PDA

View Full Version : Americans’ liberty hangs on Obamacare ruling



Janice
03-26-2012, 08:20 AM
http://i.imgur.com/hF5xE.jpg

Americans’ liberty hangs on Obamacare ruling

TOMORROW, the United States Supreme Court starts hearing oral arguments in the challenge to Obamacare.

It boils down to this: If the court sides with the president and upholds Obamacare, then more than 200 years of “We the People” ends.

A new era opens in which, increasingly, we mere people must do as we’re told, or pay whatever penalty The Government will extract from us. That starts with forcing Catholic institutions to provide employees with health insurance that covers, for free, contraception, sterilization and abortion against the religion’s core moral beliefs.

The government “of the people, by the people, for the people” that Abe Lincoln admired, will be turned upside down, and eventually we’ll have The Government that will “shove the people, bite the people and force the people” to do whatever The Government wants. It’s that simple. The Obama Administration is trying to steamroll the power of government across a sharp line into our private lives. Obamacare will force individual citizens to buy government mandated health insurance, or pay a penalty.

George Washington, and any fifth grader up until a generation ago, would plainly recognize that as tyranny. >>>

Tomorrow, as the Supreme Court ponders Obamacare, the Obama Administration reportedly has arranged for demonstrations that, according to The Wall Street Journal, include a “‘prayerful witness’ encircling the Supreme Court.” It didn’t say whether the prayers would be led by Obama’s old friend, the Rev. Jeremiah “God Damn America” Wright. >>>

Has American government come to this: that President Obama, the community organizer in chief, sends his goons into the street to extort a favorable decision from the nation’s highest court? >>>

If upheld, Obamacare will trample individual liberty. Then it will go on to bankrupt the nation and leave the United States weakened beyond recognition. That, it can be argued, would go a long way to complete the transformation of America to President Obama’s satisfaction.

TheMorningJournal (http://morningjournal.com/articles/2012/03/25/opinion/mj5954547.txt?viewmode=fullstory)

-----------------------------------

Caesar Obammus said it ... that settles it.

txradioguy
03-26-2012, 08:39 AM
If they (the Administration) can get away with this...then there is nothing they can't tell us we have to do or not do. And it will all be done under the guise of our "health". Why do you think Michelle has been trying to tell us what to eat? If this is upheld in the SCOTUS...then government will have the power to give or take away healthcare related services based on our lifestyle choices. Personal choice and free will at that moment will cease to exist in the U.S.

Molon Labe
03-26-2012, 08:53 AM
There's more to American Liberty hanging in the balance than Obamacare. Romney made the blueprint for it.
It's a systemic problem that goes way beyond one policy.

Odysseus
03-26-2012, 11:12 AM
The future of American liberty, the freedom of over 300 million people, is in the hands of nine appointed judges, who can literally rule any way that they want. That high-pitched whine that you're hearing is every one of the signers of the Constitution spinning in their graves at 5,000 RPM.

Zeus
03-26-2012, 11:47 AM
The future of American liberty, the freedom of over 300 million people, is in the hands of nine appointed judges, who can literally rule any way that they want. That high-pitched whine that you're hearing is every one of the signers of the Constitution spinning in their graves at 5,000 RPM.

I predict 4 - 4 split decision, Kennedy will be the tie breaker and he could go either way.

Elspeth
03-26-2012, 02:14 PM
The future of American liberty, the freedom of over 300 million people, is in the hands of nine appointed judges, who can literally rule any way that they want. That high-pitched whine that you're hearing is every one of the signers of the Constitution spinning in their graves at 5,000 RPM.

From what I remember, the founders did not intend for the Supreme Court to have this much power. It was John Marshall who set the stage for an almost dictatorial SC.

Arroyo_Doble
03-26-2012, 02:18 PM
I predict 4 - 4 split decision, Kennedy will be the tie breaker and he could go either way.

I am predicting a 6-3 decision with both Kennedy and Roberts upholding the law.

The three being Alito and ScaliathereforeThomas.

The question of whether or not the penalty is a tax that was being discussed today took me by surprise.

Elspeth
03-26-2012, 02:33 PM
The question of whether or not the penalty is a tax that was being discussed today took me by surprise.

What were some of the arguments?

Arroyo_Doble
03-26-2012, 02:39 PM
What were some of the arguments?

The Court heard arguments with regards to the Anti-Injunction Act which became law in 1867. The upshot is that the Court cannot rule on the legality of federal taxes until they are imposed. Determining whether or not the Individual Mandate penalty is a federal tax is imperative before they can proceed with adjudicating the dispute or putting it off until 2015.

linda22003
03-26-2012, 03:10 PM
There shouldn't be any surprise as to the topics for the oral arguments, as they have been announced in advance. Tomorrow is the individual mandate question. C-SPAN is running the audio in the afternoons. I listened to the 1-2.30 airing, and it's on C-SPAN 3 again right now.

noonwitch
03-26-2012, 03:25 PM
I am predicting a 6-3 decision with both Kennedy and Roberts upholding the law.

The three being Alito and ScaliathereforeThomas.

The question of whether or not the penalty is a tax that was being discussed today took me by surprise.


Scaliatherefore Thomas? LOL.

AmPat
03-26-2012, 03:33 PM
I am predicting a 6-3 decision with both Kennedy and Roberts upholding the law.

The three being Alito and ScaliathereforeThomas.

The question of whether or not the penalty is a tax that was being discussed today took me by surprise.


I predict 4 - 4 split decision, Kennedy will be the tie breaker and he could go either way.

If these idiots were Americans who agree with the Constitution and has ANY Constitutional law understanding, it should be 9-0 striking this communism down in its tracks.

