheld or rejected, the health insurance companies would not have won.
"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-29-12 at 11:03 AM
Single payer?


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 11:18 AM
I can't.

They have control with or without Obama. He's just their latest shill. Patsy?

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-29-12 at 01:43 PM
And Romney's not? They both suck.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 02:24 PM
You're probably right. My theory (defeatist as it may seem) is that a proven patsy is a worse choice than someone who is only a potential patsy. In one case failure is proven, in the other there's at least some chance that he won't fail.
"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by Snidget on 06-29-12 at 10:08 AM
Oh, so that is who the "what other branches of government" ad Romney is running these days is aimed at.

I know presidential candidates often make a lot of promises about how much they can do in 100 days. And they never take into account they aren't running for dictator. But hey, if Romney can do it all that so easily with just a stroke of a pen without any resistance or input from any other part of government why can't the Tea Party just write in whoever they want for the Supreme Court?

"RE: Because that's exactly how it works."
Posted by Estee on 06-29-12 at 10:24 AM
if Romney can do it all that so easily with just a stroke of a pen without any resistance or input from any other part of government

Worked for Dubya.

Maybe the other branch of government is the LDS church? After all, if the President is secretly taking his orders from the Islamic regimes (because as we all know, he's a deep-cover terrorist just waiting for his moment to strike), we might as well make it an official Match Of Religious Titans.

Mitt Romney Of Utah. He's here to save the planet by losing hundreds of trillions of dollars. But his trailers looked really cool!

why can't the Tea Party just write in whoever they want for the Supreme Court?

Because they're not Mitt Romney, silly!


"Can we get someone to use this poll in a political ad?"
Posted by Snidget on 06-29-12 at 11:49 AM
http://www.space.com/16353-alien-invasion-obama-romney-poll.html
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by KeithFan on 06-29-12 at 08:54 AM
I understand Roberts' reasoning, just don't agree. November has never been more important, and the right just got a great big heaping dose of motivation.


Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it. -Ronald Reagan

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by Estee on 06-29-12 at 09:01 AM
And what exactly did they have before this?

Faux News actually managed to put an analysis on the air yesterday morning which broke down to 'If Obama wins this, it's bad for his reelection chances and if he loses it, it's bad for his reelection chances.' And then one of their talking heads looked shocked when it was stated to them in exactly those terms. How many different ways would you like to have your total victory? How many are there? I know the President can do nothing right in their eyes, but it's so nice to hear them say it directly...

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by KeithFan on 07-01-12 at 11:31 AM
I see what you mean, but yes, either way it is bad for his reelection possibilities. The main reason is that he is dictating against the will of the people when more than 60% of the population wants it overturned, for whatever reason.

The only thing that differs is the framing of the argument. With the constitutionality being upheld it is bad for Obama, but even worse for congressional Dems because now the R's have the "send me to congress so I can fix what my opponent did" battle cry.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by dabo on 07-01-12 at 03:04 PM

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by KeithFan on 07-02-12 at 02:39 AM
Call me thick-headed, I don't get it. Are these dancing Republicans or do you think I'm dancing around the issue? Speel it out to me like I'm a 4th grader. haha.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by dabo on 07-02-12 at 09:46 AM
Same old song and dance.

Politics math. Questions framed to best arrive at the Yes/No desired. The illusion of a result. On something like Obamacare adding up all the No responses and adding up all the Yes responses and simply just comparing the two is too simple; the No side may be divided into several conflicting factions, and the Yes side as well.

But go with the numbers if you like, I don't think it worth arguing about, it amused me here.

I do think the Pubs will be making a huge mistake if they make overturning Obamacare the main issue of their November campaigns. Obama and the Dems almost certainly have, or are preparing and refining, a "full court press" (so to speak) highlighting all the good that has come from Obamacare and all the dangers there would be to overturning Obamacare.

Smart Pubs may want to get the train off that track entirely; or switch to fixing Obamacare perhaps, improve it and make it all better. "Heal Obamacare" even has an amusing aspect as a campaign slogan. But the absolute of overturning Obamacare could well become a deal-breaker with the voters by November.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by KeithFan on 07-06-12 at 12:42 PM
Yes, if they continue with the "repeal Obamacare" song they are less likely to have Democrats vote for them. Granted they need to be more precise in what exactly they want to do, and point out the couple good things they want to keep, but most importantly they need to be more specific on the astronomically bad points/taxes/bureaucracies created by this hodgepodge special interest heavy monstrosity.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-29-12 at 10:09 AM
LAST EDITED ON 06-29-12 AT 10:10 AM (EST)

*faints* you sir are the first republican who says they understand Robert's reasoning.

