E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Saul Loeb / AFP - Getty Images
The Supreme Court is seen on June 18, 2012. The high court is set to rule within days on the constitutionality of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.
The Supreme Court of the United States – as much as campaign spending, the news media, and political ads on television – is a force shaping the 2012 presidential campaign.
That’s not only because the justices will soon decide the fate of both the Affordable Care Act and the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law, but because the court’s docket for its term beginning in October has a number of contentious cases on it. Among them: the use of racial preferences in admissions to state universities, the ability of U.S. citizens to challenge the validity of the government’s use of electronic surveillance to detect terrorist threats, and whether federal law allows suits in U.S. courts over alleged human rights violations committed in foreign countries.
Other high-profile cases dealing with same-sex marriage, campaign finance, the Voting Rights Act, and an Arizona law requiring proof of citizenship to register to vote have a good chance of being added to the docket before October.
Election Day seems likely to serve as a referendum on the court itself, especially if the justices strike down all or parts of President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement, the health care overhaul.
Obama has signaled that if the justices struck down the law, he would make “judicial activism” a theme of his campaign. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he already complained about the court loosening campaign finance rules in its Citizens United decision.
Tom Daschle, former senate majority leader, joins MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell to discuss the potential decision of the Supreme Court on President Obama's health care bill.
And after the justices heard oral arguments in the health care litigation, Obama told reporters, “I’m 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.” He said conservatives had complained for years about “a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law.”
Obama would take up that conservative grievance and ask voters to give him a second term put his imprint on the court.
And that appointment power is what’s looming over voters’ choice of Obama versus Mitt Romney; the ability to select successors to Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Antonin Scalia, and Anthony Kennedy -- the three oldest justices on the court, all of whom are over the age of 75.
As is almost everyone else in Washington, several former Justice Department officials and law professors who spoke at a panel discussion Tuesday sponsored by the progressive-leaning American Constitution Society speculated on what the court might do in the landmark health care case, which could be announced as early as Thursday.
Paul Wolfson, who has argued 20 cases before the Supreme Court and clerked for Justice Byron White, said the provision in the ACA which expands Medicaid, the federal-state health insurance program for low-income people, is more significant than many observers have noticed.
“In terms of the progressive policy objective of making health care universally accessible and affordable to all Americans, the expansion of Medicaid is equally as important, if not more important” than the insurance purchase mandate that most commentators have focused on.
A Supreme Court ruling on a controversial individual health care mandate could come as early as this coming week. Patricia Ann Millett joins MSNBC to discuss the upcoming verdict.
That provision expands the Medicaid-eligible population by one-third and imposes a uniform income eligibility standard in every state (135 percent of the federal poverty line) -- which means that middle-class people in poorer states will be covered. The states challenging that part of the ACA claim that they are being coerced into going along with the Medicaid expansion, even though most of the most is being borne by the federal taxpayers.
Washington attorney Walter Dellinger, a former acting solicitor general during the Clinton administration and a supporter of the ACA, hazarded the guess that the justices will affirm the health care law.
“I’m wondering whether the court might possibly do something undramatic” and that would be to focus on the government’s argument that a person is complying with the law if he pays the penalty for not purchasing health insurance. Since the penalty (or tax) for not buying insurance is so small, Dellinger said, a majority of the justices might see it as not too much of an infringement on individual rights. “The penalty is OK, but the mandate isn’t” because it “would preserve the idea that you can’t be forced into a transaction” is how Dellinger summed up this possible ruling. That, he said would leave the law intact.
But another lawyer on the ACS panel, Patricia Millett, a former lawyer in the solicitor general’s office during the Clinton administration who has argued 31 cases before the high court, said it was clear from the justices’ questions during oral argument that the difficulty of removing one section of the law which the court found to be unconstitutional without damaging the rest was weighing on their minds: “Do we then create a Frankenstein of a statute that functions in a way that Congress would have never wanted?”
Looking to the new term that begins in October, Dellinger said it’s likely the court will address the constitutionality of Section 3 of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, which defines marriage in federal law as the union of one man and one woman. He said that provision of DOMA undermined the existing laws in a handful of states that do allow same-sex couples to marry -- because it deprives those couples of federal benefits, including those protected under the federal estate and gift tax exemption.
Time's Rick Stengel joins Morning Joe to reveal the magazine's latest cover, which features Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy.
He was bullish on the court striking down Section 3 of DOMA: “The DOMA case is a very powerful case to go to the Supreme Court because states’ rights and gay rights are on the same side.”
Dellinger said it was “a troublesome fact” that the ideological alignment on the court was so often the five appointees of Republican presidents (Scalia, Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts) opposing the four justices appointed by Democratic presidents (Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan). “For the first time in my lifetime, we have an alignment of ideology and political party,” he said. Formerly there would be at least a few justices such as Byron White who, although being appointed by a Democratic president, turned out to be conservative on some issues, or like John Paul Stevens who although appointed by a Republican president turned out to be liberal on some issues.
But former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who argued both the Arizona immigration case and the ACA cases before the court, pointed out that in the current term of the court there have been several unanimous decisions such as in the Texas redistricting case, a religious freedom case, a search-and-seizure case including GPS devices, and a major environmental case on the Clean Water Act.
These were “tremendously important and consequential cases,” Clement said -- all were voted 9-0 by the justices.
Leave a Comment:
Obama has signaled that if the justices struck down the law, he would make “judicial activism” a theme of his campaign. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he already complained about the court loosening campaign finance rules in its Citizens United decision.
I'm with ya all the way Mr. President...
Me too..
Citizens United proved how askew the SCOTUS currently is.
But you agreed with Judicial Activism on Roe v. Wade.....
And as far as Citizens United is concerned:
You just don't like it that Trial Lawyers and Labor Unions had the playing field leveled on them and they can't keep up.
Mike , wow you believe that? its amazing what people think!
Pissedoff
Mike is exactly right. Unions and lawyers support democrats overwhelmingly. The playing field has been leveled and it is showing. Look at the 2010 elections and Wisconsin. The conservative agenda is finally getting heard and the majority of Americans love it.
It wasn't too long ago that many trial lawyers decided to stop paying their dues to the trial lawyer union representatives. You know what the union did? They cut support for average citizens so they wouldn't have to cut their support money to campaign for democrats. So much for their compassion.
Wrong there JH. The majority of Americans do NOT love it. The majority of Americans believe that neither side should be able to funnel as much cash from anywhere in the world to buy elections!
Pissedoffperson...(#1.4)... I used the"citizens united" phrase because that's what was tossed out there...but it is not correct:
What Citizens United was really all about:
In 2004, Michael Moore released his Fahrenheit/911, a film critical of President Bush. Citizens United filed a complaint with the FEC (Federal Election Commission)....The complaint was dismissed. ...Fast Forward to 2008....Citizens United produced a documentary --Hillary, The Movie-- a film critical of Presidential Candidate, Sen.Clinton....The FEC ruled the film could not be aired prior to Democratic Primaries.....That's why Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission ended up at the Supreme Court in 2009. The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.
Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission.....was the lower court case that came after that allowed for PAC's and SuperPac's
Citizens United became the buzzword whipping post for the blogosphere.....For more real info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
That is the reason Justice Alito mouths the words " Not true" when Obama scolded the SCOTUS at the State of the Union Address.....and he was shaking his head in disbelief that the Constitutional Law Professor (Pfft) got it so wrong about the ruling they had made the week prior.
JH -- The playing field has been decimated with this ruling. A few billionaires have wiped out your argument. WTF happened to full disclosure? Suddenly McConnell has changed his tune.
WaPo has an opinion piece, written by Fred Hiatt, that speaks to this and to the hypocrisy of the GOP's on full disclosure.
