If the Supreme Court says Obamacare is constitutional will it make a big difference as far as the presidential election? How about if they vote against it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Followers
About Me
- jim marquis
- I grew up in Vale, Oregon and moved to the Seattle area in 1981.
23 comments:
If the Court pronounces it unconstitutional, the conservatives will say "See, we told you so!" The left will continue to fight for health reform.
If the Court pronounces it constitutional, those on the left will say "See, we told you so!" And the right will continue to fight against it.
I don't think the Court decision will have much effect on those voters whose minds are already made up. What will have an effect is which side has the better propaganda for or against the Affordable Health Care act.
It will be interesting to see what the Court says, although I suspect they will strike it down because they are a predominantly conservative Court at this point. I have pretty much lost faith in the Supreme Court as a group not driven by the political agendas of its individual members, or as a group whose individuals can put their political ideologies aside when making decisions.
It will either way, just because the media will make a big deal out of it.
What will have an effect is which side has the better propaganda for or against the Affordable Health Care act.
The Supreme Court has a 5-4 conservative majority with Kennedy being the usual tie-breaker, and he is a moderate conservative and is sometimes practical.
I don't know that much about Kagan and Sotomayor, but the others on the Court are all extremely ideological and they legislate from the bench (with the sometimes exception of Kennedy).
They do not vote in accordance with law, but they use law to try to justify and sell their vote to the populace.
The Supreme Court is a very political body and its ruling will not tell us anything about the Constitution. It will simply give us insight into the ideologies of the sitting justices.
To even try to say there is no precedent is purely semantic. There is precedent and the conservative side of the court has chosen to ignore it, which was their same tactic on several other issues.
Breyer and Ginsberg have repeatedly lamented the loss of precedent as a motivational force on the court. However, when they were in a position to overturn existing precedent with no new evidence, they often did not hesitate to do so, and O'Conner actually persuaded the court to establish time lines for affirmative action, which is purely legislating and has nothing to do with legal interpretation.
So, the liberals are up in arms that the Conservatives are ignoring precedent, and the Conservatives are blatantly lying about it (in most cases. Scalia admitted it in in one case).
It really almost enrages me that the Conservatives are ignoring long standing precedent set by a long standing liberal court who only honored precedent once they had set it.
I feel like such a hypocrite, but I am an almost angry one, nonetheless. Regardless of what Obama will do as a leader, we must re-elect him, because if we get one more conservative on the court, the nation will become a backward hillbilly country, as it once was not so long ago.
Its not legislating from the bench to call the individual mandate unconstitutional. In fact there is a really, really great case for it to be so. By striking this law down, the SCOTUS won't be creating a new law out of thin air, they'll be killing one (or at least part of one) which is in fact... their job.
Case in point, none of you can show me one part of the Constitution where THE FEDERAL government has any authority to force anyone to buy anything. State's governments has that authority under the 10th Amendment, the Federal does not. That isn't a political bias, it's a fact. One many Democrats- including Barack Obama- have made in the past.
As for the court and precedent, how come you are bitching about them not honoring it now (even though they are) when you don't give them any credit for following it in Citizen's United Myste?
Seems the only one who wants legislation from the bench here is you, so long as it's liberal.
For the record here, I don't see The Court having much authority to strike down all of Obama Care, just the individual mandate. The federal government has the power to regulate interstate commerce, not force anyone to participate in it. Be that as it may, the Federal Government can set up some public insurance gobledygook if it wants to. What it can't do, is force you to buy private gobledygook.
Any interpretation motivated by political ideology over pure legal analysis is legislation from the bench.
As for the Affordable Healthcare Act, the Federal government’s authority to force you to purchase something has been unsuccessfully challenged many times and per the prior rendered decisions was “settled on precedent.”
The current conservative majority will use to precedent to justify decisions, but they consider precedent when making decisions. Sense they don’t honor or respect precedent, they are displaying hypocrisy any time they cite it.
Of all of them, I have only heard one confess to this, Justice Scalia, who lamented that the Roberts Court did not just admit that they were overturning prior ruling outright, but instead acted as if they were clarifying former precedents.
Any interpretation motivated by political ideology over pure legal analysis is legislation from the bench?
That might be the case if this wasn't so cut and dried. There is no precedent for the individual mandate, other than the total lack of authority granted the Federal Government in the Constitution to make you buy something from a private company. You can't use the government's power to tax, as buying something from a private entity isn't a tax. You can't say the commerce clause, since you can't regulate a lack of commerce- just actual commerce.