Janice
03-26-2012, 05:02 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Iv2DU.jpg


The Court heard arguments with regards to the Anti-Injunction Act which became law in 1867. The upshot is that the Court cannot rule on the legality of federal taxes until they are imposed. Determining whether or not the Individual Mandate penalty is a federal tax is imperative before they can proceed with adjudicating the dispute or putting it off until 2015.

If the Supremes had actually considered this a tax they would not have considered hearing it but deferred it to a lower court. And the States would have absolutely no standing to sue. The fact that they are entertaining arguments alone tells us they dont seriously consider it a tax. Otherwise as you said they would have to wait until after its been imposed to make any kind of ruling. The whole argument, any way you slice it is on very weak grounds. Thus the need for activist and "moderate" or "populist" judges who do not take their oaths very seriously at all.

fettpett
03-26-2012, 06:21 PM
Before obamacare became law it was argued that it wasn't a tax, now that it's been in through the courts, they are arguing that it IS a tax...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

Janice
03-27-2012, 02:34 AM
Today or yesterday the anti-injunction act was argued before the court. Interestingly neither the 0bama regime, nor the 26 states nor the NFIB (the National Federation of Independent Businesses) argued in favor of the anti-injunction act treating the penalty provision as a tax for purposes of delaying this decision. The Solicitor General of the United States argued that the anti-injunction act doesnt apply because the penalty provision isnt a tax. Because the regime wants this case decided now.

Tomorrow or today they will be arguing the individual mandate. On this the 0bama regime has been arguing that the penalty provision under the individual mandate that is, if you dont enter into a private contract with a private insurance company, that you can be penalized, in that circumstance they are arguing that it is a tax.

So in essence, as Justice Alito pointed out to Solicitor General Verrilli (paraphrased), one day they argue that the penalty isnt a tax, then the next day they are argue that the penalty is a tax.

Brief of Amicus Curie Landmark Legal Foundation
in support of Respondents on the Individual Mandate (http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/11-398bsacLandmarkLegalFoundation_FILED.pdf)
(Pdf)

For this law generally and in its specifics to be passed one must reject the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent and ... other things.

txradioguy
03-27-2012, 03:30 AM
Before obamacare became law it was argued that it wasn't a tax, now that it's been in through the courts, they are arguing that it IS a tax...:rolleyes::rolleyes:

That's what was being argued yesterday...that it wasn't a tax. Now today on day two of arguments the same person who said yesterday it wasn't a tax is going to tell the Justices it IS a tax.

linda22003
03-27-2012, 09:39 AM
If these idiots were Americans who agree with the Constitution and has ANY Constitutional law understanding, it should be 9-0 striking this communism down in its tracks.

Well, they're what we have on the court now, not legal scholars like you. :rolleyes:

Lager
03-27-2012, 09:50 AM
The individual mandate should and will be struck down. Using the commerce clause as a basis for the mandate is a weak argument, I believe. George Will had an interesting column about it, "ObamaCare's oxymoron" here at this link:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will032252.php3

AmPat
03-27-2012, 01:01 PM
Well, they're what we have on the court now, not legal scholars like you. :rolleyes:
If this is what a "legal Scholar" is, I could do better. Your Asshat comment aside, common sense and a third grader could rule on this correctly without all the fanfare. So STHU unless you have a germaine comment.
I never pretended to be any "scholar" regarding this particular topic, I was commenting on the absolute and obvious conclusion unless one is a putrid, small-minded, liberal ideologue.

Clear now smartass?

Janice
03-27-2012, 01:03 PM
This whole circus makes me wonder. If this assault on our liberties is declared constitutional by the court...

As far as I can tell... every other single amendment to the constitution sooner or later becomes null and void. The first amendment, the second, fourth, fifth, tenth ... really all the ones addressing personal liberty might just as well be thrown into the circular file as far as I can tell. Its just a matter of time.

And thats exactly what 4 of these justices are intent on doing. 1 of them btw should have recused herself. But since she despises the constitution as do her fellow travelers thats not going to happen.

I am really worried. These people want to shred the very document they have sworn to uphold. And the media is doing whatever it can to assist these clowns.

linda22003
03-27-2012, 01:40 PM
If this is what a "legal Scholar" is, I could do better. Your Asshat comment aside, common sense and a third grader could rule on this correctly without all the fanfare. So STHU unless you have a germaine comment.
I never pretended to be any "scholar" regarding this particular topic, I was commenting on the absolute and obvious conclusion unless one is a putrid, small-minded, liberal ideologue.

Clear now smartass?

No. There's no "i" in germane.

The point is not to know what the favored outcome is; the point it interpretation of the law as it is established in this country. That's not as simplistic as you'd like it to be.

linda22003
03-27-2012, 01:42 PM
The oral arguments for today are now streaming on CSPAN-3, and are very interesting, because today is all about the individual mandate question. Kennedy's been asking a lot of questions so far, which is interesting since he's generally considered someone who could go either way on many cases.

Arroyo_Doble
03-27-2012, 01:53 PM
The oral arguments for today are now streaming on CSPAN-3, and are very interesting, because today is all about the individual mandate question. Kennedy's been asking a lot of questions so far, which is interesting since he's generally considered someone who could go either way on many cases.

Who is getting the brunt of his questions?

linda22003
03-27-2012, 02:16 PM
Who is getting the brunt of his questions?

The whole first hour is a presentation of the government's case by the Solicitor General, Verrilli. That's where we are now. The second hour will be split between representation for various individual states, and for the National Federation of Independent Business.

Elspeth
03-27-2012, 05:37 PM
The whole first hour is a presentation of the government's case by the Solicitor General, Verrilli. That's where we are now. The second hour will be split between representation for various individual states, and for the National Federation of Independent Business.

