|
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 |
On March 23 2012 14:17 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 14:12 Signet wrote:On March 23 2012 14:04 xDaunt wrote:
This case will likely be the most important case in a generation. Given the current make up of the Court, I'd be shocked if the individual mandate survived. The real question is whether the Court will find that the individual mandate is so integral to Obamacare as a whole that the whole law must be stricken. My thoughts as well. If the individual mandate is stricken but the other parts remain intact, it will be interesting to see how that affects the insurance industry. Most actuaries believe that an individual mandate is critical to the system if we are going to require that insurers cannot reject people with pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, healthier people will drop their coverage, leading to exponential growth in premiums. (well, moreso than we have already) If the entire law is stricken, I think within the next 12 years we will have some sort of broad expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, as a growing percent of the population is unable to afford coverage. There is already a broad consensus that people should be able to get insurance coverage even if they are in poor health, and without requiring insurers to accept these applicants, that leaves state-run high-risk pools or some level of single payer as the remaining alternatives. if there is no individual mandate, people will wait until they get sick to get coverage. and guess who gets to pay higher premiums! (i think this is what you are saying, so apologies for stating the obvious). In essence the ideological foundation that Obama promised and delivered would be undercut. So, whatever victory might be had would in the end not be the political victory that would be wanted, economic effects aside.
im curious how this will affect the election. it usually takes the supreme court a long time to issue rulings, but its possible we could get an opinion before november. if it loses, it will be a huge blow to obama's re-election because republicans can pitch it as a waste of time and money by a failed president (didnt Obama even say that his re-election depended on it?). however, if it wins, it will vitalize the republican base because they will be afraid of more reforms; may also vitalize the democratic base, which would counteract that. hmmmm, im not even convincing myself of anything.
|
On March 23 2012 14:23 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy. If you've ever studied a bit of history you will realize the two are highly intertwined. As for the second part, don't play semantics with me, boy.
If you're going to refer to history, you can see in recent history that Europe is becoming more and more socialist, and yet I don't think anyone would argue that the western-aligned European states are not democratic. Look at Sweden for example - they have so many different parties with a significant presence in Parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2010 . Granted this is a cursory examination and I have never bothered to read in depth on their political situation, but it seems pretty democratic to me!
So there's no reason why increased socialism must mean less democracy in the modern world. Sure they have been intertwined during the Cold War for instance, but there are just as many counterexamples.
Feel free to prove me wrong, I would love to see my mistakes. No need to bring personal insults to the table though.
|
On March 23 2012 14:29 dAPhREAk wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:17 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:15 dAPhREAk wrote:On March 23 2012 14:12 Signet wrote:On March 23 2012 14:04 xDaunt wrote:
This case will likely be the most important case in a generation. Given the current make up of the Court, I'd be shocked if the individual mandate survived. The real question is whether the Court will find that the individual mandate is so integral to Obamacare as a whole that the whole law must be stricken. My thoughts as well. If the individual mandate is stricken but the other parts remain intact, it will be interesting to see how that affects the insurance industry. Most actuaries believe that an individual mandate is critical to the system if we are going to require that insurers cannot reject people with pre-existing conditions. Otherwise, healthier people will drop their coverage, leading to exponential growth in premiums. (well, moreso than we have already) If the entire law is stricken, I think within the next 12 years we will have some sort of broad expansion of Medicare/Medicaid, as a growing percent of the population is unable to afford coverage. There is already a broad consensus that people should be able to get insurance coverage even if they are in poor health, and without requiring insurers to accept these applicants, that leaves state-run high-risk pools or some level of single payer as the remaining alternatives. if there is no individual mandate, people will wait until they get sick to get coverage. and guess who gets to pay higher premiums! (i think this is what you are saying, so apologies for stating the obvious). In essence the ideological foundation that Obama promised and delivered would be undercut. So, whatever victory might be had would in the end not be the political victory that would be wanted, economic effects aside. im curious how this will affect the election. it usually takes the supreme court a long time to issue rulings, but its possible we could get an opinion before november. if it loses, it will be a huge blow to obama's re-election because republicans can pitch it as a waste of time and money by a failed president (didnt Obama even say that his re-election depended on it?). however, if it wins, it will vitalize the republican base because they will be afraid of more reforms; may also vitalize the democratic base, which would counteract that. hmmmm, im not even convincing myself of anything.
