PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court: Conservatism’s Intellectual Crown Jewel



Janice
03-29-2012, 03:00 AM
http://i.imgur.com/ay6pk.jpg

The Supreme Court: Conservatism’s Intellectual Crown Jewel

Listening to the oral arguments on the Supreme Court during the last three days is a reminder of why it is, in many respects, the intellectual crown jewel for conservatives, and why it’s vital that those appointed to the high court aren’t simply reliable votes but are capable of making compelling arguments.

To hear Justices Scalia, Alito, Roberts, and even Kennedy slice and dice Solicitor General Donald Verrilli was sheer delight, as they exposed one bad argument and one flawed premise after another. Among other things, they pressed Verrilli on what the limiting principle was under the Commerce Clause. “Can you create commerce in order to regulate it?” Justice Kennedy asked. Justice Alito brought up the market for burial services and asked if the government could mandate funeral insurance (the argument being that because we all die eventually, why shouldn’nt we transfer the costs of our deaths to the rest of society). When Justice Scalia asked Verrilli to defend the individual mandate provision of ObamaCare, he wondered why the federal government couldn’t also make citizens buy vegetables. “Could you define the market — everybody has to buy food sooner or later, so you define the market as food, therefore, everybody is in the market; therefore, you can make people buy broccoli,” Scalia asked. Justice Roberts asked if the federal government can make you buy a cell phone.

The solicitor general wasn’t able to offer a principled reason why, if the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is ruled as constitutional, the federal government won’t have the power to regulate virtually every area of our lives. Perhaps because there is none. The belief of the founders — that the federal government has limited and enumerated powers — would be dealt a crushing blow. That is why this case is so important and has garnered so much intense interest. The stakes could hardly be higher.

I have no idea what the final vote will be and whether or not the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will live or die. But the last three days have provided us with a blessed reprieve from the silliness that often characterizes political campaigns. What we’ve been able to witness is a serious, substantive, and at times even an elevated debate about the Constitution, self-government, and American first principles. Conservatives had their most able advocates articulating their case and their cause. It was an intellectual treat. And it was a rout.

Commentary Magazine (http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2012/03/28/supreme-court-conservatism-crown-jewel/)

http://i52.tinypic.com/nqcmrr.gif

Janice
03-29-2012, 03:34 AM
It should also be noted that Paul Clement, the attorney who represented the states on the question of their mandate was also brilliant. He exposed the weaknesses of several of the liberal justices (Kagan in particular).

:usflag:

Janice
03-29-2012, 03:51 AM
http://i.imgur.com/ZPvLB.jpg

Obamacare suffers a severability trainwreck at the Supreme Court

If yesterday was a surprise to the liberal defenders of Obamacare, today must have been a shocker. Judging from today’s oral argument, five Supreme Court justices seem fully prepared to strike down the entire statute if the individual mandate fails. In this regard, the justices seem to have largely accepted the argument that I outlined this morning: Without the individual mandate to, in essence, herd customers to insurance companies and provide financial support for the other provisions of the law, the goal of universal access would be thwarted.

Paul Clement, representing those challenging the law, started out strong, making the case to Justice Sonia Sotomayor that, if something is to be pieced together in the wake of the failure of the individual mandate, Congress should tackle that job. “The question is, really, what task do you want to give Congress,” said Clement. “Do you want to give Congress the task of fixing the statute after something has been taken out, especially a provision at the heart, or do you want to give Congress the task of fixing health care?”

That argument was especially persuasive with Justice Anthony Kennedy. This exchange between Kennedy and Edwin Kneedler, the associate solicitor general, >>> MORE >>>

WashingtonCompost (http://www.wpost.com/blogs/right-turn/post/obamacare-suffers-a-severability-trainwreck-at-the-supreme-court/2012/03/28/gIQAzZnxgS_blog.html?tid=pm_opinions_pop)

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

Sending up sincere prayers for our Constitutionally minded Justices and Paul Clement as Im sure millions of others are doing too.

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 08:51 AM
Judges, even at that level, simply cannot be automatons. The must have passion for and dedication to the job they are doing. And, maybe most of all, pride.