....The Supreme Court doesn’t seem to think so. The Court was divided in its 2010 Citizens Uniteddecision, which opened the way for more corporate and union spending, but the justices were clear (8-to-1) that they weren’t banning disclosure. On the contrary: “The First Amendment protects political speech,” they wrote, “and disclosure permits citizens and shareholders to react to the speech of corporate entities in a proper way. This transparency enables the electorate to make informed decisions and give proper weight to different speakers and messages.”
Now Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) have introduced legislation that would — without limiting a single act of political speech — promote disclosure, sunlight and disinfectant. Not a single Republican has signed on.
Sen. Mitch (“Republicans are in favor of disclosure”) McConnell offered several explanations and a whole school of red herrings Friday in a speech to the American Enterprise Institute, but the essence was this: Now the First Amendment guarantees not only unlimited donations but unlimited secret donations, too. Otherwise, he argued, freedom of association is threatened.
But the DISCLOSE Act doesn’t threaten freedom of association. It would allow the NAACP, if it wanted to engage in election activities, to set up a separate bank account to fund them. The names of anyone giving more than $10,000 to that account would be disclosed; anyone giving to support the rest of the organization’s mission would be, as always, protected.
McConnell complained that the bill wouldn’t affect unions. But the bill doesn’t discriminate; it’s just that unions don’t get their money in secret installments of $100,000 or $1 million.
And McConnell fretted that disclosure of “independent” expenditures would subject conservative donors to harassment. Yet he still claims to support disclosure of donations to campaigns, which presumably opens the same risks of being called mean names by liberals. Maybe even McConnell isn’t ready to break entirely from Justice Antonin Scalia’s argument in Doe v. Reed in 2010.
“There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance,” Scalia wrote. “Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed.”
Democracy is endangered, too, if politicians cannot hold to principle equally when it’s politically beneficial and when it’s not. Disclosure may soon come up for a vote in the Senate. Will any Republicans have the civic courage to remember where they stood a few years back?
The full article can be found here:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/fred-hiatt-a-gop-bait-and-switch-on-disclosure/2012/06/17/gJQATPS2jV_story.html?hpid=z2
Unions lost their power decades ago yet everyone refers to them as union thugs but that is not today's union its the 1920's unions. That alone amazes me that corporate sponsored think tanks has people referring to the unions as thugs again.
Money in politics is a bad combination not matter which side you are on!
Comparing Roe vs Wade to Citizens United? Rights of individual to right of corporations? There is no comparison.
Thomas, Illinois
I'm with ya all the way Mr. President...
@NinjaCodeMan
Me too..
Make me me three!!!
Also, Impeach Scalia and Thomas. Their Black robes are straight jackets.
You guys are not alone and the polls has President Obama up by 13 point now!
A Bloomberg Poll ???....Pffft !! Ha !!
Pissedoffperson,
Unions in the 1920's had plenty of legit grievances. Yes, they went too far in some cases, but there were real worker rights problems back then that needed to be addressed. Those workers rights issues have now been largely addressed with changes in laws that apply to all workers (whether or not they are in a union).
Some of the unions today are in many ways worse than the worst unions in the 1920's because the worker rights violations no longer exist in most cases - especially when it comes to public workers.
I don't recall the numbers but a poll earlier this year indicated a majority of the American people no longer believe the Supreme Court is nonpartisan. That's what Bush v Gore and so many 5-4 decisions will do for a SCOTUS. If Chief Justice John Roberts wants a positive legacy, he better have a heart to heart with those other four who, like him, decided that corporations are people contrary 200 plus years of the Supreme Courts saying only people are people. Roberts could end up years from now with his painting removed and stored in the basement covered with dust.
Kill the Citizens United law before its to late!!!!
Obama up by 13 points???? Is that a horses ass Mr. Ed poll?
Ninjaman - I said that the majority of Americans love the conservative agenda now that it is being displayed more often. I did not say they liked the court ruling.
1/20/2013 - the end of an error
Jody, Iowa,..(#1.14)... "decided that corporations are people contrary 200 plus years of the Supreme Courts saying only people are people. "
Contrary to what some people think, the Citizens United decision did not "invent" corporate personhood.
In 1819, the Supreme Court ruling in Dartmouth College v. Woodward gave corporations "personhood" for the purpose of contracts.
The case of the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts v. Town of Pawlet, (1823) gave corporations the same property rights as individuals.
In 1886, the SCOTUS decision in Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific confirmed that corporations and unions had full protection, under the 14th Amendment, to EQUAL PROTECTION under the law.
But, it was in the case of the United States v. UNITED AUTO WORKERS in 1957 that prohibitions on corporate and union political spending were struck down.
You're just plain wrong Jody,Iowa.....
Jody, Iowa SO WRONG
I get tired of the BS about the Bush v Gore vote. It was a 9-0 ruling that said Florida was using arbitrary, standardless and selective recounting methods and only in heavily democrat areas, in other words "cheating". It was a 7-2 ruling that the Florida Supreme Court had violated the 14th Amendment of equal protection for all citizens to have their votes counted in a standardized way throughout the state, in other words recount all votes you cheaters. The 5-4 ruling was that there was not enough time to recount so the results of the election would stand. Bush had the most votes anyway. So in the end Al Gore wasn't able to steal the election.
Mike in Delray
Re: #1.7 and 1.17 - You are completely right. However, whatever the Citizens United law is called, or who actually decided on it, doesn't make a difference. It needs to be overturned for everyone's sake.
Dems, Repub's, and Indy's: Contact your Congressman and Senators and demand action now!
"Judicial Activism". Go f**k your self and accept responsibility for your slop. You are a sick egoist !!!
the SCOTUS has become a judicial activist court there is no doubt after the citizens united decision the bush / gore decision .. now there is no doubt that the Affordable health care law will be struck down ...Justice Scallia and Thomas were treated to a dinner in their honor just days before the SCOTUS agreed to hear the Affordable health care law .. the dinner was hosted by the law firm seeking to overturn the law .. we now have a bought and paid for SCOTUS along with a bought and PAID FOR CONGRESS the only one fighting for the middle class and 99% is President Obama
"Obama has signaled that if the justices struck down the law, he would make “judicial activism” a theme of his campaign. In his 2010 State of the Union address, he already complained about the court loosening campaign finance rules in its Citizens United decision."
What a novel idea - appoint extreme judicial activists to the Supreme Court, and when that doesn't give him the results he wants, accuse the OTHER justices of 'judicial activism'.
Could it be that Obama's attempt at 'judicial activism' just didn't work like he hoped it would?
As for the Citizens United ruling, I would like to see political contributions by both corporations AND unions outlawed, but where's the 'fairness' in prohibiting business from making contributions while allowing them by organized labor?
ROY WILSON-336103...Obama's gonna Campaign against the Supreme Court, he regularly does Congressional end run-arounds through Executive Orders and Executive Branch Agency Regulations...It sure is sounding like he doesn't wants the other 2 branches of government around....Hmmmmm
Mike in Delray "What Citizens United was really all about:"
Thanks for the info - It's nice that some people actually do the research to know what they're talking about.
It appears that the Federal Elections Commission (FEC) is a bit biased against Republicans in their 'rulings'.
Mike in Delray "And as far as Citizens United is concerned: You just don't like it that Trial Lawyers and Labor Unions had the playing field leveled on them and they can't keep up."
Exactly right. I did an analysis about 2 years ago on the top 100 political contributors over the previous 20 years to political parties, and those to Democrats by unions and trial lawyers were almost 4 times as much as much as those net favoring Republicans by businesses (it was 77% of contributions to Democrats vs 23% to Republicans) - giving the Democrats a huge contribution advantage. Surprisingly, businesses only slightly favored Republicans by about 55% to 45%, but unions and trial lawyers contributed about 96% to Democrats and only about 4% to Republicans.
