EPTThe Affordable Healthcare Act in the U.S. Supreme Court -…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
This topic is not about the American Invasion of Iraq. Stop. - Page 23 | ||
|
{CC}StealthBlue
United States41117 Posts
| ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 28 2012 02:39 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: So Clarence Thomas didn't ask a question today that is 0 in 6 years, so wtf is doing up there? Listening. You have to be really on the ball to ask meaningful questions during an OA. And the truth is that the justices already know what the issues are... they aren't oblivious to them. So the number of meaningful questions they could pose at this stage is rather limited, if it exists at all. Many times, questions posed by appellate judges are one of two things: playing devil's advocate just to test their own preconcieved notions -or- what are generally called "softball/hardball" questions. Essentially this means they are trying to assist an orator in hitting home a point THEY think is important to a fellow judge they think might be persuaded by the argument. An OA is just as much about the justices arguing between themselves as it is an orator attempting to convince the justices. Thomas essentially doesn't partake in this, not sure if it's personal disdain for it or he just feels it's not worth his effort. It doesn't mean he's not doing his job of deciding the cases. Justice Thomas has said he finds the atmosphere in the courtroom distressing. “We look like ‘Family Feud,’ ” he told the bar group. That is one of the statements he's made on this. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-the-individual-mandate It's a shame TL isn't paying more attention to this issue. It's probably the most important supreme court decision in my lifetime. | ||
|
lOvOlUNiMEDiA
United States643 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
So Clarence Thomas didn't ask a question today that is 0 in 6 years, so wtf is doing up there? The oral argument / question and answer session has so little impact on the rulings I wonder why they do it at all. | ||
|
Gluon
Netherlands425 Posts
On March 28 2012 03:49 liberal wrote: Here is a link to the transcipt of today's oral arguments. Warning: It is very long... http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-the-individual-mandate It's a shame TL isn't paying more attention to this issue. It's probably the most important supreme court decision in my lifetime. Well that's a bit melodramatic isn't it? Even if it get's passed, I doubt it will have such a big impact as some seem to think. So many other decisions could be equally important (who becomes president, invade some new country yes/no, SOPA, etc).. And considering the fact that TL it a site about SC, I don't see why they should pay more attention than this. | ||
|
Competent
United States406 Posts
On March 27 2012 02:21 MethodSC wrote: How does one approve of Obamacare and at the same time think that it's unconstitutional? This baffles me(based off the polls on the 1st page) Well, one reason could be that the constitution isn't made of gold? The constitution can be wrong. I see no issue in finding approval with something all while acknowledging that it goes against a faulty piece of paper written by slave owners, and who thought women were undeserving of a vote. I think, and correct me if I am wrong, that you are using the word "constitutional" and the phrase "I think this is right" synonymously. | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
On March 28 2012 04:02 bblack wrote: Well that's a bit melodramatic isn't it? Even if it get's passed, I doubt it will have such a big impact as some seem to think. So many other decisions could be equally important (who becomes president, invade some new country yes/no, SOPA, etc).. And considering the fact that TL it a site about SC, I don't see why they should pay more attention than this. Actually, if it is allowed this will dramatically increase our federal governments power. The United States government isn't like most nation's governments. We really are 50 individual "nations" with an alliance under the constitution (think of it more like Europe with the federal government being the EU). Now, our constitution is much stronger/centralized compared to the EU, but it's the same concept. The federal government is limited in what it can do and what it cannot do. Mandating citizens to buy particular private products is not something they were permitted to do in the constitution and the supreme court would be reading that into it and making it precedent that they can. It may not be internationally important, but in the United States, this clause is a big part of the divide between Democrats and Repulibcans (ie, federal v. state power balances). It has very huge domestic political implications. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 28 2012 04:02 bblack wrote: Well that's a bit melodramatic isn't it? Even if it get's passed, I doubt it will have such a big impact as some seem to think. So many other decisions could be equally important (who becomes president, invade some new country yes/no, SOPA, etc).. And considering the fact that TL it a site about SC, I don't see why they should pay more attention than this. No, I don't think it's melodramatic. The issue at hand I'm referring to here is not this actual bill, but the precedent that is being set for the future of the relation of the United States government to it's people. It's a huge deal about establishing the role and the scope of the government, and the consequences of this decision will have impact for decades. And your comment about this being an SC site.... obviously I wasn't directing my comments to the inhabitants of the strategy sections... | ||
|
screamingpalm
United States1527 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