During Obama's 2010 State of The Union, he called out the Supreme Court and criticized them for what he termed a mistake:
“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said tonight. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Chief Justice Roberts put it this way later, "To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there,"

And now Barry wants to push his trash filled legislation on America and must do so by pushing it through the very group he publicly embarrassed.
Oh, lotsa luck, Barry.

txradioguy
03-29-2012, 09:14 AM
Judges, even at that level, simply cannot be automatons. The must have passion for and dedication to the job they are doing. And, maybe most of all, pride.

During Obama's 2010 State of The Union, he called out the Supreme Court and criticized them for what he termed a mistake:
“Last week, the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests -- including foreign companies -- to spend without limit in our elections,” Obama said tonight. “Well, I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, and worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people, and that’s why I’m urging Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to right this wrong.”

Chief Justice Roberts put it this way later, "To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there,"

And now Barry wants to push his trash filled legislation on America and must do so by pushing it through the very group he publicly embarrassed.
Oh, lotsa luck, Barry.

If this President is classless enough to diss the Justices during the SOTU address after the Citizens United ruling...can you imagine what he'll say and how he'll act after they strike his individual mandate down and essentially put an end to the idea of Obamacare?

Janice
03-29-2012, 09:20 AM
I still worry. We can fix a POS like 0bama.

But what about the sheeple that voted him in?

And most of them would re-elect him ... including a few on this board.

Very, very troubling indeed.

NJCardFan
03-29-2012, 11:25 AM
I still worry. We can fix a POS like 0bama.

But what about the sheeple that voted him in?

And most of them would re-elect him ... including a few on this board.

Very, very troubling indeed.

Not by voting him in directly but there have been some who refuse to vote for Romney so in a sense, that is a vote cast for Obama.

Hawkgirl
03-29-2012, 12:10 PM
Pretty good news. It would be grand if we can pull the plug on Obamacare before it even takes a breath.

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 12:39 PM
If this President is classless enough to diss the Justices during the SOTU address after the Citizens United ruling...can you imagine what he'll say and how he'll act after they strike his individual mandate down and essentially put an end to the idea of Obamacare?

Know what? After considering this and a few comments I have heard on this board, I just got a view of what a non-Obama White House would look like.

Obama will become the uber-advocate for minorities and those who, like him, are filled with noblesse oblige. His belief that he was born to lead all those inferior to him - and that's everyone - will never go away. He will become Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on steroids and the press will simply not be able to get enough of him. He will get at least as much press time as the new sitting President and challenge his successor at every turn.

Then the worst happens................

He runs again in 2016:blue:

This is bad.:blue::blue:

Novaheart
03-29-2012, 12:44 PM
Single Payer is inevitable. This is simply part of the process. The Single Payer supporters should be delighted to watch the Republicans do this.

Arroyo_Doble
03-29-2012, 12:44 PM
Chief Justice Roberts put it this way later, "To the extent the State of the Union has degenerated into a political pep rally, I'm not sure why we are there,"

And if the Supreme Court is just another partisan branch of government, but unlike the other two branches, unanswerable to the citizens of this nation, then they cannot be trusted to impartially adjudicate disputes.

linda22003
03-29-2012, 12:44 PM
It should also be noted that Paul Clement, the attorney who represented the states on the question of their mandate was also brilliant. He exposed the weaknesses of several of the liberal justices (Kagan in particular).

:usflag:

Clements did a terrific job in all of his arguments.

linda22003
03-29-2012, 12:45 PM
And now Barry wants to push his trash filled legislation on America and must do so by pushing it through the very group he publicly embarrassed.
Oh, lotsa luck, Barry.

So you think the justices decide cases in order to get social revenge?

Novaheart
03-29-2012, 12:47 PM
Pretty good news. It would be grand if we can pull the plug on Obamacare before it even takes a breath.

It has already taken more than a breath. And why would you want people to go without health care?

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 01:02 PM
So you think the justices decide cases in order to get social revenge?

No, not really. For the record, I don't think anyone should recuse themselves from ruling on the case, either. But judges are people. Justices are even better people, but there is always the chance that deep down in their subconscious, some Justice may be thinking..........:smile-new:

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 01:03 PM
And if the Supreme Court is just another partisan branch of government, but unlike the other two branches, unanswerable to the citizens of this nation, then they cannot be trusted to impartially adjudicate disputes.