Now that the 'playing field' is leveled, the Democrats are crying 'foul'.
Mike in Delray "ROY WILSON-336103...Obama's gonna Campaign against the Supreme Court, he regularly does Congressional end run-arounds through Executive Orders and Executive Branch Agency Regulations...It sure is sounding like he doesn't wants the other 2 branches of government around....Hmmmmm"
I find it interesting that Reagan got so much accomplished by working with a Congress controlled by Democrats, and Clinton got so much accomplished by working with a Congress controlled by Republicans, but Obama has not been able to accomplish much of anything even though he had complete Democratic control of Congress for his first 2 years, and he can't seem to bring himself to even talk with the Republican led House.
I guess real LEADERS find a way to get things done, while failed leaders find excuses.
Referring to Obamacare as "signature legislation" is like saying a "fart in an elevator smells exceptionally fine". Everyone knows the so-called Obamacare is a turd that was deemed "passed" by the Democrats abusing the process of "reconciliation".
Turds should be flushed, and the Supreme Court has its hand on the flush lever !
JH-479998 "The conservative agenda is finally getting heard and the majority of Americans love it"
On what planet do you hail from? The Conservative agenda is exactly what has been tried and got this country into the mess that it currently is in. In fact it was tried prior to the great depression, prior to clinton and Obama. More recently throughout Europe, austerity programs have been proven time and again to be collosal failures. 20 current governments attempting Austerity (conservative) agendas faced recession. 11 of those 20 still refusing to invest rather than cut back are in deepening recessions. I know you'll say that debt is the problem....but that only tells me that you are woefully unaware of the Hamiltonian structural system that we still use in this country.
independent jim
You, along with the POTUS, i.e. the Constitutional Law instructor, don't seem to have a clue as to what the term "judicial activism" means. In Citizen's United, SCOTUS looked at a law and evaluated how it fit with Constitutional rights and found that it was in conflict, hence it was unlawful. Likewise, in the Obamacare case, the court is looking at how ACA fits with the established Constitutional law. If the court finds ACA is in conflict with established law, ACA should be ruled unconstitutional. But it is not judicial activism if the court cites conflicts between precedent and the law under review and therefore rules a law is unconstitutional.
If you take the trouble to read Roe v. Wade, which I have, or Griswold v. Connecticut, you will see judicial activism at work. Those opinions do not cite constitutional conflicts; Roe simply imposes the majority of the court views and the trimester system that it creates is wholly without constitutional basis. That's judicial activism. Unfortunately for people like you and POTUS, the meaning of words doesn't matter. Which in a society that is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, that is a really bad thing.
ROY WILSON-336103...Keep doin' what you're doing....It's tough and annoying sometimes but there is a ton of propaganda and disinformation out there...Mike
So Mike, how do you square the fact that the court addressed an issue not raised by the litigants in appellant? Further, the Speechnow.org v. Federal Election Commission decision held 9–0 that in light of Citizens United, such restrictions on the sources and size of contributions could not apply to an organization that made only independent expenditures in support of or opposition to a candidate, but not contributions to a candidates campaign.
jim-1455434
Referring to the healthcare legislation passed and signed into law as "Obamacare" is exactly that fart you've referred to. This legislation was first introduced by Ike, later by Nixon, and was a major part of the republican platform until passed under this administration. Admit it you are not in favor of the current president and saying so might have served you better. The greater question in this regards would be What are the republicans prepared to offer in it's place and how do they reconcile the losses by those losing current benefits?
M4 Owner...It's still a level playing field.....isn't that what Dems want ??? ....FAIRNESS ???
Actually, as it currently stands, we ARE being forced into one transaction or another. We are forced to either buy health non-insurance, or pay a fine. Payment of a fine is a type of sentence (admittedly not jail time, but still a sentence) for violating the law. With that in mind, how can he say we're not being forced into a transaction?
Saw a great bumper sticker the other day...
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them!
Sorry, I don't buy the argument that the prohibition of unlimited spending deters free speech. Quoting Justice Stevens, relying on Austin, that corporations "unfairly influence" the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate.
independent jim "...Justice Scallia and Thomas were treated to a dinner in their honor just days before the SCOTUS agreed to hear the Affordable health care law .. the dinner was hosted by the law firm seeking to overturn the law .. we now have a bought and paid for SCOTUS"
Wow, those lobbyists are wasting tons of money trying to influence government officials when all they have to do is treat them to a dinner and they'll be 'bought and paid for'.
Who would have thought things could be so simple. I wonder if the liberal justices ever get invited to dinner?
You know we are in big trouble when we have SCOTUS justices that do not understand elementary english. Money and Speech are not the same thing. That is just a fact. Stop hating the authors of the Constitution.
It will be interesting to see how the total contributions to both parties sort out - I suspect that the total spending will be close to equal, so all of the rhetoric about the 'Citizens United' ruling will just be 'rhetoric'.
Steve, Obamacare is a creation belongiong ENTIRELY to the Democratic Party ! Any distortion by you to the contrary is laughable.
The law is a turd. I do not believe you replace a turd with another turd .... you simply flush it. Furthermore, "health care" is not a right. Health Care is a service, a commodity if you will that is to be paid for just like everything else. Insurance minimizes the RISK of big calamities. Insurance is something you pay for also.
It is called "PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY" and "PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE". It is also a function of age, heredity and personal choices over things like excessive alcohol, crack cocaine and unprotected sex. The concept, however, that government must intervene is ridiculous. Government needs to reduce medical bureaucracy it has imposed through various laws in recent years and to make significant changes to the TORT REFORM laws that have all the plaintiff attorneys "ADVERTISING FOR VICTIMS".
Obama is in bed with the Trial Lawyers as the Denocratic Party has been for quite some time.
havelinaz...(#1.35)..." Saw a great bumper sticker the other day...
I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them!"
I too saw a great bumper sticker the other day:
A picture of Obama and --- Does this ass make my bumper look big ???-----
Paul-794119 "You know we are in big trouble when we have SCOTUS justices that do not understand elementary english. "
And you know we are in big trouble when a SCOTUS justice (Sotomayor) doesn't even know what the current laws are. She said during the debate on Obamacare;
"What percentage of the American people who took their son or daughter to an emergency room and that child was turned away because the parent didn't have insurance," asked Sotomayor, "... do you think there's a large percentage of the American population that would stand for the death of that child -- (who) had an allergic reaction and a simple shot would have saved the child?"
Since it is illegal for any emergency room to turn away ANYONE for lack of insurance, her ignorance of the law is shocking. In fact, every emergency room has to post that information in a prominent place in both English and Spanish. Here's a link;
http://www.rightklik.net/2012/03/justice-sonia-sotomayors-shocking.html
Except for the small little fact that the Republican party has been trying to pass the EXACT SAME bill for over 20 years. Remember when Dole was pushing for it? Remember when the GOP pushed it as an alternative to Hillary-care?
In fact, the entire premise drips conservative ideology... "poor people, that can not afford health insurance, were getting healthcare on the tax payers dime (entitlement). We were paying for the poor to get free healthcare. That's not fair. Let's make those poor people pay for their own insurance. Why should I pay for them. It's called personal responsibility. Make them pay for their own healthcare."
See... sound familiar? Replace "healthcare" with "welfare" and you have the entire Republican position on entitlements.
So, you either lack the intelligence to understand this correlation... you have a mental disorder that prevents you from remember the past 20 years of Republican healthcare platforms... or you do remember, but you are now magically opposed to the healthcare you once supported, all because a liberal passed it. Which is it?
havelinaz "Saw a great bumper sticker the other day...'I'll believe corporations are people when Texas executes one of them!' "
I like that - but of course unions are not 'people' either, so why should they get to make contributions but businesses can't?