They seem to expect a decision in June 2012.
|
On March 23 2012 14:25 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:24 semantics wrote:On March 23 2012 14:23 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy. If you've ever studied a bit of history you will realize the two are highly intertwined. As for the second part, don't play semantics with me, boy. do, do play semantics in the courts it's all about semantics. I forgot TL was a court of law. My bad.
i'm sorry what was the topic on again?
Also like ED pointed out you're equating socialism to a form of government which it's not it's a form of government policy but not a form of government, in the US it's carries the connotations of an authoritarian body or dictatorship although the policies can exist without such forms of government. And thus the point still stands that to move towards socialism doesn't necessarily mean move away from democracy. He's just pointing out how your statement is flawed.
|
On March 23 2012 14:25 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:24 semantics wrote:On March 23 2012 14:23 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy. If you've ever studied a bit of history you will realize the two are highly intertwined. As for the second part, don't play semantics with me, boy. do, do play semantics in the courts it's all about semantics. I forgot TL was a court of law. My bad.
Between the internet judges and lawyers in the Trayvon thread and the Tweet arrest threads it may as well be.
|
I appreciate the update. I am a bit of an amateur Supreme Curt buff so I love this stuff. Really going to be watching closely.
My guess:
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will almost certainly vote unconstitutional
Roberts will probably vote unconstitutional
Kennedy is, as always these day, the swing vote
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan will uphold the constitutionality
If I had to guess right now, I think Kennedy will vote that it is Constitutional. I can't say for sure right now though, I haven't looked at his previous cases in a WHILE.
Personally, I can't see how there's any way that this is constitutional. There is definitely some precedent for it in more recent Supreme Court cases that claim that the Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate "anything substantially related to interstate economic activity," but I think that those decisions are BOLLOCKS from a textualist point of view. Stare Decisis is bullshit as well. Justices use it or ignore it whenever they want to; it means absolutely nothing. If Congress is allowed to regulate this, I can't understand what is left that they aren't allowed to regulate. Where you live, what food you buy, and where you go to school all ultimately 'have a significant effect on interstate commerce.'
ALSO, what the HELL was the SCOTUS thinking when they allowed the 'Necessary and Proper' clause to start granting Congress additional authority. Everywhere else in the Constitution (mostly the amendments), necessary and proper type wording is taken to imply that congress has the power to legislate based on the powers previously delegated in that section. Yet, suddenly here the clause is seen as broadening the power of Congress. Just baffles me . . .
|
On March 23 2012 14:29 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:23 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy. If you've ever studied a bit of history you will realize the two are highly intertwined. As for the second part, don't play semantics with me, boy. If you're going to refer to history, you can see in recent history that Europe is becoming more and more socialist, and yet I don't think anyone would argue that the western-aligned European states are not democratic. Look at Sweden for example - they have so many different parties with a significant presence in Parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2010 . Granted this is a cursory examination and I have never bothered to read in depth on their political situation, but it seems pretty democratic to me! So there's no reason why increased socialism must mean less democracy in the modern world. Sure they have been intertwined during the Cold War for instance, but there are just as many counterexamples. For one in my original statement i never directly linked the two. If you looked they were two separate ideas and were even in different sentences! It was just two independent observations, not be saying that social and economic systems were quintessentially the same. Also as you said, there are as many examples as counter-examples, making your interpretation even more ludicrous.
|
On March 23 2012 14:20 0neder wrote:
It is both unconstitutional and will make healthcare in America more expensive and time rationed. A lose lose. Hopefully the court is sensible here and maintains individual sovereignty.
"maintains"? are you shitting me?
|
There are very few legal scholars that think the Supreme Court will strike this down. I personally think that they will punt the issue down the road by ruling that the Anti-Injunction Act prohibits them from reviewing the merits of the case until the first fine/penalty/tax is levied.
There is plenty of scholarship out there to explain why the Anti-Injunction Act shouldn't be controlling but I don't think SCOTUS will be all that eager to rule on such a huge political issue right before a presidential campaign.
|
America needs to withdraw troops and limit funding for the military to $500 per year, then they'll have money, also tax anyone making over $200,000 at 50%, over $500,000 at 60% and over 1 million at 60% with no tax shielding. Anyone earning less than $50,000 shouldn't be taxed.