Bottom line, the federal government can't force you to buy a private service. Please spare me the car insurance shit, those are state laws not federal laws. If you state wants to pass an individual mandate I could care less. Heck, Romney did it in his state. It was legal there, not on the federal level. The feds can make you buy their bullshit insurance program (medicare) but it can't force us to buy say- Blue Cross.
Anywhoo, if we loose the case we have a nifty back up plan. NRA is already in the works to put up bills for coming years that will require every American to buy a gun- one approved by government no less. They were thinking AR-15. I think it's a wonderful dig back at the nanny staters and illustrates the PRECEDENT of allowing government to determine what you must buy.
Heck, if you want to know more about the issue ask Barack Obama.
He's been on both sides of the issue.
I for one side with before ObamaCare Obama. He must have become stupider since his election.
If you want to change the law so you don't buy the insurance from a private insurance firm, but a public one, I will support you.
The same kinds of arguments were made with SSA in Steward Machine Company vs. Davis and Helvering vs. Davis and other challenges.
Your issue seems to be if the forced purchase is labeled as a tax or not, which is purely semantic. If that is the real issue, they why isn’t the GOP simply trying to restructure the method of collection of payment?
I will tell you why: they want to overturn all SSA type programs. They cannot easily challenge it, yet again, but they can challenge this by arguing that because it was not collected as a tax, it is a totally different event than if it the same money had been collected for the same purpose, and simply adjusted on your taxes.
The GOP should argue what it believes for the reason it believes it and not be such hypocrites.
If you want to change the law so you don't buy the insurance from a private insurance firm, but a public one, I will support you.
I wouldn't argue the Constitutionality of that. Just the sense of it.
which is purely semantic
In your opinion maybe. My question is, if the government can force you to buy insurance from a private company, what other goods and services can it force you to buy? It's all or nothing. Either the federal government can make you buy stuff or it can't.
. If that is the real issue, they why isn’t the GOP simply trying to restructure the method of collection of payment?
The GOP is doing that and more. They want to overturn the whole thing. The SCOTUS is can only address the case put to it by the plaintiffs. That question is: Is it Constitutional to force a citizen to buy a private good or service. The answer of course, is no. There is no authority for that.
I will tell you why: they want to overturn all SSA type programs
Perhaps, but not likely. Just because I wish it were true doesn't make it so. Either way, what the GOP wants has little to do with the very narrow question posed to the SCOTUS.
In your opinion maybe. My question is, if the government can force you to buy insurance from a private company, what other goods and services can it force you to buy? It's all or nothing. Either the federal government can make you buy stuff or it can't.
The technical term for this line of reasoning is “Slippery Slope Fallacy.” It is like saying that if the government can kill a person for trying to blow up a bus full of kids, they can kill a person for anything, even eating broccoli.
The GOP is doing that and more. They want to overturn the whole thing.
That is not a restructuring of the method of payment.
That question is: Is it Constitutional to force a citizen to buy a private good or service. The answer of course, is no. There is no authority for that.
The same clauses that were used to justify SSA could be used to justify this. This is a re-challenging of SSA logic, but under the guise of something new.
Sorry, missed this one:
Either way, what the GOP wants has little to do with the very narrow question posed to the SCOTUS.
Since the SCOTUS is included in the GOP (five of them), and they adjudicate per ideology, the question is paramount.
Since the SCOTUS is included in the GOP (five of them), and they adjudicate per ideology, the question is paramount
How can then, you not say the only reason the Democrats on the Court are siding against striking down the individual mandate is due to political ideology? It's a fair question. Especially given that there is no precedent for such a huge expansion of Federal power.
My contention is, that in this case it is the Leftist judges on the court influenced by politics, not those on the right.
The technical term for this line of reasoning is “Slippery Slope Fallacy.” It is like saying that if the government can kill a person for trying to blow up a bus full of kids, they can kill a person for anything, even eating broccoli.
Whose to say they can't John? It isn't a fallacy, its a fact. Rights are eroded over time more often that taken by fiat. Giving government this power is a dangerous precedent to set.
That is not a restructuring of the method of payment.
The GOP has a much wider scope than the SCOTUS. If they come back with a ruling baring legally all social programs, I may concede the point. However I think they will come back either striking the law down as a whole or more likely issuing a ruling that the government cannot force citizens to purchase a good or service backed up with legal penalties.
The same clauses that were used to justify SSA could be used to justify this. This is a re-challenging of SSA logic, but under the guise of something new.