Gil-2872519, it's not super clear who you're responding to here but it sure reads like it's another Viner.
First rule:
You're suspended for a day for violating #1 of the Code of Honor.
mguy-478 "Obamacare is a creation belongiong ENTIRELY to the Democratic Party ! Any distortion by you to the contrary is laughable..............Except for the small little fact that the Republican party has been trying to pass the EXACT SAME bill for over 20 years"
I had no idea that the Republicans tried to 'pass the EXACT SAME bill for over 20 years'. If that's true, why did Nancy Pelosi, etc. have to write it in the dark of night with no Republicans allowed, and say 'We have to pass it to find what's in it'?
Of course, you have a RELIABLE link to back up your claim - please provide the link.
PS - I will NOT hold my breath.
tyler, Here is my opinion...
Well, so much for allowing the community to police itself here. Thank you Tyler for placing your "authoritarian" stamp of censorship on the blog. We can't possible be trusted to do this on our own.
Because you have the right to censor, doesn't mean that you should.
Ever see that movie Soyent Green with Charlton Heston? Doesn't matter it's all headed that way anyhow. For the good news, It won't happen in my life time! Obama/Biden
ROY
Why would I provide a link when you will no doubt follow the typical Republican debate tactic of ignoring the issue and attacking the validity of the link... unless it came from Fox, of course.
No, it's actually a much better tactic to allow you to do the research yourself. Let me help you out, it was not called "Obamacare"... I know, you will no doubt hold that name as proof that it is not the "exact same". I was hoping for a slightly higher level of discussion, but I should know better.
Now I know your memory is failing, as you seem to forget the debate and bipartisan drafting of this bill, not but 3.5 years ago. Instead you have focused on a fictional account of "dark rooms" where Republicans were not allowed in. Completely oblivious to the fact that single-payer was the original target, but that changed somewhere in the 8 different revisions that Republicans demanded. And the fact that you parroted the Fox News line about Pelosi, completely taking it out of context, like the good little Fox lemming that you are, if proof that you have no interest in the actual facts... instead focusing on misinterpreted one-liners.
So, although I implore you to discover the facts on your own... as you say, I will not hold my breath. (I also don't expect a response because I believe Hannity is on right now, so you are no doubt occupied in your "special alone time")
The Supreme Court is just as partisan as the other Bodies, and it has been for sometime.
To qoute my 90 year old father "There's just enough idiots in both Parties to keep us from falling apart"
Stand with Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act (1912) against Citizen's United!
For Obama an "activist court" is the one that rule against his political view. The Supreme Court follow the Constitution apart from politic. judge Sotomayor, Judge Scalia and the entire Court deserve their respect , same way the president does. However, Obama set precedent disrespecting the Suprime Court ,proper of a Dictator, to an equal branch of the Government because they rule egainst his will.
mguy, what are you afraid of? Without a link supporting its what republicans wanted for 20 years you only look the fool. BTW, I am not sure that the republicans would have written over 2000 pages of legislation that pelosi brought to a vote.
LMAO folks, every POTUS hopes to put their imprint on SCOTUS. To bad they usually aren't successful.
Food for thought.
Great posts, Mike in D, Roy W & David W.
LMAO ROY did an analysis , ohh my We are saved .
Look a New incarnation of spider to ignore .
mguy-478 "ROY Why would I provide a link..........Now I know your memory is failing, as you seem to forget the debate and bipartisan drafting of this bill"
Let's tell the truth - you won't because you can't. And the bill was drafted solely by Democrats in the dark of night - every Republican amendment was shot down by Pelosi and company.
Perhaps you should have YOUR memory checked - remember the 'Deemed to have passed' sleight of hand by Reid and Pelosi to avoid the normal reconciliation procedure between the House and Senate?
It is our fault that we never paid attention to changing times. The US Supreme Court justices were to be elected by the people and appointed by the people just like congress, senate and the president. The constitution needed to be changed so we get to choose our top judicial men and women based on their education and experience. In doing so, they will serve the public best. Their interest will be "the people of the United States" first and their immediate interest such as small and large businesses.
The US federal courts do not have any right to preside over international matters that did not occur within the US borders and waters. It violates the sovereignty of other states thus any disputes arising between two differing parties in diverse sovereign states must be resolved by international court. Otherwise it makes the US above the law. We have to be careful what we are doing around the world. The last time a country run feral, it ended up dragging the world in to a mess. Citizens’ utmost duty is to question the motive of a government. When we fail to do so Justice will collapse, a nation becomes rogue.
The Imperial "It is our fault that we never paid attention to changing times. The US Supreme Court justices were to be elected by the people"
And then the 'Tyranny of the Majority' will prevail. I can't imagine how having political majority rule in such cases as civil rights for minorities would be fair.
Funny how so many people are fine with the Supreme Court as long as it agrees with their agenda, and this prez truly believes that congress is above the law. So much for hope and change we can believe in, it the same of BS, just a different party.....
have a good week.
The solicitor for the WH abosolutely failed to make his case for ruling that the ACA is constitutional even when being prodded by some of the liberal justices who were trying to make his case for him. The Court is not supposed to make a ruling based on party affiliation or whether they think the law is a good idea or a bad one. They are only supposed to determine whether something is legal/constitutional or not. The ACA is clearly not. If any of the Justices vote to uphold the ACA, then they are clearly putting ideology and politics ahead of their sworn duty.
Hey tj... unless you are a constitutional lawyer then you need to just STFU...However if you are a constitutional lawyer then you are allowed your studied opinion on the subject.
TJ
I'm with Ninja. This is an important and complicated case. How can you leap to the summary conclusion that the ACA is clearly not constitutional? If you are a constitutional lawyer, please cite your summary legal references and the basis for your opinion.
How could the Justices miss that important tidbit and not issue a ruling from the bench after oral arguments?
What is NOT complicated is the dangerous requirement that Congress can mandate that there MUST BE commerce as a justification for them then regulating said commerce thus mandated. What next ? Will Congress decide we all must buy GM cars since Uncle Sam owns stock ??
The justices will render their opinion soon, and it is THEIR opinion that counts .... not yours !
Well its a good thing we live in the land of the free where everyone can voice their own idea/opinion unless you are a former nazi socilaist bastard and tell people with differing opinions to go STFU.
Im all for health care reform but forcing people to buy health insurance and then fining them if they dont is not constitutional IMO, but that is what the SC is going to decide amoung other things.
Well said. If Obama as he has suggested plans on making “judicial activism” a theme of his campaign it is my hope that he does.
Along with his coverup of the information (by executive privilege) that would indicate that he knew about the gun deal that was done in Mexico that got 2 dEA agents killed, I would say his chances of re-election is about zero unless he rigs the election.
Yes it should be 9-0 that the mandate is unconstitutional. But the politics will be those that vote to uphold it. Probably be 6-3 but might be 7- the two Obama stacked.
Before the left even starts.....it was unconstitutional when proposed by the Republicans in the 1990's even though that proposal was merely to move the discussion.
Do people realize the mandate to buy and it's included penalty are Republican ideas that were put in to make it a bipartisan bill? It's the counter to the Dem's proposal to remove "pre-existing conditions" and various other methods the Insurance companies have of dropping or denying potentially unprofitable people. Dem's were going to make a government insurance system, Rep's said that it would compete and destroy the private insurance market, so Dem's then said ok but we're going to prevent the private market from bailing out on it's end of the insurance agreement. Rep's then said that if private insurance companies can't willingly drop unprofitable members, insurance would be too expensive and that everyone needs to be forced to contribute. Dem's finally said ok, we'll do that then. After it was wrote up, the Rep's backed out and removed support.
