Obamacare and the Supreme Court

[Moliere]

I think you are missing his point. Yes, those are classic cases of what has historically been described as judicial activism i.e. the court made up a new law or "right" that nobody ever thought existed before. There is a right to "gay marriage."

No right was made up in the case of Prop 8. Rights were assigned to a person's marital status and the gay marriage supporters sought to extend those rights to everyone. People were being discriminated against (by the law) based on sexual orientation. So rights were not made up by the courts, they were simply extended to all.*


*I caveat this by saying that, as I understand it, California had already extended all marriage rights to people in civil unions so Prop 8 and the tearing down of Prop 8 had little to no impact on actual rights.

[SoCalCoug]

You apparently didn't read my post, because nothing in that video contradicts what I wrote.

Are you claiming that Grassley proposed the mandate and that democrats hadn't thought of including it on their own? Are you claiming that Grassley voted for Obamacare? In what way does the video show that the Obamacare mandate was a "compromise" proposed by republicans?

The individual mandate was part of the Republicans' answer to President Clinton's proposed health care bill back in the '90's. In fact, the individual mandate was back then proposed by Republican Senator John Chaffee. It did not have support then and was dropped.

Then in 2006, Governor Romney signed a health care bill based on the individual mandate. Obamacare was inspired by Romneycare. The individual mandate was included in the bill in order to try to secure support among the Republicans, who had been previously in favor of the individual mandate. Therefore, yes, it was a compromise by the democrats; the republicans had been the proponents of the individual mandate, while the democrats had been opposed to it.

I think it's interesting that the democrats changed their position on the individual mandate to try to secure a compromise, while the Republicans changed their position (to now be against it) in order to defeat compromise.

[Jacob]

The individual mandate was part of the Republicans' answer to President Clinton's proposed health care bill back in the '90's. In fact, the individual mandate was back then proposed by Republican Senator John Chaffee. It did not have support then and was dropped.

Then in 2006, Governor Romney signed a health care bill based on the individual mandate. Obamacare was inspired by Romneycare. The individual mandate was included in the bill in order to try to secure support among the Republicans, who had been previously in favor of the individual mandate. Therefore, yes, it was a compromise by the democrats; the republicans had been the proponents of the individual mandate, while the democrats had been opposed to it.

I think it's interesting that the democrats changed their position on the individual mandate to try to secure a compromise, while the Republicans changed their position (to now be against it) in order to defeat compromise.

What's the point. You obviously don't bother to read the posts to which you are responding.

[SoCalCoug]

What's the point. You obviously don't bother to read the posts to which you are responding.

Yes, I read it. What are you having trouble with?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Yes, I read it. What are you having trouble with?

Danger, Will Robinson!

You are about to go down the rabbit hole.

[RobinFinderson]

What's the point. You obviously don't bother to read the posts to which you are responding.

I don't typically read your longer posts, so I can't speak to whether or not SoCal did or didn't respond to your post, but he makes some good points which you seem to be ignoring.

[Jacob]

I don't typically read your longer posts, so I can't speak to whether or not SoCal did or didn't respond to your post, but he makes some good points which you seem to be ignoring.

Not true. He made points I already conceded in my initial post. He's said nothing to contradict my correction of his initial misleading claim.

[mUUser]

The individual mandate was part of the Republicans' answer to President Clinton's proposed health care bill back in the '90's. In fact, the individual mandate was back then proposed by Republican Senator John Chaffee. It did not have support then and was dropped.

Then in 2006, Governor Romney signed a health care bill based on the individual mandate. Obamacare was inspired by Romneycare. The individual mandate was included in the bill in order to try to secure support among the Republicans, who had been previously in favor of the individual mandate. Therefore, yes, it was a compromise by the democrats; the republicans had been the proponents of the individual mandate, while the democrats had been opposed to it.

I think it's interesting that the democrats changed their position on the individual mandate to try to secure a compromise, while the Republicans changed their position (to now be against it) in order to defeat compromise.

Not a big Obamacare fan, but an interesting read nonetheless....

http://blogs.wpri.com/2011/03/23/today-marks-the-first-anniversary-of-chafeecare/

[Jacob]

Not a big Obamacare fan, but an interesting read nonetheless....

http://blogs.wpri.com/2011/03/23/tod...of-chafeecare/

Thanks for posting that. Good take. As should be clear form my postings here, I tend to agree with Salaam and Douthat's take as described in that link.

[LA Ute]

Not a big Obamacare fan, but an interesting read nonetheless....

http://blogs.wpri.com/2011/03/23/tod...of-chafeecare/

I was around for all that and following it closely. Chafee was a very liberal Republican and his bill was put up as a debating counterweight to Hillary Clinton's. Democrats controlled both houses of Congress, as they had for 40 years, and the Chafee bill was never thought to be one that would ever become law in a million years. It was just the nominal "Republican alternative" and it died a lonely, ignored death, never to be resurrected. Times were very different then.

[Pelado]

I heard some analysts on TV say the administration will just ignore it and get cited for contempt.

Apparently, Eric Holder would prefer not to be held in contempt. What they produce will be very interesting, but will probably be along the same lines as Obama's most recent comments - that the judiciary has the power to overturn legislation, but that they shouldn't use that power in this case.

The United States attorney general says he’ll comply with a federal judge’s request to type three single-spaced pages recognizing the authority of the federal courts to strike down laws passed by Congress.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/04/holder-to-respond-to-judge-on-obamas-health-law-remarks/

[Pelado]

Pelosi predicts Obamacare will be upheld 6-3. My understanding is that the Justices met and voted on it last weekend. I wonder if someone leaked the decision to her?

“I’m predicting 6-3 in favor,” she said during an hour-long discussion with the Paley Center for Media. “But we shall see. It’s a lesson in civics and I respect it, I respect the court and judicial review.”

Pelosi, who guided the Affordable Care Act through the House when she was speaker, was less inclined to make predictions last week while the oral arguments were going on, telling reporters that she had “no idea” whether she was confident the law would be upheld.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...in-119601.html

[Surfah]

http://truthonthemarket.com/2012/04/03/my-professor-my-judge-and-the-doctrine-of-judicial-review/

[Pelado]

Eric Holder's letter to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals:

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/interactive/2012/04/us/doj.letter.pdf?hpt=hp_t1

The power of the courts to review the constitutional ity of legislation is beyond dispute. The Supreme Court resolved this question in Marbury v. Madison. In that case, the Court held that "[i]t is emphatically the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is"...

Where a plaintiff properly invokes the jurisdiction of a court and presents a justiciable challenge, there is no dispute that courts properly review the constitutionality of Acts of Congress...

The President's remarks were fully consistent with the principles described herein.

[Jacob]

Pelosi predicts Obamacare will be upheld 6-3. My understanding is that the Justices met and voted on it last weekend. I wonder if someone leaked the decision to her?



http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...in-119601.html

Only an idiot makes a prediction like that without it having been leaked. And, since this is Pelosi we are talking about, I've no reason to think she had a good inside source...if you know what I mean.