Obama Trying To Muscle The Supreme Court (brainwash, abortion, governor)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The fly in your arguement is that everyone is not required by law to buy a car. Check with a large majority of the residents of New York City who don't own cars. Is it constitutional to force them to buy a car?
I'm simply stating that if you participate in the car market, that you are required to have certain things with that car.
The argument is that EVERYONE participates in the healthcare market, so requiring insurance to be bought is constitutional.
Now I'm not saying I agree with that, simply that this is the argument being made. I personally don't like the idea of the federal government prohibiting anything or forcing people to buy anything. It gives them way to much power. But this is the argument that is being made. The poster in which I was referring to said there was no constitutional argument to be made, this is simply not the case. An argument may fail or prevail, but there is still an argument to be had, otherwise it wouldn't be in court at all.
And I thought the RW hated activist judges..unless it's their activist judges.
Aside the brain dead nature of applying "activist judges" to the appropriate action that the court is engaged in relative to examining the constitutionality of the healthcare law (such judging of constitutionality of laws is their sole purpose for being, in case you didn't know) .... it happens to be the "Liberal" judges that have wanted to cherry pick through the 2,000 PLUS pages of the Law to remove offending elements while keeping the rest of it. THAT WOULD constitute "legislating from the bench". That's not the court's duty, nor was it ever intended to have that power.
It has been the "Conservative" judges that have rejected such left wing idiocy of the likes of Ginsberg, by saying that it is simply asinine for the court to weed through and examine every line item, picking and choosing what it likes and doesn't like. And they are PARTIALLY CORRECT .... the REAL objection should be that they are not granted such powers. Their power begins and ENDS with examining the law in it's entirety, and present a ruling. That's it! If it is deemed unconstitutional, then the law is void, and the congress critters have to go back an "fix" their mistakes, and follow the entire law making process governing legislative action in so doing.
This desire to undertake a quasi "after the fact" line item veto of elements of a law for which the leftist judges propose is ITSELF a violation of the constitution, because it IS NOT within the power of the Supreme Court to do that! The law making process must follow the constitution TOO ... which demands that both houses of congress create and pass legislation ..... not the court rewriting faulty legislation.
Long story short ..... it is the left wing (be it on the court, in congress ... or that usurper-In-Chief" "Barry Soetero" infesting the White House who simply can't seem to constrain themselves from acting like LAWLESS CRIMINALS who obviously hate the constitution.
Everyone takes place in the healthcare market. Not some, not most, but all, everyone will buy an aspirin, or end up in a hospital sooner or later.
As such, the government has a right to mandate that you buy insurance to be in that market. It falls under the interstate commerce clause.
Now, I'm not at all saying that I agree with that perception. In my opinion, the interstate commerce clause has been used for things that it was never meant to, such as the prohibition of drugs. But the kicker is this, Republican and Democratic over reach on the interstate commerce clause is what allows that argument.
If you buy a car, it can be mandated that the car you buy have certain safety features, like seat belts. Every car that rolls off the line today has seat belts, air bags, anti-lock brakes, etc. All things mandated that you buy, by the federal government.
Its not a far reach to say that it can be constitutional, under our interpretation as it currently is today.
Right same as requiring car insurance, where I'm at if you have 2 cars and only drive one in the winter, you cannot get a seasonal registration for the other car, which would help cut down on car insurance expense but no! its for antique vehicles, somehow the car you don't use ties into car insurance and a reg flag comes up at the DMV and you could lose this and that, I tried at AAA with this and called my insurance co, I used to be able to just call the insurance co. and do the put in storage thing and pay less with all the aggrivation I have to keep the ins. on both cars all this is crazy! More $ for the insurance co. They say some drivers will drive the vehicle anyways, I'm damn tired of They
I say that because the AHA includes taxing and Medicare provisions which might very will conflict with state law and/or state constitutional provisions. For instance, Virginia passed a law just before the signing of the AHA which declared its citizens may not be compelled by federal law to purchase things they don't want. That alone might involve state constitutional questions if the Court rules that Virginia has standing to challenge the federal law under their states law. Additionally, 25 other states are involved in the case, each of which may may mount additional challenges under their own state laws if the power of Congress to mandate healthcare purchasing is upheld. The other 24 states may have state court issues if it is not.
The point is that no matter how the SC rules on the issue of the constitutional powers of Congress and the separate but connected issue of severability, it's ruling may not be the end of the matter.
Seems like the supremacy clause would apply in those situations.
Sorry, but no president can muscle the Supreme Court. It's setup to be arms length. He has a point to make. Last time I checked, almost every conservative in the country whines about judicial activism. It's sort of stupid for them to now complain about someone on the left complaining about judicial activism.
Really? Do you have credentials as a Presidential historian? What research have you done on this topic? Can you give examples where other Presidents have done things differently?
Do you know what a dictator is? A dictator would replace the judges on the court. He's one lawyer making a point via the media to some judges. It's not exactly unprecedented.
Take off your pro-Obama hat for a second. Our president is badgering the SCOTUS while it is conferring on the ruling concerning his health care law, this is major! The president should be respecting the supreme court to do their job, not going on TV day after day, haranguing or intimidating the court about what he thinks it should or should not do. This is unseemly. He is the president, not some burger flipper at McDonalds giving his personal opinion.
A lot of BS. If the FEderal government can force me to pay taxes to buy privately made weapons for the military it can damn well force me to buy health insurance from a private vendor weather I like it or not.
It can force you to pay taxes under the tax and spend clause, that clause does not give them the power to force you to buy a product.
I wonder why they did not make a tax that was the same as your health insurance would cost, but you would receive a rebate in that amount should you purchase health insurance... that would have avoided this issue entirely.
Conversely, isn't it funny how the right is now depending upon those so-called "activist judges" they persistently wail about to accomplish what they couldn't do through Congress?
Activist judges used to = BAD. Now, they = GOOD.
Not exactly...
There is an attempt to redefine what an activist judge is.
They are NOT activist judges if they rule by the Constitution first, then existing law.
They are activist judges if they create new laws/rights by the decisions and rulings they make.
A lot of BS. If the FEderal government can force me to pay taxes to buy privately made weapons for the military it can damn well force me to buy health insurance from a private vendor weather I like it or not.
Not true. The military has a constitutional provision inside it, the health care law does not. By the way, just how was the military paid for before income tax came along?
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Conversely, isn't it funny how the right is now depending upon those so-called "activist judges" they persistently wail about to accomplish what they couldn't do through Congress?
Activist judges used to = BAD. Now, they = GOOD.
Activist judges MAKE laws from the bench, like legislating gay marriage to be legal, or Roe v. Wade.
A lot of BS. If the FEderal government can force me to pay taxes to buy privately made weapons for the military it can damn well force me to buy health insurance from a private vendor weather I like it or not.
One of the governments primary roles, defined in the Constitution, is to defend to country - which includes the purchase of weapons.
The role of government is not to ensure the health care of every individual.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Right same as requiring car insurance, where I'm at if you have 2 cars and only drive one in the winter, you cannot get a seasonal registration for the other car, which would help cut down on car insurance expense but no! its for antique vehicles, somehow the car you don't use ties into car insurance and a reg flag comes up at the DMV and you could lose this and that, I tried at AAA with this and called my insurance co, I used to be able to just call the insurance co. and do the put in storage thing and pay less with all the aggrivation I have to keep the ins. on both cars all this is crazy! More $ for the insurance co. They say some drivers will drive the vehicle anyways, I'm damn tired of They