Should lead to free health care and subsidised tertiary education plus a healthy economy. 
|
On March 23 2012 14:31 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:25 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:24 semantics wrote:On March 23 2012 14:23 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy. If you've ever studied a bit of history you will realize the two are highly intertwined. As for the second part, don't play semantics with me, boy. do, do play semantics in the courts it's all about semantics. I forgot TL was a court of law. My bad. Between the internet judges and lawyers in the Trayvon thread and the Tweet arrest threads it may as well be. Haha, well played.
|
On March 23 2012 14:33 Anytus wrote:
I appreciate the update. I am a bit of an amateur Supreme Curt buff so I love this stuff. Really going to be watching closely.
My guess:
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will almost certainly vote unconstitutional
Roberts will probably vote unconstitutional
Kennedy is, as always these day, the swing vote
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan will uphold the constitutionality
If I had to guess right now, I think Kennedy will vote that it is Constitutional. I can't say for sure right now though, I haven't looked at his previous cases in a WHILE.
Personally, I can't see how there's any way that this is constitutional. There is definitely some precedent for it in more recent Supreme Court cases that claim that the Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate "anything substantially related to interstate economic activity," but I think that those decisions are BOLLOCKS from a textualist point of view. If Congress is allowed to regulate this, I can't understand what is left that they aren't allowed to regulate. Where you live, what food you buy, and where you go to school all ultimately 'have a significant effect on interstate commerce.'
SCOTUS would have to overrule roughly 60 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence in order to strike this down. Justice Scalia would have to directly contradict his GonzalezvRaich opinion.
There are limits to a purely textualist approach to constitutional interpretation. "We must never forget it is a constitution we are expounding." -The greatest justice.
|
On March 23 2012 14:33 Kuja wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:29 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:23 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy. If you've ever studied a bit of history you will realize the two are highly intertwined. As for the second part, don't play semantics with me, boy. If you're going to refer to history, you can see in recent history that Europe is becoming more and more socialist, and yet I don't think anyone would argue that the western-aligned European states are not democratic. Look at Sweden for example - they have so many different parties with a significant presence in Parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2010 . Granted this is a cursory examination and I have never bothered to read in depth on their political situation, but it seems pretty democratic to me! So there's no reason why increased socialism must mean less democracy in the modern world. Sure they have been intertwined during the Cold War for instance, but there are just as many counterexamples. For one in my original statement i never directly linked the two. If you looked they were two separate ideas and were even in different sentences! It was just two independent observations, not be saying that social and economic systems were quintessentially the same. Also as you said, there are as many examples as counter-examples, making your interpretation even more ludicrous.
My bad then. I just assumed you were linking the two closely since you said the US is moving towards one and away from the other, so the period in between the sentences didn't seem so important to me.
|
On March 23 2012 14:38 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:33 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:29 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:23 Kuja wrote:On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy. If you've ever studied a bit of history you will realize the two are highly intertwined. As for the second part, don't play semantics with me, boy. If you're going to refer to history, you can see in recent history that Europe is becoming more and more socialist, and yet I don't think anyone would argue that the western-aligned European states are not democratic. Look at Sweden for example - they have so many different parties with a significant presence in Parliament: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swedish_general_election,_2010 . Granted this is a cursory examination and I have never bothered to read in depth on their political situation, but it seems pretty democratic to me! So there's no reason why increased socialism must mean less democracy in the modern world. Sure they have been intertwined during the Cold War for instance, but there are just as many counterexamples. For one in my original statement i never directly linked the two. If you looked they were two separate ideas and were even in different sentences! It was just two independent observations, not be saying that social and economic systems were quintessentially the same. Also as you said, there are as many examples as counter-examples, making your interpretation even more ludicrous. My bad then. I just assumed you were linking the two closely since you said the US is moving towards one and away from the other, so the period in between the sentences didn't seem so important to me.
The idea that the ACA is moving towards socialism is laughable. The public already pays a heavy price for the uninsured, all the ACA does is bring that cost out of the shadows and attempt to contain it.
|
On March 23 2012 14:38 partisan wrote:
SCOTUS would have to overrule roughly 60 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence in order to strike this down. Justice Scalia would have to directly contradict his GonzalezvRaich opinion.
There are limits to a purely textualist approach to constitutional interpretation. "We must never forget it is a constitution we are expounding." -The greatest justice.