Toobin: Obama healthcare reform law 'in grave, grave trouble' By Daniel Strauss - 03/27/12 12:20 PM ET A top legal analyst predicted Tuesday that the Obama administration's healthcare reform legislation seemed likely to be struck down by the Supreme Court. Jeffrey Toobin, a lawyer and legal analyst, who writes about legal topics for The New Yorker said the law looked to be in "trouble." He called it a "trainwreck for the Obama administration." "This law looks like it's going to be struck down. I'm telling you, all of the predictions, including mine, that the justices would not have a problem with this law were wrong," Toobin said Tuesday on CNN. "I think this law is in grave, grave trouble." Toobin's observation came on the second day of oral arguments at the Supreme Court over the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. Earlier that day, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, who could be the deciding vote on whether to uphold the law, told Solicitor General Donald Verrilli that there appeared to be a "very heavy burden of justification" on aspects of the law, according to The Wall Street Journal. Toobin described Kennedy as "enormously skeptical" during the arguments Tuesday. http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/218427-toobin-obama-healthcare-reform-law-in-grave-grave-trouble I don't understand why anyone is surprised that Obamacare is in danger of being stricken down. It doesn't take a genius to look at the composition of the Court and the Court's commerce clause jurisprudence starting with Lopez to see the writing on the wall. Seriously, wtf are these "experts" paid for? Hell, I remember raising this point months ago in some other thread on this forum and catching crap from people. So just out of curiosity, is anyone really going to be surprised if (more likely "when") the individual mandate is found to be unconstitutional? | ||
|
BluePanther
United States2776 Posts
| ||
|
Romantic
United States1844 Posts
On March 28 2012 04:07 BluePanther wrote: Actually, if it is allowed this will dramatically increase our federal governments power. The United States government isn't like most nation's governments. We really are 50 individual "nations" with an alliance under the constitution (think of it more like Europe with the federal government being the EU). Now, our constitution is much stronger/centralized compared to the EU, but it's the same concept. The federal government is limited in what it can do and what it cannot do. Mandating citizens to buy particular private products is not something they were permitted to do in the constitution and the supreme court would be reading that into it and making it precedent that they can. It may not be internationally important, but in the United States, this clause is a big part of the divide between Democrats and Repulibcans (ie, federal v. state power balances). It has very huge domestic political implications. The US isn't 50 individual nations. None of the states existed prior to entering the Union. The USA is a federation where states' participation is not voluntary. That is why the federal government moved to crush the Confederacy; they cannot withdraw from the Union because they have no authority other than through that Union. | ||
|
Sofestafont
United States83 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:40 Romantic wrote: The US isn't 50 individual nations. None of the states existed prior to entering the Union. The USA is a federation where states' participation is not voluntary. That is why the federal government moved to crush the Confederacy; they cannot withdraw from the Union because they have no authority other than through that Union. All the original 13 colonies were sovereign states before they joined to form the United States of America. I would agree that the American Civil War cemented Federal authority. I like the Affordable Care Act, but I have to be against it, because I believe it is unconstitutional and gives the Federal Government unlimited power--to dictate what private products and services we must buy. An interesting clip from the Attorney General from Colorado was just on TV. He claimed that he would find nothing unconstitutional about a single-payer system, and that at the Colorado State level, the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. | ||
|
RCMDVA
United States708 Posts
Justice Kagan then wants to know about a person who isn't exempt from the penalty but who chooses to pay the penalty rather than to buy the insurance. What if this person then "finds herself in a position where she is asked the question, have you ever violated any federal law, would that person have violated a federal law?" GENERAL VERRILLI: No. Our position is that person should give the answer "no." JUSTICE KAGAN: And that's because — GENERAL VERRILLI: That if they don't pay the tax, they violated a federal law. JUSTICE KAGAN: But as long as they pay the penalty — GENERAL VERRILLI: If they pay the tax, then compliance with the law. JUSTICE BREYER: Why do you keep saying tax? GENERAL VERRILLI: If they pay the tax penalty, they're in compliance with the law. JUSTICE BREYER: Thank you. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 28 2012 05:49 Sofestafont wrote: All the original 13 colonies were sovereign states before they joined to form the United States of America. I would agree that the American Civil War cemented Federal authority. I like the Affordable Care Act, but I have to be against it, because I believe it is unconstitutional and gives the Federal Government unlimited power--to dictate what private products and services we must buy. An interesting clip from the Attorney General from Colorado was just on TV. He claimed that he would find nothing unconstitutional about a single-payer system, and that at the Colorado State level, the Affordable Care Act is constitutional. I tend to agree with him on both points. I don't think that there is much argument against single-payer, universal healthcare being constitutional. | ||
|
liberal
1116 Posts
On March 28 2012 06:12 xDaunt wrote: I tend to agree with him on both points. I don't think that there is much argument against single-payer, universal healthcare being constitutional. Agreed. But it's very odd and kind of baffling when you think about it... The government can force you to give them your money, and can then give that money to someone else, but they can't force you to give your money to someone else. | ||
|
v3chr0
United States856 Posts
This mandate if approved, would set a precedent that would be extremely bad. Under these terms, the Government could regulate anything and force you to buy anything, because eventually, you might do/buy something. Not good if approved, this isn't even really about healthcare anymore, this is some serious power that would be given to the Gov. | ||
|
DoubleReed
United States4130 Posts
It's kind of weird. States can force their residents to buy goods, but the federal government can't? I think it's a grey area personally. I think both sides have good points. I have no idea. If there was a public option, would that make it better constitutionally? | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On March 28 2012 07:40 DoubleReed wrote: Well at the state level it's perfectly constitutional. It's kind of weird. States can force their residents to buy goods, but the federal government can't? I think it's a grey area personally. I think both sides have good points. I have no idea. The discrepancy makes perfect sense when you realize that police powers are meant to be exercised solely by the states. | ||
| ||