The way people are talking he may need added security protection.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 10:37 AM
LAST EDITED ON 06-29-12 AT 11:15 AM (EST)

To call this a tax is an even bigger stretch of logic that that which attempted to stretch the Commerce clause to cover it.

I'm not sure how this will work out other than Insurance conglomerates will get even richer and even more control over the fate of the country.

But I hope it does in some way work. I'm all for a useful health care system.

I just can't see the logic in either the Administration's arguments in regard to the Commerce clause, or in Robert's in regard to this being just another tax. Either one is mind bendingly illogical.

I do see the reason for the administration's glee in finally being able to add more of something someone calls a "tax" to the citizenry.

A partisan "gotcha" by the a partisan administration. Make it two, the health bill itself was pure partisan politics.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by dabo on 06-29-12 at 12:18 PM
If you are looking for systemic bad guys in the medical system, you really should look somewhere else besides insurance. Health insurance is the red-headed step child of the insurance business with profit margins at 02% and less, it is only a reasonable business investment on account of the amount of money flowing through the system making that marginal profit level worthwhile.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 02:18 PM
I could easily argue the "red headed stepchild" description of the health care insurance industry, that is deceptive and wrong. There are enormous fortunes being made there. But even if that were true, Obamacare would elevate it to "golden goose", or "cash cow".

But I'm not looking for bad guys, I'm just observing and commenting on what I perceive. As I said, I hope somehow it works out, even if insurance companies benefit.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by dabo on 06-29-12 at 03:25 PM
I would love to demonize the health insurance industry, they are the world's biggest penny-pinchers, but they pretty much have to be that way. There are a couple of companies I do wish would go belly up because they are just incredibly difficult to deal with. Yes, there is big money being made there, it is a rich man's game, but with the health market diversified through mutuals it's embedded in the economy.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by mrc on 06-29-12 at 11:54 AM
Before you look to do harm to Chief Justice Roberts or his family, it’s important that you think carefully about the meaning – the true nature — of his ruling on Obama-care. The Left will shout that they won, that Obama-care was upheld and all the rest. Let them.

It will be a short-lived celebration.

Here’s what really occurred — payback. Yes, payback for Obama’s numerous, ill-advised and childish insults directed toward SCOTUS.

Chief Justice Roberts actually ruled the mandate, relative to the commerce clause, was unconstitutional. That’s how the Democrats got Obama-care going in the first place. This is critical. His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be.

Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax. Therefore, the mechanism that funds Obama-care is a tax. This is also critical. Recall back during the initial Obama-care battles, the Democrats called it a penalty, Republicans called it a tax. Democrats consistently soft sold it as a penalty. It went to vote as a penalty. Obama declared endlessly, that it was not a tax, it was a penalty. But when the Democrats argued in front of the Supreme Court, they said ‘hey, a penalty or a tax, either way’. So, Roberts gave them a tax. It is now the official law of the land — beyond word-play and silly shenanigans. Obama-care is funded by tax dollars. Democrats now must defend a tax increase to justify the Obama-care law.

Finally, he struck down as unconstitutional, the Obama-care idea that the federal government can bully states into complying by yanking their existing medicaid funding. Liberals, through Obama-care, basically said to the states — ‘comply with Obama-care or we will stop existing funding.’ Roberts ruled that is a no-no. If a state takes the money, fine, the Feds can tell the state how to run a program, but if the state refuses money, the federal government can’t penalize the state by yanking other funding. Therefore, a state can decline to participate in Obama-care without penalty. This is obviously a serious problem. Are we going to have 10, 12, 25 states not participating in “national” health-care? Suddenly, it’s not national, is it?

Ultimately, Roberts supported states rights by limiting the federal government’s coercive abilities. He ruled that the government can not force the people to purchase products or services under the commerce clause and he forced liberals to have to come clean and admit that Obama-care is funded by tax increases.

Although he didn’t guarantee Romney a win, he certainly did more than his part and should be applauded.

And he did this without creating a civil war or having bricks thrown threw his windshield. Oh, and he’ll be home in time for dinner.