Thanks for the reports on this.

Wei Wu Wei
03-27-2012, 07:35 PM
I don't like this health care bill either, but the perception of it from the right simply boggles my mind. I can't fathom how you people think this bill is some republic-ending hammer and constitution-shredding sickle straight through the heart and soul of this country.

I was very upset with this bill passing, I do not like this bill. However I am astonished at how the right characterizes it.. It couldn't be further from the truth.

I was probably at the very peak of my right-wing propaganda consumption in 2008 and 2009. I listened to the constant, nonstop wailing about this health care law on every single right wing media outlet. I cannot help but think it was one of the most effective misinformation campaigns in my lifetime.

I fully support total socialist medicine. FULL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. I would be happy with partial-socialized health care. I could even accept some version of an OPTIONAL socialized health care system. Even a simple public option along side fully private option would be a step in the right direction. Even at the very least, a simple expansion of the extremely popular and very successful medicare program.

Obama's health care law is NONE of these. Not even one bit. The idea that your health care is now going to be managed from washington is a ludicrous paranoid fantasy with no basis in reality.

This health care law is nothing more than a corporate hand-out (the sort of thing the right-wing usually LOVES). There is no aspect of socialized medicine in this whatsoever.

Rockntractor
03-27-2012, 07:39 PM
I don't like this health care bill either, but the perception of it from the right simply boggles my mind. I can't fathom how you people think this bill is some republic-ending hammer and constitution-shredding sickle straight through the heart and soul of this country.

I was very upset with this bill passing, I do not like this bill. However I am astonished at how the right characterizes it.. It couldn't be further from the truth.

I was probably at the very peak of my right-wing propaganda consumption in 2008 and 2009. I listened to the constant, nonstop wailing about this health care law on every single right wing media outlet. I cannot help but think it was one of the most effective misinformation campaigns in my lifetime.

I fully support total socialist medicine. FULL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. I would be happy with partial-socialized health care. I could even accept some version of an OPTIONAL socialized health care system. Even a simple public option along side fully private option would be a step in the right direction. Even at the very least, a simple expansion of the extremely popular and very successful medicare program.

Obama's health care law is NONE of these. Not even one bit. The idea that your health care is now going to be managed from washington is a ludicrous paranoid fantasy with no basis in reality.

This health care law is nothing more than a corporate hand-out (the sort of thing the right-wing usually LOVES). There is no aspect of socialized medicine in this whatsoever.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/smiley_chipper.gif

Wei Wu Wei
03-27-2012, 07:43 PM
The question of whether or not the penalty is a tax that was being discussed today took me by surprise.

I fully expected this issue to be at the center of the judicial debate the moment the bill was passed.

It is totally legal and not unusual for the government to raise taxes, as well as to issue tax credits for certain activities.

Let me give one of the most well known examples, the Child Tax Credit. Is the child tax credit a legal penalty for not having children? No it's not. If the government raises taxes, but keeps the child tax credit, does that mean the government is issuing fines to adults who don't have children? Does that mean the government is forcing Americans to breed with the threat of fines?

That's the argument for the bill's legality. It's perfectly legal for the government to issue taxes related to certain specific services or issues or needs. It's also perfectly legal for the government to issue tax credits to people who meet certain criteria. If the bill is written in such a way that there is a tax increase, with credits given to people who purchase health insurance, then what you get is higher taxes for people who don't buy health insurance. That isn't the same as a penalty, even though some people may feel like it is one.

No part of that process is out of the scope of the government's recognized powers.

I still think the solution to the health care problem being for the government to "persuade" the American people to all purchase private health care plans is total bullshit. I don't like the plan, I think it's garbage. However, that doesn't the fact that they are doing this through legal tax maneuvers, and it doesn't mean this is some socialist project.

AmPat
03-27-2012, 11:05 PM
No. There's no "i" in germane.

The point is not to know what the favored outcome is; the point it interpretation of the law as it is established in this country. That's not as simplistic as you'd like it to be.

It is that simple and who gives a crap how to spell a word you obviously knew? Therefore, thank you for proving again what an asshat you are.

The point is if the Justices sitting on the court cannot see the unconstitutionality of this legislation, they have no business being on the court for one or both reasons; they are stupid or they are ideologically unfit for the position. That is my opinion whether you agree or not. We all realize how much smarter you are than everybody else. You may take a bow just prior to pissing off.

Question: Do you have any real friends or just people that put up with you? And another thing grammar NAZI, check your spelling on your sentence----" the point it interpretation of the law as it is established"

Odysseus
03-27-2012, 11:43 PM
The three being Alito and ScaliathereforeThomas.

Thomas Sowell on Clarence Thomas:

A recent book on the Supreme Court in general has a chapter on Justice Thomas that devastates what has been said about him in the media. That book is Supreme Conflict by Jan Crawford Greenburg.

What will come as a shock to many who read this fact-filled book is that the picture of Justice Thomas as a blind follower of Justice Antonin Scalia, with whom he often votes, is completely different from the reality.

Notes made by Justice Harry Blackmun during discussions of issues among the justices make it clear that from day one Clarence Thomas staked out his own position on issues, even when all eight of his senior colleagues took the opposite position.

Often it was Justice Thomas whose arguments won over Justice Scalia and Chief Justice Rehnquist — and sometimes enough others for a majority.

That much of this information came from notes made during judicial conferences by the late Harry Blackmun, whose views were antithetical to those of Clarence Thomas, adds more weight to the conclusion that media depictions of Justice Thomas reflect what many in the media felt a need to believe, rather than any facts.

Just so that the next time that you feel the need to gratuitously insult the man, you can't say that somebody didn't try to set you straight.