Were social security run by a private entity I'd agree. It however is not, so your point is moot. No one can legally argue the Federal Government's right to tax. However, forcing a citizen to engage in a kind of commerce isn't a tax, it's all together a different thing. It isn't a semantic difference either, it's a very important difference.
Gee, for a party so obsessed with corporate influence in government I am staggered that you cannot see the Pandora's box forcing people by law to pay corporations money- against their will- would open. Could that be your own bias? Yes I think it might.
I mean really, turning the IRS with it's raw power into a bill collector for the insurance industry? Gee, I bet nothing goes wrong with that...
Since you and the rest of the GOP are all sticking the argument that the issue is a private purchase, and not the forcing of a purchase alone, as happens today with SSA and other "taxes," I think the legislature should simply restructure the program so it goes through a taxation process. This would make everyone agree on its legality, right?
The same arguments were made about forced purchases for SSA challenges. The only difference now is the word "private" added in.
The same philosophies causes the challenges, which has nothing to do with public or private forced purchasing of services.
And by the way, I think using the General Welfare Clause as a justification for SSA or AHA are both weak. However, the SSA challenges are precedents of a sort and this challenging of the private aspect of it is only a justifying point. Add in the Commerce Clause, which is also a weak defense, but also used to rebut SSA challenges, and the only differences are semantic.
The war that is being waged is a philosophical one, not a legal one.
The only difference now is the word "private" added in.
Its a huge difference. And it isn't just a word. Government can't use it's power to tax to force you to buy anything from a private vendor. Social Security as you may have noticed ISN'T FUCKING PRIVATE.
Trust me, no one hates SS more than I do. I hate it with the power of 1000 suns. But even I admit its constitutional. Heck, even a national health service would be constitutional. Stupid as all get out, but constitutional.
Making me buy blue cross (or whatever) isn't remotely the same thing.
I think using the General Welfare Clause as a justification for SSA or AHA are both weak.
Perhaps, but that is the legal justification and that has held up in court. A lot.
a philosophical one, not a legal one.
Here we go with the philosopher king crap again... *rolling eyes*
Its definitely a legal argument. Guess how I know that. It's in front of the Supreme Court. Thats pretty definitive.
Its a huge difference. And it isn't just a word. Government can't use it's power to tax to force you to buy anything from a private vendor. Social Security as you may have noticed ISN'T FUCKING PRIVATE.
The GOP are such hypocrites! Are you not aware of the GOP movement to privatize Social Security?
The reason they are OK with this constitutional violation is that they are concerned not with legalities, but philosophy, and philosophically, there is no difference.
Trust me, no one hates SS more than I do. I hate it with the power of 1000 suns. But even I admit its constitutional.
You admit it now. You would not have admitted it if you had lived in the 30’s.
Making me buy blue cross (or whatever) isn't remotely the same thing.
No one is making you buy blue Cross. They are making you buy some insurance, not a specific one, and I agree with you that there should be a public option.
Its definitely a legal argument. Guess how I know that. It's in front of the Supreme Court. Thats pretty definitive.
It is a legal matter, but our opinions are not legal, but philosophical.
The GOP are such hypocrites! Are you not aware of the GOP movement to privatize Social Security?
Aware of it? Dude I'm part of it. Libertarians support that goal. I donate my money and time to help that goal. I can't see how for the life of me, and you certainly haven't made clear, how this upcoming ruling has anything to do with SS. This has to do with Obamacare, which isn't even related to it.
that they are concerned not with legalities
It would be hard to make that case, as many Repubicans support an individual mandate... many prominant republicans at that. Be that as it may, this case is about Constitutionality. Never before has the Federal Government had the power to use force in this way. Its all about precedent, not one that has been set but the one this WILL set not to mention the consequences of it.
You would not have admitted it if you had lived in the 30’s.
Can you possibly get more hypothetical than that? That's the hinge of your argument, what I might have thougt way back when my grandparents were toddlers? You're reaching. But if we must go there, I was alive prior to Roe Vs Wade and am personally very offended by abortion... however given the law I can't see how the court could rule any other way than it did given the case law and what it would have ment to rule the opposite. I don't like abortion, but I like my right to privacy much more so. It was a devil of a case but there it was. Believe me when I say I analyze this stuff from a most unbiased view as possible. If others are doing so for other motives tht is irrelevent. You must stick to the question. Can the Federal Government order citizens to buy something and punish them if they don't. If there is something beyond that much like Roe vs Wade we'll have to pick those peices up after they fall. Hoever, the only thing I see falling after this ruling is that the Fed Gov can't force you against your will to buy insurance or anything else.