Yes it is unconstitutional to force people to buy health insurance, it's also unethical for insurance companies to drop people after the fact. As much as I hate Michael Moore, Sicko was pretty spot on in respect to the US private insurance system. Their vultures who provide absolutely zero benefit while only existing to suck money out of people. They just happen to be an incredibly rich and powerful lobbyist group.
From the article quoting President B H Obama:
It is up to the USA Supreme Count to determine what is constitutional or what is not, Mr. President.
theotherguy1234:
The ACA was a 100% a Democrat Party bill. Zero Republicans were involved.
The SCOTUS I hope will be sending a clear message to the POTUS, take heed and dont tread on us for we may make you life miserable and stike down everything you and your liberals have passed. 2012 THE YEAR THE JEFFERSONS GOT EVICTED
The ACA is in its roots a Republican idea from the past, however the Republican party has become so radicalized over the last 10 yrs that even President Regan wouldnt recognize his own party today.
Now do you understand why we need a national single-payer cradle-to-grave health insurance? Expand Medicare into a set of alternatives like a 60-40, 70-30, and 80-20 with low, medium, or high deductables, a consumer-driven (aka health savings account) and an HMO all of which include the preventative coverage, catastrophic coverage, no maximums, drug plan, and the 26YO dependent coverage. Collect the premiums through the payroll taxes. Set up an actuarial board to oversee and set the premiums. That will guarantee future solvency and get politics completely out of the picture.
Use the existing commercial insurance infrastructure to service the poicies. Allow private insurance to sell supplimentary policies. This will greatly simplify healthcare coverage and administration and bring uniformity to healthcare policies across the nation.
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, providefor the common defence, promotethe general Welfare, and securethe Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The preamble of the Constitution tells us its purpose. There are five specific objectives and how the Constitution is to handle these is identified by the verbs associated with such. All of the verbs but one indicates that the Constitution is to without question establish, insure, provide and secure, justice, peace, defense, and liberty. The one where the Constitution says the government is to only Promoteis that of general Welfare. That leads me to believe that if the Government mandates anything that is outside of the 4 areas prescribed it is in violation of the Constitution. General welfare would include such things as Health Care. By its own definition the Constitution should only allow the government to Promote such.
The SCOTUS should strike down the Healthcare law. This is so clear. The Government can promote, suggest, and encourage but by no means mandate a General Welfare item such as healthcare or the insurance to pay for it.
Verbs are the words that tell us what we can and cannot do. They are the borders upon which actions are defined. When reading documents such as constitutions, contracts, and legislation always pay attention to the VERBS!
Let's ALL face facts. The Supreme Court Justices are politically active in their decision making. Now the conservatives have the majority and they rule accordingly. However, this 5 to 4 vote favoring the conservative justices will not last forever. It will one day be the reverse or even more unbalanced in favor of the liberal judges. I know at that time the conservatives will cry foul just as the liberals do now. In either case it is the United States of America which suffers and will continue to suffer because of a failure of the justices, both left and right, who rule without the slightest thought to what is good for the country as a whole! It is just further proof that our once united country is falling apart at its very core! Have a glass of ice tea, its getting hot all over the country and I fear we will soon catch fire!
If it were just Obama getting re-elected for 4 years, the Republic may survive....However if:
Supreme Court Justice Hillary Clinton or
Supreme Court Justice Eric Holder or
Supreme Court Justice Joe Biden or
Supreme Court Justice John Edwards or any combination
get on The Bench for the next 3 or 4 Decades The Republic cannot survive....
This is the most important reason for a 1 Term Obama Presidency, he's already gotten his 2 gal pals on there...Enough damage from one President.
Senate Republicans are too Spineless to "Bork" any Obama Appointees, they can't be trusted.
scrambolo
From where I sit - the fire has been lit - it's just a matter of time now
That IS the problem. They are required to rule is it or is it not within the rights granted under the Constitution. They are not required to rule is it good or bad merely does it conform with the rights granted under the Constitution. Anything else is judicial activism and wrong. When the word "should" is used it is merely opinion.
scrambolo:
The USA has never been united except in time of War. Even then, the country was torn. The rebellion against King George was support by about 25% of the colonists.
Every since the Supreme Court ruled against the Florida supreme court in the reelection of President Bush they have become a political organization instead of a arbitrator of the Constitution. Funny how Conservatives accuse Democrats of legislating thru the courts yet they seem to do it even more with this court.
square dude:
The USA Supreme Court interprets the meaning of the USA Constitution on cases they accept to hear and rule on. The Court can only hear cases placed before them, which they did in Gore v. Bush in 2000. It was for G W Bush's first term, not his "relection". Gore filed the lawsuit. It was Gore that sought relief in the USA Supreme Court, not Bush. Funny how some people forget the facts.
Homer Adams:
RE: your post #3.4
Would you care to give us all some citations on your figure of 25% of colonist who supported the Revolutionary War? Also, I will grant that we are a nation of individuals who have differing opinions. However, I am now 69 years old and can remember a time when the people of this country would unite to solve MOST of our difficult problems. I also remember a time when our leaders in Washington D.C. (Congress) knew how to compromise to the benefit of our once great country. Now they value their money, power, jobs and respective parties over the welfare of our country. I also remember a time when we were not filled with the sin of Pride. We are surely not united now and the battle lines are quickly being drawn between red and blue, left and right, Republican and Democrat. These widening divisions and wanton disrespect for each other will be the destruction of this nation. I say within 25 years, at most!
When it is proven that foreign money has been used in this election I hope Justice "Not true" Alito has the level of character to resign.
the reason the SCOTUS ruled the way they did on the Citizens united case was to make it impossible to tell who or what including foreign governments are buying the American elections .. Aito knew that when he cast his decision
Sheldon Adelson pledges $100 million to pro Mitt the Barber super PAC. Where does this largess come from? Answer: Macao. It is a hugely popular gambling mecca operated by the Chinese Government which grants franchises in accordance with its perception of its national interest.
John McCain was spot on when he questioned why we allow huge piles of foreign cash to pile into domestic elections.
And should Kegan not have recused herself since she helped write it?
No, the bill was largely written by the health insurance, pharmaceutical, health management, and healthcare companies. The White House staff had little or nothing to do with drafting the language. Even Congress had little input on the language of the law--they aren't that smart and they are that lazy. This is the bill that the insurance, drug and hospital corporations wanted.
Any decision will be rendered moot when the president, by executive order, disbands the Supreme Court.
He already disregards Congress. Shouldn't be long before he shuts down the SCOTUS. Aferall, he is King O'Nero.
"Oooo-ooohhh I just can not WAIT to be king !"
(My apologies to "Lion King" fans everywhere)
No one would miss the Supreme Court. These supremes should be term limited to 10 to 15 years and then out of there. They should not be there until they are dying or dead.
We can only wish Obama would be stupid enough to try to shut down the Supreme Court by executive order. Wow ! That would really start the fire.
If the law is struck down by the SC, where does that leave the people with insurance and/or Medicare? Will we automatically go back to the old system? Or will insurance companies have a field day with anything they want to set up? This is a scary idea!!!!
Im just as scared as you sad sack
What is scary is that Obama already cut his "DEALS" with the insurance companies, with Big Pharma and even with AARP to buy their support. None of this was televised as Obama promised.
Believe it, leaving it in tact would be even scarier.
It doesn't sound like Obama understands that one of the roles of the Supreme Court is to ensure the laws passed by congress are not unconstitutional. In other words, majority rule in Congress cannot result in laws that violate the Constitution of the United States. This checks and balance system is how the minority are protected.
Right on Dan. What I find unsurprising yet noteworthy is that I hear the nuts on the left say the court needs to decide "what's best for the country". Actually, no they don't. They're there to determine what is legal and what is not based on the Constitution regardless if it is "best for the country" or not.
Exactly right. You don't destroy the constitution, you change it if you don't like it. It's been done before.