I don't like this health care bill either, but the perception of it from the right simply boggles my mind. I can't fathom how you people think this bill is some republic-ending hammer and constitution-shredding sickle straight through the heart and soul of this country.

That's because you are a wannabe revolutionary who would like nothing better than to wield a hammer and Constitution-shredding sickle.


I was very upset with this bill passing, I do not like this bill. However I am astonished at how the right characterizes it.. It couldn't be further from the truth.

I was probably at the very peak of my right-wing propaganda consumption in 2008 and 2009. I listened to the constant, nonstop wailing about this health care law on every single right wing media outlet. I cannot help but think it was one of the most effective misinformation campaigns in my lifetime.

I fully support total socialist medicine. FULL SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE. I would be happy with partial-socialized health care. I could even accept some version of an OPTIONAL socialized health care system. Even a simple public option along side fully private option would be a step in the right direction. Even at the very least, a simple expansion of the extremely popular and very successful medicare program.

Obama's health care law is NONE of these. Not even one bit. The idea that your health care is now going to be managed from washington is a ludicrous paranoid fantasy with no basis in reality.

This health care law is nothing more than a corporate hand-out (the sort of thing the right-wing usually LOVES). There is no aspect of socialized medicine in this whatsoever.

I just cannot take you seriously when you say stuff like this.


I fully expected this issue to be at the center of the judicial debate the moment the bill was passed.

It is totally legal and not unusual for the government to raise taxes, as well as to issue tax credits for certain activities.

Let me give one of the most well known examples, the Child Tax Credit. Is the child tax credit a legal penalty for not having children? No it's not. If the government raises taxes, but keeps the child tax credit, does that mean the government is issuing fines to adults who don't have children? Does that mean the government is forcing Americans to breed with the threat of fines?

That's the argument for the bill's legality. It's perfectly legal for the government to issue taxes related to certain specific services or issues or needs. It's also perfectly legal for the government to issue tax credits to people who meet certain criteria. If the bill is written in such a way that there is a tax increase, with credits given to people who purchase health insurance, then what you get is higher taxes for people who don't buy health insurance. That isn't the same as a penalty, even though some people may feel like it is one.

No part of that process is out of the scope of the government's recognized powers.

Congratulations. You have just explained why the government's use of the tax code to manipulate behavior ought to be illegal. Taxes are supposed to fund the operations of government. They are not supposed to be a carrot and stick to force us to breed, buy insurance or otherwise compel us towards behaviors that our elites believe that we should do more of. I would probably take a pretty solid hit if the child tax credit went away, but I'd be willing to endure it for a flat tax rate with no loopholes for all Americans.


I still think the solution to the health care problem being for the government to "persuade" the American people to all purchase private health care plans is total bullshit. I don't like the plan, I think it's garbage. However, that doesn't the fact that they are doing this through legal tax maneuvers, and it doesn't mean this is some socialist project.

Government does not "persuade". It punishes through confiscation and rewards through redistribution. Any system of government-run healthcare would be coercive, and the best solution is to get the government out of it. No more mandates, no more manipulation of markets.

Elspeth
03-27-2012, 11:50 PM
Drudge has linked to SC comments:


JUSTICE KENNEDY: But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don't have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that's generally the rule.

And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way.


CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: Well, the same, it seems to me, would be true say for the market in emergency services: police, fire, ambulance, roadside assistance, whatever. You don't know when you're going to need it; you're not sure that you will. But the same is true for health care. You don't know if you're going to need a heart transplant or if you ever will. So there is a market there. To -- in some extent, we all participate in it. So can the government require you to buy a cell phone because that would facilitate responding when you need emergency services? You can just dial 911 no matter where you are?

GENERAL VERRILLI: No, Mr. Chief Justice. think that's different. It's -- We -- I don't think we think of that as a market. This is a market. This is market regulation. And in addition, you have a situation in this market not only where people enter involuntarily as to when they enter and won't be able to control what they need when they enter but when they --

CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS: It seems to me that's the same as in my hypothetical. You don't know when you're going to need police assistance. You can't predict the extent to emergency response that you'll need. But when you do, and the government provides it.



Interesting eh?

Janice
03-28-2012, 12:20 AM
Justice Sotomayor Skeptical About Claims that Individual Mandate isn't Justified by Limitless Interpretation of Commerce Clause

Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli's claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. The justice and solicitor general were very much at odds on this point.

MRC TV (http://mrctv.org/videos/justice-sotomayor-skeptical-about-claims-individual-mandate-isnt-justified-limitless-interpretation-commerce-clause)

----------------------------------

I have no doubt she wants to pass this BS, she doesnt agree with the way the solicitor general dingbat is presenting it.

Janice
03-28-2012, 01:18 AM
http://i.imgur.com/z6VwV.jpg

I just heard some of the replies and arguments made by the solicitor general.

What an absolute wandering, babbling moonbat. Did you hear the "burial" (at death) argument? Did you hear the broccoli argument? Or the cell phone? Or how about "insurance in advance of the point of sale" (in anticipatory participation)?? What???

Elspeth
03-28-2012, 01:50 AM
Justice Sotomayor Skeptical About Claims that Individual Mandate isn't Justified by Limitless Interpretation of Commerce Clause

Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli's claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. The justice and solicitor general were very much at odds on this point.

MRC TV (http://mrctv.org/videos/justice-sotomayor-skeptical-about-claims-individual-mandate-isnt-justified-limitless-interpretation-commerce-clause)

----------------------------------

I have no doubt she wants to pass this BS, she doesnt agree with the way the solicitor general dingbat is presenting it.

"Can the government force you into commerce?"

THAT is the question and Sotomayor is right on. The solicitor general seems to be babbling. Not that I want to do Oblahblah any favors, but couldn't he have picked a better representative?