As to it't legality, it's obvious once you see who the plaintiffs are. States, the States sued bcasue they understand what should be their domain in government and what the Federal's aought not be.
Brings to mind another case. Another much more sad. Dread Scott. Were I a judge on the SCOTUS I would have recused myself. I've often thought what I would do different during historical situations, and in that case I'd have recused myself and resigned from the Court. The reason is in that law slavery while beyond the pale of horror was LEGAL. By law I could not vote to imancipate him, it would shatter my oath of office. So instead I'd have walked out and joined the Union Army given the chance. Why leave? Who could have their name attached to such a dispicable document Dread Scott Opinion. In these two cases there is a similarity. Should Government grow more powerful or remain weaker than it could be. well in Dread Scot the answer was sadly no from the legal stand point but this is a case of a different measure. These keeps our liminted government more limited- in this day and age a good thing, and it protects citizens soon to be hounded bt the IRS for fines to be paid to government when citizens cannot afford pay the fees to the servants of the Inurance Industry.
Good lord man, and you call us corporatist! Look what you've made here and get on your knees and pray this court has a chance to make a good ruling. In real life, there are no philosopher kings to save us. We must do that ourselves.
Aware of it? Dude I'm part of it. Libertarians support that goal. I donate my money and time to help that goal. I can't see how for the life of me, and you certainly haven't made clear, how this upcoming ruling has anything to do with SS. This has to do with Obamacare, which isn't even related to it.
You went out of your way to argue that because Obamacare is requiring a private purchase, it is unconstitutional. Yet, you want SS to be a private purchase.
Its all about precedent, not one that has been set but the one this WILL set not to mention the consequences of it.
That is a complete lie. A court that does not honor precedent would not worry about what precedents are set.
Can you possibly get more hypothetical than that? That's the hinge of your argument, what I might have thougt way back when my grandparents were toddlers?
No, that was a comment made late in the game. You have misidentified the thesis statement, Junior.
I don't like abortion, but I like my right to privacy much more so.
Privacy was used as a justification for abortion and nothing else. If a fetus is a human, then it is a right to life issue first, which is paramount and more important than the right to privacy. Stop looking at justifications to determine right. You are manipulated.
Can the Federal Government order citizens to buy something and punish them if they don't.
SSN, for example, or Medicare for another.
States, the States sued bcasue they understand what should be their domain in government and what the Federal's aought not be.
Yes, that argument was made in SSA, and rejected.
These keeps our liminted government more limited
The government is owned by the highest bidder and not limited, but you digress.
In real life, there are no philosopher kings to save us. We must do that ourselves.
Thank God.
Yet, you want SS to be a private purchase.
Me personally? I want it to go the way of the dinosaur. Not be semi-private. And that's just me, not necessarily the Supreme Court. Certainly President Obama isn't for ending social security, and he made some pretty good arguements against an individual mandate before he was President. There were a lot of liberals on my side of the individual mandate debate prior to POLITICAL BIAS. At least I'm consistent.
That is a complete lie. A court that does not honor precedent would not worry about what precedents are set.
They are worried about it here, as am I.
If a fetus is a human, then it is a right to life issue first,
Agreed. But that isn't what the case law says. Had the court ruled in favor of that life we would have lost the right to privacy. That was a lose/lose case for people like me. I was either going to lose a very real right or children would be killed. That is a sucky situation to find yourself in. The force of legal darkness couldn't help but win in one way or another. I mentioned it, to make this point. I judge has to rule on law only. Consequences be damned. I made the point again talking about Dread Scot. Judges are NOT legislators, they can only rule on the law and if I were a judge that is how I would rule. In either of those two cases I would have disqualified myself. I wouldn't sacrifice a right to property to free a slave even though I'd want a slave freed and I wouldn't sacrifice a right to privacy because I wanted to save unborn children even though I'd want them saved.
SSN, for example, or Medicare for another
Both very public programs, not private. You point is moot and quite asinine. My argument is this: That the Federal Government cannot force a person to buy a private good or service. Your counter to this, is we must allow government this power because if we do not it will open a door for Republicans interfere with government public programs. Ones with a long standing legal basis.
Dear philosopher king, that isn't logical.
Yes, that argument was made in SSA, and rejected.
My friend its about to be affirmed. Again. The 10th Amendment is very real.
The government is owned by the highest bidder and not limited
Perhaps. My solution is neuter it. Your solution it seems, is to make it the bill collector of said highest bidder. Call me perplexed about your solution to the problem you raised.
Post a Comment