Exactly right. You don't destroy the constitution, you change it if you don't like it. It's been done before.
So, why is the right so wrapped up in overturning decisions they disagreed with? Roe v. Wade? The SCOTUS simply ruled on the constitutionality of abortion, not its morality. If you really believe your own argument, then you must accept that that is what they did, regardless of their personnel beliefs. That which may be considered immoral or not socially acceptable can indeed be allowable under the constitution. The SCOTUS is not supposed to choose a side regarding the content or intent of a law but rather its context, does it violate any tenate of the Constitution. If it does not, they must rule in favor of the law. If it does they must strike it down.
Hmmmm..."judicial restraint," "judicial activism." What in the world does our Idiot-in-Charge think SCOTUS is: a kindergarten class in a sand box? Of course SCOTUS is political!!!!! Why else would justices hang in there well past a reasonable retirement age? They want to wait until a President is elected that holds their personal values system in common. All the liberal leftist wing nuts that don't believe it have gone well past koolaid and are sucking on pipes filled with who knows what.
Bob, I know what they're sucking on instead of kool-aid....O'Nero's a$$
We need to see the right wing partisan hacks removed who decide everything only doing what the worst GOP zillionaires want. They are ruining the court and not being fair and just in any way. They are harming the country. They do nothing that is not for the very elite tea party billionaires who they hang around with.
So, do you now understand why FDR moved to increase the size of the Court? He wanted to ensure that the legislation needed to recover from the Great Depression could withstand judicial review. The Republicans had packed the court with cronies who guarded the special interests of corporations and the wealthy. By expanding the bench from 7 to 9 he was able to enact the policies that turned the economy around and brought back prosperity and the middle class.
Prior to citizens united, neither unions nor corporations could directly spend money on federal elections. Instead, the top executives in corporations and union members had to contribute to a PAC.
As to the health care issue, the problem is that most of the recent commerce clause opinions have blurred the distinction between being directly authorized by the commerce clause and being indirectly authorized under the necessary and proper clause as applied to the commerce clause.
If you read the transcript of Clements (representing the challengers) on the severability issue, the obvious question for the court is if the individual mandate is necessary to the regulation of health insurance why is it not permitted by the necessary and proper clause. If the literalists on the Supreme Court actually were consistent with their stated positions, they would request reargument on that issue rather than (as expected) writing opinions suggesting that the entire law should be struck down.
That's what happens when you have to pass the bill to find out what's in the bill....In the last rewrite, to remove the Tax on Elective Cosmetic Surgery ( funny how Pelosi FOUND that before ) and replace it with the Tanning Salon Tax, they forgot to put the Severability Clause back in......The whole thing should go down in flames.
The justice system in this country in this country is branded Republican/Democratic because the appointment of Justices is tainted on party lines by the Presidents in power and not a single President ever nominated a justice from his opposition denomination. This is an aberration plaguing our democratic system. Some of the recent decisions like Citizen United which is harmful to the election process have strengthened the belief of majority on the bias. I don't know whether the leaders of both parties have given adequate thought to rectify this situation.
Citizens pales in comparison to the liberal court saying it's OK to steal property from one citizen and give it to another so tax revenue is increased.
@Sandackguy...You need not worry because some of the provisions of the new law have already kicked in and some of the insurance companies have come forward to continue to accept them. The President will take some corrective action acceptable to all the stakeholders,in case of other provisions.
affirmative actionless is working so well this far, if we continue with maybe we can elect a president...
ohh... sh!t... never mind.
How's your definition on how exactly Obama is a socialist going?
The blinding speed and confusion in which the $800 Billion Stimulus Bill was passed.
The first $1.3 Trillion annual Budget Deficit for Fiscal Year End 9/30/09.
The passage, against the overwhelming objection of the American people, of Obamacare using bribery, seen and unseen, and unprecedented corruption of the legislative process.
The record $1.0 Trillion plus projected budget deficit for Fiscal Year End 9/30/10.
Continued high unemployment and therefore the failure of the $800 Billion Stimulus Bill.
The attempt to tax the use of energy by the proposed so called “Cap and Trade” legislation.
The attack on Arizona for defending its border.
There you go Rukooie
all i have to say is bull s i h t
undocumented democrats unite... form of... more money being sucked out of our economy.
lollllllllllll
i thought he was the jobs president?
Not "the theme" — "a theme."
I see argumenys here going in every direction. Let's face facts, or should I say the ultimate fact: Our democracy is being desolved and substituted by the Privatization of Government.
Corporations and Unions do not have to be democratic so why would this country want any of them to rule?
As things stand, it is not the citizens of America that are in charge, it is money and so those that have most of it. As money has been proven over centuries to be the root of all evil, that is exactly what we are in for, EVIL in spades.
This is not a partisan stance I take. I think we need both Conservatives and Liberals as part of our law making entity. The Liberals tend to have new and often necessary though sometimes radical ideas that Conservatism mitigates into something reasonable.
What has happened is what I call The Great Divide. We have been conned into hating each other and so have been easy to have our freedoms taken from us.
You are sooooo right!
I think the AHC Act is doomed...and good riddance.
If we can't get universal health care because the insurance corporations are so powerfull, we will all soon be held hostage by these same corporations...cuz you can't just NOT have that operation or prescription...truly Orwellian.
It's Obama and democrats that are Orwellian. Calling Obamacare health care reform is typical truthspeak.
The SCOTUS decision on Citizens United has opened the proverbial Pandoras Box.
For the first time in history our election will be heavily influenced by Foreign Money...yeeeehawww.
I know...Those damm International Unions are shipping containers full of money on cargo ships to their U.S. Locals...Horrible !!!!
International Unions?????
What a joke.
Start asking yourself how much influence Russia, with it's oil wealth, will skew our election.
Then you may start to understand some of the real problem with the SCOTUS decision.
Whatever the Court decides, I hope it is unanimous.
The court will remind the voters how much time Obama has wasted in his first two years on matters not related to jobs and the economy. Barney Frank who is not running for re-election said Obama screwed up.
How much time has Congress wasted these last two years?
Oh yeah, they have managed to put the spotlight on Vaginas...lol.
If only the Congress can be President, the leader. We simply don't have one. All he does is make excuses and his disciples go along.
Road,
Vaginal Probes for ALL!
Dion,
What's your fixation on vaginas? Haven't had any in awhile?
It's not my fixation...it is the GOP's weird obsession.
It's your imagination. For most voters, it's the economy stupid.
I bet a whole lot of women would disagree with you Roadkill...
The gender gap has almost drawn even for Romney and Obama. Not a good sign for lefties. The War on Women experiment failed.
Even?????
Last I looked ole Flip flop Mitt was behind some 20+ percentage points among women.
Behind some 30+ points among Latinos...
This guy is not getting elected with only rich white old guys voting for him...that is for sure.
Road Warrior,
That's just because the topic isn't currently up for discussion. Once the social issues, particularly women's rights, come up again during debates that gap will once again widen. Romney will be forced by the extreme right to look like an ass.
Women care about their purse like men care about their wallet. We have seen it throughout history. The economy trumps all social issues. Only far left and far right care about the social issues when the economy is in the tank. Check out the state of the economy at the end of the first term for all one termers. Bush I and Carter being the most recent. Spending all that time on healthcare was a huge mistake. Barney Frank's words, not mine.
But many people vote on fear...see most Republicans.
Nothing scares women more than the Republican party. Their desire to send this country back to the "good ole" days is so very evident despite their attempts to dis-spell such ideas. But many woman see through them as any intelligent person should.