Elspeth
03-28-2012, 01:51 AM
http://i.imgur.com/z6VwV.jpg

I just heard some of the replies and arguments made by the solicitor general.

What an absolute wandering, babbling moonbat. Did you hear the "burial" (at death) argument? Did you hear the broccoli argument? Or the cell phone? Or how about "insurance in advance of the point of sale" (in anticipatory participation)?? What???

I missed the "burial at death" argument. I heard about Scalia and the broccoli and the cell phone question as well.

Janice
03-28-2012, 02:26 AM
A little glimpse ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDaRuEkLznk

While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli Jr. made the Obama administration's case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, "We're not stupid."

Justice Elena Kagan, a former solicitor general appointed by President Obama to the high court, sided with Verrilli in arguing that young people should be required by the federal government to purchase health insurance because others will subsidize their health care in the future.

Scalia shot back, arguing that young people will make the decision to buy health insurance eventually and do not need to be forced by the federal government to engage in commerce.

Janice
03-28-2012, 02:38 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Qg5DV.jpg


"Can the government force you into commerce?"

THAT is the question and Sotomayor is right on. The solicitor general seems to be babbling. Not that I want to do Oblahblah any favors, but couldn't he have picked a better representative?

Yes. Apparently the liberal activist judges including justice Sotomayor deemed it necessary at some point to "jump in" to help the babbling solicitor moonbat as his ramblings didnt appear to be helping the case. But she did differ from him on this one point and tried to "steer him" back on "the right path". I mean, what are pals (on the road to statism) for if not this?

txradioguy
03-28-2012, 02:39 AM
So the basic argument from the Government is "at some point everyone will have to use healthcare".

Ok apply that to other things.

At some point everyone has to breathe.

At some point everyone has to eat.

At somepoint everyone has to (insert everyday normal activity here).


If the government beleives that they can and have the legal right to tell you to purchase healthcare "before the point of sale" at the Solicitor general put it...they will have the legal right to tell you you can or can't do anything in your life because "at some point" you're going to do...something.

This isn't about ensuring affordable healthcare for everyone...this is about the ability of the Federal Government to attempt to control everything you do from taking a dump to taking a breath.

And what absolutely boggles my mind is that certain people will see that and have it explained to them and they won't care. How anyone can willingly and knowingly surrender their personal choice and freedom that way.

The saying "there's no such thing as a free lunch" was coined for instances just like this.

Janice
03-28-2012, 03:27 AM
If the government beleives that they can and have the legal right to tell you to purchase healthcare "before the point of sale" at the Solicitor general put it...they will have the legal right to tell you you can or can't do anything in your life because "at some point" you're going to do...something.



Yes. That is what I was noting too. He argues 0bamacare is "insurance in advance of the point of sale" (in anticipatory participation) as a means to validate this xtraconstitutional abortion. If thats true, it can literally apply to any activity that you can imagine that humans do from birth to death and everything in between. Bar none.

I think he just made the case against his own case. No wonder the leftist judges jumped in to help him argue. I think he forgot... hes supposed to hit the bars drinking the night after hes made his arguments, not before.

txradioguy
03-28-2012, 03:59 AM
No wonder the leftist judges jumped in to help him argue. I think he forgot... hes supposed to hit the bars drinking the night after hes made his arguments, not before.

Justice Kagan was practically holding his hand to help him along. IMHO he was probably using her notes from when she had his job to argue the case.

Bailey
03-28-2012, 08:29 AM
Justice Kagan was practically holding his hand to help him along. IMHO he was probably using her notes from when she had his job to argue the case.

I love how the left is bleeting for Thomas to recuse himself but nary a peep for Kagan to do the same.

txradioguy
03-28-2012, 09:01 AM
I love how the left is bleeting for Thomas to recuse himself but nary a peep for Kagan to do the same.

That's because Libtards set impossibly high standards for everyone else...and none for themselves.

Starbuck
03-28-2012, 09:23 AM
I don't know much about the legality of the mandate. I can read well enough to know that there are two sides, though.

Fact is - and it is a fact - there are huge numbers of people who absolutely will not contribute to their own well being unless forced to do so. They will buy whatever they want and expect to be given what they need, such as health care. For that reason I don't have a problem with the individual mandate, whichever way it goes.
My problem is with all the rest of the bill and all the crap they wrote into it. Tax the profit on the sale of my home? In the health care bill? Now, that's a load of crap!
And not addressing the inability of health care insurers to insure across state lines? Baloney! Then, after the divide up the insurers territories like the mafia in 1929, they force coverage of one sort or another?

2500 pages? Who wrote a bill 2500 pages and 500,000 words long? No, I want the whole thing scrapped. Start over.

linda22003
03-28-2012, 09:46 AM
I love how the left is bleeting for Thomas to recuse himself but nary a peep for Kagan to do the same.

I don't see a reason for either one to recuse. Thomas is not responsible for his wife's job, and Kagan wasn't involved in the healthcare law as SG.

linda22003
03-28-2012, 09:52 AM
My problem is with all the rest of the bill and all the crap they wrote into it. Tax the profit on the sale of my home? In the health care bill? Now, that's a load of crap!

It's on house values over a $500,000 exemption per couple IF your income is over $200,000. Sorry if you're being taxed for doing so well. Some people think it's going to be on every home sale, for everyone.

fettpett
03-28-2012, 10:47 AM
I don't see a reason for either one to recuse. Thomas is not responsible for his wife's job, and Kagan wasn't involved in the healthcare law as SG.