Brilliant.

http://www.ijreview.com/2012/06/9398-why-chief-justice-roberts-made-the-right-long-term-decision-with-obamacare/

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by frankz on 06-29-12 at 01:35 PM
I’m sure you will receive ridicule here for this assessment, but you’ve made your point eloquently. It is certainly unconventional for the Court to rewrite cases sent to them. There was no mention of “taxes” in the original bill or the arguments before the court. Proponents arduously denied any semblance of a tax. Yet the majority Court decision deemed the bill Constitutional as a tax, which is within the House’s Constitutional powers. Roberts basically threw this back to the people to decide.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by mrc on 06-29-12 at 02:44 PM
I didn't write it, but I'll still remember that you called me eloquent.

A Slice of Manga

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 04:58 PM
Here in the south that would earn you a necktie (or worse) party. We don't know exactly what that means, but we know we don't like it.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by HobbsofMI on 06-29-12 at 01:53 PM
LAST EDITED ON 07-02-12 AT 01:43 PM (EST)

The only problem is the people are to dumb to understand this and will see it mostly as spin. I think there is some validity to it but do you think Robert's is that smart?

One point I would make is that Robert's and the majority said you can't cut off "all" funds so expect something like we had for changing the speed limits to 55 MPH cuts.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by mrc on 06-29-12 at 02:43 PM
I think Roberts is pretty darn smart. Whether that's what he intended is another thing.

A Slice of Manga

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by kingfish on 06-29-12 at 05:04 PM
(Absence of Malice)

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: You're a smart man, Mr. Gallagher. I'm pretty smart myself. Don't get too smart.

Michael Colin Gallagher: Everybody in this room is smart, and everybody was just doing their job, and Teresa Perrone is dead. Who do I see about that?

James A. Wells, Assistant U.S. Attorney General: Ain't nobody to see. I wish there was. You're excused, sir.

(Great movie, with lots to chew on).

"Roberts' intent"
Posted by AyaK on 07-02-12 at 03:19 PM
I think he made his intent perfectly clear:

Members of this Court are vested with the authority to interpret the law. We possess neither the expertise nor the prerogative to make policy judgments. Those decisions are entrusted to our Nation’s elected leaders, who can be thrown out of office if the people disagree with them. It is not our job to protect the people from the consequences of their political choices.

That's an admirable goal. Unfortunately, it's not the Supreme Court's role. Roberts' very next sentence notes that:

Our deference in matters of policy cannot, however, become abdication in matters of law. . . . And there can be no question that it is the resposibility of this Court to enforce the limits on federal power by striking down acts of Congress that transgress those limits.

By doing the first, Roberts chose not to do the second -- which is the Supreme Court's real responsibility. Instead, he became a politician.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 06-29-12 at 11:55 AM


And... regarding what I said in post 95 above? I rest my case:

No amount of medical care or medication can fix this level of stupidity.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by frankz on 06-29-12 at 12:34 PM
Sorry Pepe, no offense, but I won’t be moving to Canada although I would like to visit and meet you someday.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by cahaya on 06-29-12 at 07:19 PM
Yeah, I might reconsider Malaysia instead.

Seriously, "blue chip" (American "Cadillac") plans go for MYR 5000 (about US $1600) a year, with medical costs being quite low, yet with quite modern diagnostic and care facilities.

One thing that's killing the U.S. medical system is the cost overload (99.99% is better than 99.8%) and the whole malpractice thing. We're paying major bucks for very slightly increased statistical certainty, yet... the U.S. still isn't on the top of the international board for life expectancy.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 06-29-12 at 07:45 PM
No offense taken, but if you were like these people who think moving to Canada is the answer to Obamacare, then I would ask the border guards to keep an eye out!
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by dabo on 07-02-12 at 09:55 AM
Nothing personal, Pepe, Canada is a nice place to visit and I've no doubt a nice place to live, but with all the idiots trying to move there, if I were inclined to leave the US I'd rather go to Australia. New Zealand maybe.
"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by AyaK on 07-02-12 at 04:38 PM
The good thing about Canada is that Stephen Harper is actually trying to address the Canadian deficit spending issues, following in the footsteps of Jean Chretien. Canada has basicallly had solid national leaders since 1993, with a 3-year gap when Paul Martin was in charge (2003-06), while the US has floundered with Bush and Obama since January 2001.

The worrisome thing about Canada is that the country may want to elect its own Barack Obama (i.e., a buffoonish incompetent) by giving national leadership over to the NDP.

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by PepeLePew13 on 07-02-12 at 04:56 PM
Yeah... even though he's not a guy I would have ever considered voting for until recent times, I have few quibbles about the job Harper is doing overall in navigating through tough economic times.