Nothing scares MEN and WOMEN like a President in his 4th year of office, high unemployment, $16 trillion in debt and ......NO BUDGET from this administration ! Obama is a financial moron and he wants to shift the focus away from the economy where he has been a complete di$a$ter
There has already been research on this, the economy trumps all. Even women who care deeply about birth control, etc. say it's the pocket book first. Think about it, what good are free condoms when you can't put food on the table. If you have a job, you can afford both.
Dion -
What's wrong with women - and men for that matter - taking responsibility for themselves? What's wrong with asking that the individual pays for their own abortion or pregnancy prevention?
This is what is confusing the left - they think that the government should be responsible when it is the responsibility of the individual.
Dion - same goes for men and the little blue bill. Insurance (included Medicare) covers this but not BC. Maybe both should not be covered.
Hey Deb, many employer insurance programs do not cover your little blue pill so you comparo is invalid.
So, whatever happened to the pressing ideal that the courts not legislate nor be activist? Seems to me that the way the Supreme Court has ruled in so many cases, stemming back to the 2000/2001 case during the 2000 election, the courts have used legislation and activism to further the causes of their political parties (they ARE political by nature, as the system is political, even in the courts, which is what I am concerned about in this post).
Why did the legal system allow the Bush Admin the ability to keep the White House under the most extreme security measures in our history? Bush claimed "Executive Privilege" so many times, I am sure they could have used a form letter.
It seems as if everyone in DC has somehow forgotten the Rule of Law applies to everyone, not just those of us outside of the govt. The US Supreme Court is NOT above scrutiny. They should be the DEFENDERS of the law, and as such, should welcome anyone who criticizes their work. Without the Press, the general public, and other branches of govt., the ideals of our Constitution are worth no more than the paper they are written upon. Checks and balances... that is what makes a democracy work. Now, with the election looming in another 5 or so months, we have major issues on the docket of the High Court. What will become of them? While it is anyone's guess, and there are many, it may be prudent to look back in history and see how other landmark cases have gone. Who are the key players on the court? We know for a fact, that Justice Thomas is only going to "rubber stamp" the Conservative ruling. Roberts may be more inclined to look at all sides, but in the end he will look at who "brung him to the dance", so to speak, and then rule. So, that is 2 on the Conservative side. Then, we have Scalia who once referred to the 1st Amendment as being taken too seriously. That is now 3 Justices on the Conservative side. With Justice Kennedy, we may have more of a chance to be the swing vote on many of the cases due to be ruled upon before Nov. Then, there's Justice Alito, another possible swing vote, but likely to be Conservative. Now, the rest are mostly ensconced on the Liberal side, in many cases, so I would expect them to be the same, especially with the Health Care law decision.
So, we will likely continue to have the same old determination on the rulings... Conservative vs Liberal and the Conservatives now have the majority.
What I find as intriguing is the fact that we have 6 Justices who are Roman Catholic and 3 who are Jewish. There are no Protestants. I am not sure what I make of that, but I find it unusual that the largest "religious-political" camp in the US, the Southern Baptists, are not even closely represented by anyone on the high court.
Well, one thing is mostly certain... if the USSC negates the Health Care law, you can bet that a single-payer system will be instituted and the battle will be ugly. I don't know why people argue against it, because that is all a part of being "like Christ" if you're Christian... so, I guess the people who oppose it are not Christian or are very ironic at best and hypocritical at the worst.
One final note: Elections in the US are now at a level we have never seen. There is more fraudulent money coming in from foreign sources for the "charitable" groups working for the GOP than one can count. The idea of money buying votes is at its worst. And, our votes can be negated by the Electoral College and cheating in Florida and Ohio since there is little to actually prevent another 2000 or 2004 event from occurring where the Right Wing did anything and everything to win, even if it meant cheating and possibly harming others. One thing we've forgotten is that companies have NO RIGHT TO VOTE, as they ARE NOT citizens or people. If companies have a right to be citizens and buy elections, then they need to be executed in Texas for murder when someone dies due to a faulty product or when someone uses a handgun to kill someone else. Sounds pretty silly, eh? SO does the idea that companies can give tons of money to political groups and cheat and lie and force their ways in an election, effectively making our votes useless.
Let's hope for a less activist court and for logic and common sense to prevail, tempered by universal moral standards.
NickOhio...(#20)..."Bush claimed "Executive Privilege" so many times, I am sure they could have used a form letter"
Bush----6 times in 8 years....Here's the list:.....Bill Clinton wins !!!
Here's a look at how many times each president since Ronald Reagan have asserted executive privilege:
President Barack Obama: 1
President George W. Bush: 6
President Bill Clinton: 14
President George H.W. Bush: 1
President Ronald Reagan: 3
I am atheist and I opposed government-mandated healthcare. I will vote for Romney. Mormons don't scare me. Obama does.
Road Warrior,
Fascinating....it's rare to see an atheist right leaning individual. Not that I thought they didn't exist but it is unusual, I think.
It's as unusual as hearing of a gay Republican.
Vipp,
Not so rare. Atheists generally want the government to leave them alone. We realize it is dog-eat-dog and nobody can help you but yourself. How much of your freedom are you wiling to give up in exchange for a handout from the government?
Road,
Atheists generally want the religious to leave them alone. I have no data to prove this but I would say that a vast majority of atheists are liberals. And most liberals don't see the world as dog-eat-dog. Most liberals embrace the good qualities of the human race....the caring, loving, giving, and thoughtful qualities we possess rather than viewing the world as a glass half empty....a world where we view ourselves as the only important piece....embracing selfishness, greed, and cruelness.
Most liberals also see our government as corrupt but not in the same way you do. I tend to concentrate my attention on our politicians and the wealthy who control them. I pay attention to the trillions that are played with at the top level of our society and not the limited dollars at lower end first.
I'm willing to give up more for the whole because I see the world differently than you. I want my neighbors, the less fortunate, the weak, or the less educated to have a better chance. But I respect your view.
"(CBS News) The board of directors of GOProud, a conservative gay rights group,
voted Tuesday night to endorse Republican Mitt Romney for president, citing his
economic positions while noting its differences with the candidate on the issue
of gay marriage."
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57456952-503544/conservative-gay-rights-group-endorses-romney/
Vipp,
I am definitely no liberal. I am far right when it comes to fiscal issues and out-of-control government power. In NYC, the government is telling people how much Coke they can drink. Are you serious? What's the next thing we are not allow to do? I lived seven years in China and saw how scary government can be. If you think our government can never get to that point, think again. We currently have people in government whose dream is to see us being a communist nation. People try to convert me to their religion, but I never pay much attention to them, much less getting offended like liberals do. A cross on a building or prayer in school never bothered me. I just ignore it.
Unprecedented? Obutthead should read Article 3 Section 2 Clause 1 of the US Constitution. If a law, regardless of how many voted on it, is unconstitutional, it is the duty of the Supreme Court to nullify it as such.
In San Francisco, they voted to regulate the content of Happy Meals ! California is a financial disaster, yet the libs want to micro-manage a personal choice such as what one is allowed to feed their child !
I think Bloomberg in New York is going to legalize or de-criminalize pot smoking at the same time legislating your sodas. Marijuana is loaded with tars and is more dangerous than cigarette smoking.
There have been many instances of what some call "judicial activism" on both sides. Judicial activisim these days is when the opposing party doesn't like the decisions. Plenty of laws passed by Democrat controlled Congress' have been upheld by the court, which some could also argue is activism. What is at stake with the Affordable Care Act is a mandate that the federal government can force the citizens to participate in commerce. For those that have not studied commerce clause history, Congress does not have unlimited power via the commerce clause there have been exceptions in the past. I think the main concern among most of the justices was.If Congress can force you to buy a product under the ACA, then they can also force your to do anything under the guise of commerce? Why people are so willing to give up freedom is beyond me. Had the democrat controlled congress not written such an awful bill and tied the funding mechanism to the fact that people are required to buy then we would not be having this big debate right now.
