Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[LA Ute]

Remy video - health care insurance mandates and pizza toppings:

[YOUTUBE]Cdfn0Wiywk4&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/YOUTUBE]

http://bit.ly/H3dYoU

[ERCougar]

In other words, you are saying the government would do a great job in providing the most inefficient and costly care, but do a crappy job of providing more useful medical services to consumers? Sounds about right. Like the public education system.

So in other words, by "higher level of care", you were referring to...actually, I have no idea what you were referring to, other than it doesn't involve treating broken bones or the flu. Help me out here?
Also, I'd call critical, life-saving care pretty "useful". Perhaps the most useful kind.

[Jarid in Cedar]

In other words, you are saying the government would do a great job in providing the most inefficient and costly care, but do a crappy job of providing more useful medical services to consumers? Sounds about right. Like the public education system.

I don't think you understood what he was saying.

[Goatnapper'96]

Don't get me started on how the government argued the case. Shoddy all around.

As I read a few of the blogs about this issue from lefties, it seemed to me that nobody ever criticized the President and/or Congress for just not calling it a tax in the first place. If they would have had the courage of their convictions in the first place, this entire event could have been avoided. Carrying on about conservative judicial activism or blasting the Solicitor General all seem to ignore that the fundamental flaw of this law, if the SCOTUS strikes it down, is that the Democrats could have chosen to avoid giving the Republicans this opportunity had they just had the courage of their convictions. It seems to me that President Obama valued his second term more than he did his own agenda and I am a bit surprised that this has not had more play from left leaning pundits.

[Portland Ute]

Obama: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

I guess His Holiness doesn't understand the concept of checks and balances and the fact that the Judicial has the EXPLICIT responsibility to do just that IF they believe a law is unconstitutional.

What a jackass.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with a mandate, most of us agree that the Judicial branch of government (the Supreme Court, specifically) is in place to do more than just lay down and take it up the ass just because the Executive and Legislative agree on something.

[Pelado]

Obama: "Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."

I guess His Holiness doesn't understand the concept of checks and balances and the fact that the Judicial has the EXPLICIT responsibility to do just that IF they believe a law is unconstitutional.

What a jackass.

Regardless of whether or not you agree with a mandate, most of us agree that the Judicial branch of government (the Supreme Court, specifically) is in place to do more than just lay down and take it up the ass just because the Executive and Legislative agree on something.

Article 3, Section 2:

The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority...

[Omaha 680]

Article 3, Section 2:

But what about laws passed by majorities in a democratically elected Congress?

[Pelado]

But what about laws passed by majorities in a democratically elected Congress?

Sorry, my bad.

[mUUser]

Was on the road last weekend, and happened upon the oral arguments.

Is it just me, or does Justice Ginsberg seem a step slower than the other justices? General Verrelli (sp?) seemed unprepared. How is that possible? Mike Carvin of the National Federation of Independent Business was about as impressive as it gets. From an amateur's POV, he seemed like the sharpest knife in the drawer.

[Jacob]

The all-too-predictable political back-and-forth has begun with Obama's press conference.

You are the judicial activists!

No, you are!

[Moliere]

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/03...cial-activism/

Obama stated that:

“Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress . . . And I’d just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism, or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example, and I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.”

Right, so because it was a law passed by Congress then it should be Constitutional. I wonder how that reasoning would go for Prop 8. Was Obama really a lecturer on the Constitution?

[kccougar]

Remember that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor.

[Paperback Writer]

Was on the road last weekend, and happened upon the oral arguments.

Is it just me, or does Justice Ginsberg seem a step slower than the other justices? General Verrelli (sp?) seemed unprepared. How is that possible? Mike Carvin of the National Federation of Independent Business was about as impressive as it gets. From an amateur's POV, he seemed like the sharpest knife in the drawer.

I was more concerned about Justice Breyer's repeated references to a national plague. One where the state could require everyone to be inoculated even though not everyone would die from it. Has visions of the film 12 monkeys.

Upon further reflection, several justices make cameo appearence in 12 monkeys as scientists (left to right): Scalia, Breyer, Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, and Ginsburg.




Here's some pics of the justices.

[mUUser]

http://jonathanturley.org/2012/04/03...cial-activism/



Right, so because it was a law passed by Congress then it should be Constitutional. I wonder how that reasoning would go for Prop 8. Was Obama really a lecturer on the Constitution?

Nor would I characterize 219 to 212 a "strong majority", but I'm just some retired dude hen-pecking away at a computer, not a constitutional genius.

[ERCougar]

Remember that Obama was a Constitutional Law Professor.

Ha...that was my thought too.

I know this is just political gamesmanship, but even so, you would think that it would be hard to say this kind of thing, given his background.