Yes she was, she was involved with arguing for the law as SG in lower courts, her mind is already made up on the law

linda22003
03-28-2012, 11:08 AM
Yes she was, she was involved with arguing for the law as SG in lower courts, her mind is already made up on the law

Can't verify that right now but will try to later today. Unless you can.

fettpett
03-28-2012, 11:17 AM
Can't verify that right now but will try to later today. Unless you can.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49108


Kagan Defended ObamaCare As Solicitor General
Case closed on recusal.
by John Hayward (http://www.humanevents.com/search.php?author_name=John+Hayward)
01/27/2012



Comments (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=49108#comments)


Until now, those who say Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan shouldn’t recuse herself from the upcoming ObmaCare case, even though federal code clearly requires her to do so, have argued that even though she was President Obama’s Solicitor General, she was kept hermetically sealed away from anything pertaining to ObamaCare. This was supposedly done even though the Supreme Court seat she would later occupy wasn’t vacant yet – a forward-looking move designed to keep her viable for both the Court seat, and the ObamaCare thumbs-up desperately needed by the President in a few weeks.
That excuse always seemed preposterous. Solicitor General Kagan was kept totally out of the loop on the most important legal defense her Administration would ever mount, in order to keep her unsullied for the chance that she might sit on one of the most important cases the Supreme Court would ever hear?
Well, the Kagan firewall just went up in smoke. Fox News (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/01/26/debate-heats-up-over-whether-kagan-should-participate-in-supreme-courts-health/?test=latestnews) reports:
With just weeks until the U.S. Supreme Court considers the constitutionality of President Obama's health care law, there are new calls for Justice Elena Kagan to recuse herself from the case.
Her critics point to a 2010 case regarding a San Francisco health measure, in which then-Solicitor General Kagan's office filed an amicus brief touting the newly passed health care law.
In May 2010, after Kagan had been nominated to the nation's highest court, Principal Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal sent her a memo outlining the cases in which she had "substantially participated." Kaytal specifically referenced the Golden Gate case, noting that it had been "discussed with Elena several times."
That's enough to convince Heritage Foundation Senior Legal Fellow Hans von Spakovsky that Kagan shouldn't take part in the current health care case before the high court.
"I don't see how any ethical lawyer adhering to professional codes of conduct could not consider that they need to recuse themselves from this case," he said.
(Emphases mine.) And we all know that Obama appointees hold themselves to the highest ethical standards, don’t we?
Kagan defenders have been hilariously reduced to hair-splitting about how the “issues” in the San Francisco case were so unique that she’s still in the clear to rule on ObamaCare in general. We really have degenerated into a banana republic if those arguments are taken seriously.
U.S. code could not be more clear on this issue. The third condition set forth for judicial disqualification reads, in its entirety: “Where he has served in governmental employment and in such capacity participated as counsel, adviser or material witness concerning the proceeding or expressed an opinion concerning the merits of the particular case in controversy.”
Until today, Kagan’s defenders pretended to understand what those words meant. That’s why they so desperately insisted that she never went anywhere near ObamaCare during her Solicitor General days. That argument was absurd, but everyone trying to keep her on the case at the Supreme Court understood it was vital.
There are emails showing Kagan celebrating passage of ObamaCare during her time with the Administration, but that’s different, even though many observers find it unseemly. It skirts the edge of the prohibition against “personal bias” on the part of judges, but the law is less concerned with appearances than with concrete relationships that compromise judicial impartiality, and ruin public trust in the judiciary. Any reasonable person can understand the absurdity of allowing someone who actively argued one side of a case to sit in judgment upon it.
Elena Kagan evidently understands the standards for disqualification, because in December she recused herself from the Supreme Court’s hearing of the Justice Department challenge to Arizona’s immigration law, precisely because she was Solicitor General when the DOJ suit was filed.

Game, set, match. There’s nothing else for any ethical jurist or lawyer to discuss. Kagan must not rule on ObamaCare.

Starbuck
03-28-2012, 11:59 AM
It's on house values over a $500,000 exemption per couple IF your income is over $200,000. Sorry if you're being taxed for doing so well. Some people think it's going to be on every home sale, for everyone.

I'm familiar with all the misconceptions. I guess I've gotten the same emails as everyone else - mostly wrong.

The BIG question is: What is it doing buried in the healthcare bill?

linda22003
03-28-2012, 12:07 PM
I'm familiar with all the misconceptions. I guess I've gotten the same emails as everyone else - mostly wrong.

The BIG question is: What is it doing buried in the healthcare bill?

Standing ready to raise money, no doubt. :rolleyes:

Janice
03-28-2012, 12:17 PM
Standing ready to raise money, no doubt. :rolleyes:

Yup. It (0bamacare) so desperately needs funding Zippy took 1/2 TRILLION dollars from Medicare to help "jump start" it. Some of the revenue streaming/ taxation starts now, but the coverage doesnt kick in until a few years down the road AFTER we've "contributed" to it.

linda22003
03-28-2012, 12:35 PM
I've read articles pro and con recusal; her direct involvement in the legislation is in doubt, but it does look questionable. Here's an interesting "yes, she should recuse" article, interesting because it's from a liberal standpoint and makes a number of good points:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/12/obamacare_and_the_supreme_court_should_elena_kagan _recuse_herself_.2.html

Now, what makes it happen, other than the vagaries of the Code of Judicial Conduct? Should the Chief Justice have raised his eyebrows in a "what are you doing here?" sort of way on Monday? She certainly recused herself from cases in which she was directly involved, before this.

Bailey
03-28-2012, 12:46 PM
I don't see a reason for either one to recuse. Thomas is not responsible for his wife's job, and Kagan wasn't involved in the healthcare law as SG.

As was pointed out she did argue for it when she was a SG but I half agree with your that Thomas has no responsibility over his wife.

linda22003
03-28-2012, 12:51 PM
Well, "half" is more than you usually agree with me, but what's your concern about Thomas on the case?