That would be true. But no one is saying the Supreme Court is just another partisan branch of government. No one at all.

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 01:06 PM
Single Payer is inevitable. This is simply part of the process. The Single Payer supporters should be delighted to watch the Republicans do this.
Actually, I think that's true. I think there will come some sort of single payer service available. Some day. There is simply too much pressure in that direction to resist forever.

But it ain't gonna be 2500 pages long.

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 01:08 PM
It has already taken more than a breath. And why would you want people to go without health care?

Is someone going without health care? I thought that's why Mexicans risked their lives to get over here.:smile-new:

NJCardFan
03-29-2012, 01:09 PM
It has already taken more than a breath. And why would you want people to go without health care?

Here we go again:

http://www.calldrmatt.com/strawman_kit.jpg

Rockntractor
03-29-2012, 01:53 PM
Obama ignored the courts when they ruled to reopen off shore oil drilling in the gulf, what makes people think he will obey the courts rulings over healthcare?
He will continue down his path unhindered, there are other examples of his disregard for the courts out there.

Arroyo_Doble
03-29-2012, 02:03 PM
That would be true. But no one is saying the Supreme Court is just another partisan branch of government. No one at all.

If they overturn the entire law, they will be.

Republicans have campaigned on repeal since it was signed into law. They did not overturn The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 in Citizens United. If the Individual Mandate is unconstitutional, then rule that it is unconstitutional and let the Legislative and Executive Branches do their jobs.

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 02:40 PM
If they overturn the entire law, they will be...........

Well, OK, but that is you saying that, not me. I do not believe that the Supreme Court is just another "partisan branch of government". You asked me if I was saying it; I said no; then you said it. A little confusing, I find it.:smilie_wall:

Arroyo_Doble
03-29-2012, 02:41 PM
Well, OK, but that is you saying that, not me. I do not believe that the Supreme Court is just another "partisan branch of government". You asked me if I was saying it; I said no; then you said it. A little confusing, I find it.:smilie_wall:

These are not the droids you are looking for ...... :cool:

FlaGator
03-29-2012, 02:46 PM
And if the Supreme Court is just another partisan branch of government, but unlike the other two branches, unanswerable to the citizens of this nation, then they cannot be trusted to impartially adjudicate disputes.

As a practical matter, no one can truly be trusted to impartially adjudicate disputes. We can never be sure when someone's biases come in to play when making "impartial" decisions. The person making a decision can't actually know if he or she is truly being impartial.

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 02:49 PM
These are not the droids you are looking for ...... :cool:

Then where are the Sumbitches??!:DDsmilie_panic:

Starbuck
03-29-2012, 02:52 PM
As a practical matter, no one can truly be trusted to impartially adjudicate disputes. We can never be sure when someone's biases come in to play when making "impartial" decisions. The person making a decision can't actually know if he or she is truly being impartial.

(Whew) Someone finally stepped in and used the right words. I've done beat the bushes flat trying to say that.

After all, if Supreme Court Justices were truly, actually, absolutely, impartial we could just replace them with a computer.

Apache
03-29-2012, 04:25 PM
It has already taken more than a breath. And why would you want people to go without health care?

princess, who is going without health care now?


i'll wait...

Hawkgirl
03-29-2012, 04:35 PM
It has already taken more than a breath. And why would you want people to go without health care?

I've had healthcare coverage my entire WORKING life. Of course, I do have to work for it. But you are right about it already taking a breath. A third of this country's hospitals will be shut down within a few years if Obamacare takes off . About a hundred employees have already been cut from my hospital....not to mention 2,000 workers being cut from Jackson in Miami. Hospital Layoffs are being announced nearly every day around the country. And no, it's not just management, it's mainly clinical personnel. Unemployment rate going up, mortality rates going down, healthcare premiums will skyrocket, appointment waits will increase dramatically and nurse to patient ratios will increase.
I can't think of anything worse in my lifetime than Obamacare. He saved the auto industry but will now ruin our healthcare.
You are foolish, ignorant and naive if you believe anything else.