The problem with Health care is that it is not a 'commerce' that you can decide NOT to have. If you need that operation or that prescription to stay alive, it is evident that it is a special kind of commerce.
This is not like buying a widget, or deciding not to buy a widget...it is a hostage situation where the insurance corporations hold all the cards.
Also, it is special in that you can't go down to the widget store and demand that they give you a widget for free cuz you need it....unlike an emergency room visit at taxpayers expense.
Sure you can. I've done so for my entire life.. My parents didn't have health insurance. I didn't have it raising my children and I still don't have it at age 63. And it wasn't because of wealth. My father never made over $100 per week in his life.
I don't believe in doctors or the type of so-called medicine they practice.
Ask a diabetic to go without...lets see how that works out for you.
Simply because you and yours have been fortunate in health does not mean that others are so lucky.
But I understand you selfishness...it is common.
Larry,
You are officially crazy. I don't even like to call names but we just found out that you would be one of those parents whose son or daughter needs cancer treatment but would deny them because "you don't believe in doctors or the type of so-called medicine they practice". Wow....religion does have a fascinating way of blinding its followers.
Vipp,
I think that anyone who goes to the quacks you call doctors is crazy. I've practiced natural health all of my life. Most of the people who practice holistic or natural health are actually liberals who don't do so for religious reasons. I'm actually the minority among those who practice naturopathic health because I'm a conservative libertarian.
there are millions of Americans who practice naturopathic medicine.
University of Maryland Medical Center
What is naturopathy?
Naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, is a system of medicine based on the healing power of nature. Naturopathy is a holistic system, meaning that naturopathic doctors (N.D.s) or naturopathic medical doctors (N.M.D.s) strive to find the cause of disease by understanding the body, mind, and spirit of the person. Most naturopathic doctors use a variety of therapies and techniques (such as nutrition, behavior change, herbal medicine, homeopathy, and acupuncture).
There are 2 areas of focus in naturopathy: one is supporting the body's own healing abilities, and the other is empowering people to make lifestyle changes necessary for the best possible health. While naturopathic doctors treat both short bouts of illness and chronic conditions, their emphasis is on preventing disease and educating patients.
Read more: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/naturopathy-000356.htm#ixzz1yMlQnY7m
http://www.umm.edu/altmed/articles/naturopathy-000356.htm
Today, in North America, the Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine (N.D. or N.M.D.) degree is available from seven accredited full-time schools of naturopathic medicine.[1] The accrediting agency for naturopathic medical schools, the Council on Naturopathic Medical Education was first recognized by the U.S. Secretary of Education in 1987. The CNME lost this recognition in 2001 for failing to enforce its standards on the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine, then in the preaccreditation stage; CNME applied for and regained recognition in 2003.[6][7]
And my sons are all now in their 30's and able to make their own decisions.
Larry,
Thanks for the lesson but I already understand. You do understand though that medicines also come from nature, right? Where do you think chemicals come from? Also, there have been many cases where, people like yourself, withhold their children from life saving medications because they believe their naturopathy will cure the disease that ails their child and end up losing that child. Those people usually get arrested for obvious reasons.
I'm not saying that there is no use for naturopathy but that modern medicine has proven to both extend and give quality to life whether you want to admit that or not.
Easy to tell Obama people blame someone else
Larry, I agree. I have been in nutrition for most of my life, mainly because of my parients. They are in their mid 80's and do not take any drugs or medications. I have found eating right and taking care of yourself keeps many illnesses at bay. I always figured if the body can heal itself, if you just let it. Even Cancer I believe can be combated with natural foods. My uncle was give 6 months to live, we changed his diet and more then 20 years later he was doing better then before. The sad thing is he reverted back when he went to live near his family and a year later the cancer finally took his life. I pay for insurance though for emergencys, that can happen, which is my choice to shop around and choose the company and policy I want, not some cookie cutter policy choicen by some desk jocky two thousand miles away. I do not want to be forced to purchase a govenment plan or pay a penalty (tax) for not buying someting. Why should I , I do not pay a penalty for not buying a toaster I see in the store, or walking by a Lexus vehicle I do not buy. The old system worked fine I do not know why they had to screw around with it.
good comments michael
300Michael I pay for insurance though for emergencys-good points. I am sitting here in a hospital room beside my husband. He was diagnosed with a brain tumor yesterday. Because I was able to shop around I was able to buy the policy he needed at a price we could afford.
Larry Robinson-1323081-while not following the same path you have, we have always believed that if you support your own health, that one action will allow your body to heal yourself from most ailments. Not all mind you, but most of them. After all, why not use the knowledge and expertise of the men & women who dedicate their lives to healing us?
Larry and Michael your argument sounds on the face to be sound, however the facts dont support them. Health care isnt like buying a Lexus or toaster, and if you think the old system was fine you are crazy, with health care going up 10 to 15% per year something had to be done, these costs are one reason our country is in such poor shape today. I and my employer pay about $1,000/month for some really crappy health care and it keeps going up, something had to be done. Larry there are a lot of kooks out there giving away Doctor degrees for very strange Doctorate's, guess you found another.
Down with obozocare! Get rid of this expensive horrific death panel obamanation.
And let's replace it with RomneyCare...which is...well...exactly the same thing...hmmmmmm.
Obamacare is a turd. You do not "replace" turds ..... you FLUSH them !
Nothing in this law did anything to lower the costs of health care in this country. Quite the opposite we put an inefficient federal bureaucracy in charge to take over 1/6 of our economy via something like 159 new bureaus, agencies, boards and commissions. Then everyone is mandated to buy (or be fined) except those who "cannot afford" ..... those get SUBSIDIZED by our federal government (welfare).
It also expanded coverages and eliminated maximum payouts which would raise costs !
hahaha. this year we have the michael jackson ticket. the only real difference between obama and romney is one is black and one is white.
Romney is quite alive and running for President. Obama will "kill" his own political career if he continues to abuse power and sidestep existing law in favor of his personal preferences.
Dionys - Romney even said in his own words that his healthcare plan in MA was a state level system that would not have been right for the whole country. You must be dizzy with all that spinning.
States doing this is no way near as scary as feds doing this. States can only go so far. Democratic leaders called Obamacare a "start" implying they would like to go way further.
My honest belief is that if Obama and Pelosi had their way, politicians would put us in a VA clone type system that the government could no way fund anyway, and that would be a disaster.
dionysusOmega
Not true and was further reinforced this year by SCOTUS
SCOTUS upholds foreign-money ban
By ROBIN BRAVENDER | 1/9/12 12:47 PM EST
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday upheld a federal law that bars foreign nationals from spending to influence U.S. elections.
In the latest of a series of high-profile cases challenging limits to political contributions, the high court affirmed a lower court ruling that foreign citizens can be excluded from certain civic and political activities. The Supreme Court summarily upheld the lower court’s decision in the Bluman v. Federal Election Commission case without comment.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0112/71239.html#ixzz1yMdzHpOw
Larry,
Total crap.
You and I both know that many "American' corporations are partly, if not majoritively held by foreigners.
Nice try though.
DionysusOmega
Prove SCOTUS wrong and show me which American corporations are controlled by foreigners contrary to US Law. Also show me where Obama has charged a single American corporation with violating this decision.
Illegals aren't supposed to have access to Obamacare but the industry is banned from asking proof of citizenship, that is a travesty.
The Republicans are taking over, G.W. Bush will be pleased...
So will the public, last time republicans owned government unemployment was 4.6%.
Really Phil, thought that unemployment at the end of Bush administration was way over 4.6%?
It takes the Supreme Court to decide whether someone should have to prove their citizenship before registering to vote in our elections? Really? Doesn't this seem like a huge waste of time when it should just be common sense?
Sense is never common.