Bailey
03-28-2012, 01:19 PM
Well, "half" is more than you usually agree with me, but what's your concern about Thomas on the case?

I dont have any concern over him, I was just pointing out the lefts hypocrisy on the subject. I think she shouldv'e recused herself and Thomas shouldn't (He cant force his wife not work where she wants to).

Molon Labe
03-28-2012, 02:21 PM
I am predicting a 6-3 decision with both Kennedy and Roberts upholding the law.

The three being Alito and ScaliathereforeThomas.

The question of whether or not the penalty is a tax that was being discussed today took me by surprise.

I am hoping the SCOTUS isn't stupid enough to not realize that forcing the public to purchase a product and the subsidy of Private companies goes beyond the scope of the Federal government. And that using force of government to ................

Nevermind.

linda22003
03-28-2012, 02:36 PM
There's been a lot of discussion today, unpacking which parts of the law can stand and which cannot under severability. It looks like a lot of it can remain even without the individual mandate, and my guess would be that's what they want to do, sever the rest of the law from the "forced commerce" aspect of it.

Arroyo_Doble
03-28-2012, 03:04 PM
I am hoping the SCOTUS isn't stupid enough to not realize that forcing the public to purchase a product and the subsidy of Private companies goes beyond the scope of the Federal government. And that using force of government to ................

Nevermind.

If they find coerced commerce (however you want to phrase it) unconstitutional, does that leave Massachusetts' healthcare law vulnerable?

linda22003
03-28-2012, 03:13 PM
No. States have a lot of leeway in the laws they can make. It's federal laws that are meant to be enumerated and constitutionally limited.

Arroyo_Doble
03-28-2012, 03:16 PM
No. States have a lot of leeway in the laws they can make. It's federal laws that are meant to be enumerated and constitutionally limited.

That would go against precedent. The 14th Amendment has been interpreted as extending federal restrictions on the government into the Several States on issues such as civil rights, religion, ect ...

Molon Labe
03-28-2012, 03:44 PM
If they find coerced commerce (however you want to phrase it) unconstitutional, does that leave Massachusetts' healthcare law vulnerable?

I certainly hope so. I'll hold my hopes though that we ever get too far away from this. It requires a sea change of thinking about the role of government, which most people don't have the where with all to do for such longstanding traditions of government mandating everything.


FWIW: I try to find something positive to say about the GW Bush years. The best thing that came out of his presidency was the fact that two of the judges he appointed may be the deciding factor in ending the individual mandate.

Arroyo_Doble
03-28-2012, 04:05 PM
I certainly hope so. I'll hold my hopes though that we ever get too far away from this. It requires a sea change of thinking about the role of government, which most people don't have the where with all to do for such longstanding traditions of government mandating everything.

I am not sure how a challenge to Massachusetts' law wouldn't be successful if the ACA is thrown out. If the restrictions on the federal government extend to the Several States, this would be an easy one to argue if an individual in the Commonwealth decided to take it to the federal courts.


FWIW: I try to find something positive to say about the GW Bush years. The best thing that came out of his presidency was the fact that two of the judges he appointed may be the deciding factor in ending the individual mandate.

Replacing O'Connor, a moderate, with a corporatist moved the center of the Court to the right and placed it in the lap of Kennedy. Replacing Rehnquist with just another plutocrat really didn't change that much.

Obama has only been able to maintain the status quo, as far as I can tell. The jury (no pun intended) is still out on Sotomayor since she is considered a more moderate jurist than Souter (but still to the left of O'Connor).

Elspeth
03-28-2012, 04:38 PM
Janet,

Tried to give you reputation points for a post and ended up taking one away by accident. I'm sorry about that. You can take one from me if you like.

Elspeth

Janice
03-28-2012, 04:53 PM
Janet,

Tried to give you reputation points for a post and ended up taking one away by accident. I'm sorry about that. You can take one from me if you like.

Elspeth

No prob Elspeth. Stuff happens. Id be hard pressed to think of a situation where I would consider taking rep points away from somebody. This is definitely not one of them. In fact I'll just add one to you instead. :cool:

Janice
03-28-2012, 05:16 PM
http://i.imgur.com/Mz1uY.jpg


There's been a lot of discussion today, unpacking which parts of the law can stand and which cannot under severability. It looks like a lot of it can remain even without the individual mandate, and my guess would be that's what they want to do, sever the rest of the law from the "forced commerce" aspect of it.

Its looking more and more like that will not be the case.

Paraphrasing from Limbaugh today: Justice Scalia, during oral arguments today... said something to the government lawyer, Mr. Verrilli ... inre to the sever-ability of the mandate from the rest of the health care law. They were discussing what aspects of it to keep. They were all speaking hypothetically. If the mandate gets thrown out, does the whole thing go? Do we keep parts of it? Scalia, during oral arguments, said (chuckling), "You want us to go through 2,700 pages?"

A justice of the US Supreme Court said to the government lawyer, "You want us to go through 2,700 pages?" That's hilarious! What it signals is they're not gonna get into the minutia of it. And if they're not gonna read all 2700 pages, how in the world are they gonna decide what stays in and what doesn't? What a damaging, harmful, painful joke and an embarrassing mess this is.

Nobody knows what's in it! The more it unfolds here, the more obvious it becomes to me that this ought to be one of the biggest embarrassments in this nation's history. This whole episode. This whole law. This whole piece of legislation. This whole effort to ram it through. Its premise, its objective. Plus it's tragic. If it ever happens, if it ever is really is implemented it stops being a joke. It stops being an embarrassment and then it becomes shackles.

The more that is revealed, the more it does appear to be "a tough sell".

Janice
03-28-2012, 07:27 PM
I just heard some of the replies and arguments made by the solicitor general.