Canada ranked number one for doing business

"RE: Obamacare meets the Supreme Court"
Posted by Max Headroom on 06-29-12 at 09:04 PM
Did anyone really think the Supreme Court would overturn Obamacare? Like it or not, we're stuck with it. Color me unsurprised.

"It's Romney's fault."
Posted by Estee on 07-01-12 at 03:33 AM
Guess which state the Supreme Court used as their model?

Now guess who was governor at the time.

"RE: It's Romney's fault."
Posted by KeithFan on 07-01-12 at 11:37 AM
Guess which administration never once asked the state in question what worked and what didn't when they went to do their own.
"RE: It's Romney's fault."
Posted by AyaK on 07-02-12 at 01:21 PM
LAST EDITED ON 07-02-12 AT 03:04 PM (EST)

Guess what governmental power a state has that the federal government doesn't have?

Police power.

That means that a state can compel you to do certain things like buy insurance, but the feds can't.

The question in this case was whether the Commerce Clause could be used to circumvent that lack of police power at the federal level. Ultimately, in the only good news portion of this ridiculous ruling, the Supreme Court ruled that it could not be.

However, to reach that conclusion and still uphold the law, Roberts had to conclude that the penalty for not buying insurance was a tax. That's not an unreasonable position. But the problem is the Anti-Injunction Act, which holds that a taxpayer has to pay the tax first before he or she can challenge the law under which the tax was imposed. If the "mandate" is actually a tax, then the Supreme Court health care case is moot, regardless of whether the parties want it decided.

To reach his conclusion, therefore, Roberts had to hold that the mandate wasn't a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act, but it was a tax for purposes of federal power. If that seems ridiculous to you, it is.

Basically, Roberts wanted to uphold the law. And he did.

"Mr. Etch A Sketch opens his mouth again...."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 07-02-12 at 02:58 PM
"Eric Fehrnstrom, a senior adviser to Mitt Romney, admitted Monday that he actually agrees with the Obama administration on something: the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act is a "penalty" and not a "tax.""

I think Romney needs a new adviser.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"RE: It's Romney's fault."
Posted by cahaya on 07-02-12 at 07:29 PM
If that seems ridiculous to you, it is.

Yes, it does seem ridiculous. Laughable, maybe, but not really a laughing matter. The legal argument, as you have clearly demonstrated, comes with such convoluted logic that would defy even the likes of Science Officer Spock.

This ruling is going to be legal hell on future Court decisions based on precedent.


Foo dogs by tribe

Didn't they just collectively redefine that three letter word, "tax"?

"RE: It's Romney's fault."
Posted by AyaK on 07-03-12 at 02:24 PM
>Guess which state the Supreme Court used as their model?

I'm presuming that you mean the Democratic Congress, not the Supreme Court, due to the different powers. But the answer is Massachusetts.

>Now guess who was governor at the time.

Romney.

Let's keep guessing.

Now guess how many pages were in the Massachusetts law to mandate the purchase of insurance?

88.

Guess how many pages were in the federal law to mandate the purchase of insurance?

Over 2,000.

Still think they were equivalent?

"RE: It's Romney's fault."
Posted by HobbsofMI on 07-03-12 at 02:26 PM
both would be a bit longer than if Herman Cain's 3 page bills were in effect.


sig Syren, bouncy by IceCat, bobble head by Tribephyl, and snoglobe by agman

"Don't tell me --"
Posted by Estee on 07-03-12 at 03:36 PM
-- tell the Toilet Papers. Romney was trying to distance himself from their angry reactions to all this, and now some of them have decided to carry the ball directly into his stomach.
"RE: Don't tell me --"
Posted by AyaK on 07-03-12 at 06:59 PM
I understand that you were quoting the Internet meme.

And I hate the fact that Romney has had to run against his record in Massachusetts to have a reasonable chance of winning.

But I need a Republican Party that isn't in thrall to Rick Santorum and Mike Huckabee and a Democratic Party that isn't in thrall to Barack Obama, so Romney's the only game in town.

Plus, the only two Harvard Law graduates to become president in U.S. history are Rutherford B. Hayes and Barack H. Obama, two of the worst ever. W. Mitt Romney would be the third. He can't possibly be worse than his predecessors.

"RE: Don't tell me --"
Posted by cahaya on 07-03-12 at 07:25 PM
He can't possibly be worse than his predecessors.

Famous last words...

If he even gets the chance.