I know that this is true, I just don't understand. There are a LOT of SCOTUS decisions I just don't get. If I had my way, we'd put 'substantive due process,' the necessary and proper clause, commerce clause jurisprudence (including the slaughterhouse cases that totally gutted the priveleges and immunities clause where the actual power should be), and a couple other ideas in a barrel and blow the damn thing up.
I mean, really, what is protected from regulation if we allow this set of Commerce Clause precedent to continue to be controlling? Basically, only our very basic fundamental rights would be protected. Literally everything else immediately meets rational basis review because it 'substantially affects interstate commerce.'
I read the Gonzales v Raich opinion and it destroyed my opinion of Scalia. I can't fathom how he reached those conclusions. At the end of the day though, I am just not a conservative, so I guess that explains it.
|
On March 23 2012 14:19 EtherealDeath wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:16 Kuja wrote:
The healthcare system is so broken; I for one am not in favor of obama-care. If people are important to society they will be able to pay their medical bills. If they're not i don't want to pay them for them. Seems to be moving closer to socialism everyday. Away from democracy. You realize socialism is an economic policy whereas democracy is a government organization policy? You can't even directly compare the two. Not to mention that the US is a representational republic and not a democracy.
Socialism is an economic policy? I hope this is sarcasm.
|
On March 23 2012 14:40 partisan wrote:
The idea that the ACA is moving towards socialism is laughable. The public already pays a heavy price for the uninsured, all the ACA does is bring that cost out of the shadows and attempt to contain it.
Where we pay for the cost matters. From a philosophical perspective there is a big difference between paying for it in terms of higher private premiums, emergency room fees, and in other ways through externalities and paying for it through the government (or a government sponsored healthcare exchange, or penalties if we choose not to buy insurance, etc).
Also, I guess we should just scrap amendments 9-11. Literally no point in even having them in there because they aren't worth the parchment they're scribbled on. Powers are expressly reserved to Congress, and no one else.
|
|
|
On March 23 2012 14:03 Zooper31 wrote:
Why do people call it Obamacare :/
Because it is the policy that Obama is trying to pass. They call Romney's, RomneyCare. Doesn't mean he was the first to have the idea, but it's used for expediency's sake (and also probably because a large chunk of American's think that Obama was responsible for it's creation/formation of idea).
|
On March 23 2012 14:38 partisan wrote:Show nested quote +On March 23 2012 14:33 Anytus wrote:
I appreciate the update. I am a bit of an amateur Supreme Curt buff so I love this stuff. Really going to be watching closely.
My guess:
Scalia, Thomas, and Alito will almost certainly vote unconstitutional
Roberts will probably vote unconstitutional
Kennedy is, as always these day, the swing vote
Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan will uphold the constitutionality
If I had to guess right now, I think Kennedy will vote that it is Constitutional. I can't say for sure right now though, I haven't looked at his previous cases in a WHILE.
Personally, I can't see how there's any way that this is constitutional. There is definitely some precedent for it in more recent Supreme Court cases that claim that the Commerce Clause allows congress to regulate "anything substantially related to interstate economic activity," but I think that those decisions are BOLLOCKS from a textualist point of view. If Congress is allowed to regulate this, I can't understand what is left that they aren't allowed to regulate. Where you live, what food you buy, and where you go to school all ultimately 'have a significant effect on interstate commerce.' SCOTUS would have to overrule roughly 60 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence in order to strike this down. Justice Scalia would have to directly contradict his GonzalezvRaich opinion. There are limits to a purely textualist approach to constitutional interpretation. "We must never forget it is a constitution we are expounding." -The greatest justice.
Why would Justice Scalia have to contradict his Gonzalez v Raich opinion to strike this down? I just checked an excerpt of the text of his statement from one of Constitutional Law book supplements (I had read it a year or so ago.. didn't seem to recall any necessary contradictions).
The main point of his argument seems to lie in the regulation of activities that are not necessarily part of interstate commerce, and that the power to control them derive from the Necessary and Proper Clause. Now in his statement, which I am reading again now, he refers to the regulation of activities which are not themselves part of interstate commerce. Precedents given all involve regulation of an active activity, namely the person is actually doing something, rather than an inactivity, which is the case in this case. So I can see how Scalia might strike down Obamacare without contradicting his position in Gonzalez vs Raich. Of course I have no idea how he will rule, but I don't see the contradiction you speak of. Maybe you could specify further?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