What an absolute wandering, babbling moonbat. Did you hear the "burial" (at death) argument? Did you hear the broccoli argument? Or the cell phone? Or how about "insurance in advance of the point of sale" (in anticipatory participation)?? What???

http://i.imgur.com/ay6pk.jpg

linda22003
03-29-2012, 10:57 AM
http://i.imgur.com/Mz1uY.jpg



Its looking more and more like that will not be the case.


Well, you're probably right, if you listened to Rush; I was just going on my impression of listening to all six hours of the oral arguments myself.

Tipsycatlover
03-29-2012, 11:52 AM
obama is readying the argument that the Court is illegitimate and he will refuse to abide by the decision. He's used to being in contempt of court with nothing being done. It would not suprise me if he ordered its dissolution. That's where the noises that he's making today lead.

Arroyo_Doble
03-29-2012, 11:53 AM
obama is readying the argument that the Court is illegitimate and he will refuse to abide by the decision.

The days of Andrew Jackson are long gone.

The Executive cannot ignore the Court's decision.

Tipsycatlover
03-29-2012, 12:00 PM
The days of Andrew Jackson are long gone.

The Executive cannot ignore the Court's decision.

He has so far! He's was cited for contempt for not issuing drilling permits

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/02/03/federal-judge-holds-obama-administration-in-contempt-over-drilling-permitorium/

Janice
03-29-2012, 12:48 PM
I believe he ignored a judge on a stay on 0bamacare too.

Odysseus
03-29-2012, 04:22 PM
If they find coerced commerce (however you want to phrase it) unconstitutional, does that leave Massachusetts' healthcare law vulnerable?

Not under federal law. A ruling against Obamacare would be on the grounds of limiting the power of congress under the enumerated powers of Article I, section 8, which would mean that the Interstate Commerce clause did not give congress the power to extend mandates on individuals. However, the states can still regulate commerce within their own borders.

Romneycare is terrible policy, but unless the Massachusetts constitution has a similar provision regarding limits on state regulation of commerce, it's legal.

Arroyo_Doble
03-29-2012, 04:26 PM
Not under federal law. A ruling against Obamacare would be on the grounds of limiting the power of congress under the enumerated powers of Article I, section 8, which would mean that the Interstate Commerce clause did not give congress the power to extend mandates on individuals. However, the states can still regulate commerce within their own borders.

Romneycare is terrible policy, but unless the Massachusetts constitution has a similar provision regarding limits on state regulation of commerce, it's legal.

Okay. That makes sense. It is an issue of exercising power that does not exist as opposed to an abrogation of individual rights. States are free to coerce commerce where the federal government is not.

Odysseus
03-29-2012, 04:31 PM
Okay. That makes sense. It is an issue of exercising power that does not exist as opposed to an abrogation of individual rights. States are free to coerce commerce where the federal government is not.

Basically. The Tenth Amendment sums it up:


The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This basically means that Massachusetts has more leeway over its jurisdiction than the federal government does.

AmPat
03-30-2012, 10:33 AM
Basically. The Tenth Amendment sums it up:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

This basically means that Massachusetts has more leeway over its jurisdiction than the federal government does.

Liberals would like us to forget (or never learn) that the Constitution was meant to establish a limited government that would not make us subjects like Brits, but citizens who didn't have to battle their own government.

Liberweenies like Nanny McGovernment. It makes it easier for them to reside in mommy and daddy's basement while remaining natilly attired in their tighty-whity undies.

txradioguy
03-30-2012, 10:42 AM
Liberals would like us to forget (or never learn) that the Constitution was meant to establish a limited government that would not make us subjects like Brits, but citizens who didn't have to battle their own government.



They hate the Constitution for that very reason...because it limits what the government can and can't do...what they call "negative liberties"...as opposed to a constitution that tells us everything the Government can do for us.

Janice
03-31-2012, 08:06 PM
http://i.imgur.com/xOAUV.jpg

Could defeat for Obamacare mean victory for Obama?

If the Supreme Court knocks out the guts of the Affordable Care Act — the individual mandate requiring people to purchase health insurance or pay a fine — the battle within the Obama campaign will be fierce. The president will be faced with two stark alternatives: launch the political equivalent of a drone strike on the Supreme Court and use the ruling to energize his base, or accept the decision and move on, hoping to neutralize the divisive law in the general election. >>>

>>> In the 2008 presidential campaign, during which I served as Hillary Rodham Clinton’s chief strategist, Obama actually campaigned against the mandate in Clinton’s health-care plan, sending out millions of mailers to try to scare people about the unexpected bills they might have to bear. >>>

Even if Americans think the Supreme Court has become too politically polarized, they still oppose the Affordable Care Act — despite liking some of its elements, such as barring the denial of insurance for preexisting conditions and allowing young people to be on their parents’ health plans until age 26. A recent ABC News-Washington Post poll found that 67 percent of Americans think the court should ditch the entire law or at least throw out the mandate.

Washington comPost (http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/could-defeat-for-obamacare-mean-victory-for-obama/2012/03/30/gIQADM1llS_story.html?hpid=z5)

-----------------------------------------

"Could defeat for Obama in 2012 mean a Victory for Obama"

Yes. a victory for all. There ... headline fixed.

Retread
04-01-2012, 11:06 PM
"State inspection laws, health laws, and laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c. are not within the power granted to Congress. ... Inspection laws, quarantine laws, health laws of every description, as well as laws for regulating the internal commerce of a State, and those which respect turnpike roads, ferries, &c., are component parts of this mass. No direct general power over these objects is granted to Congress, and, consequently, they remain subject to State legislation."

Justice John Marshall (1755-1835) US Supreme Court Chief Justice
Source: Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)