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.
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.
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.
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"
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.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.
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.
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|