Page 58 of 122 FirstFirst ... 848565758596068108 ... LastLast
Results 571 to 580 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #571
    Sage
    Mach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    11,515

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Odd, the NPR show today has me beliving they will not interfere with congress and will not strike the mandate down. And certainly would not strike down the centerpiece of a democratic presidents term, on a party-line vote.

    The basic case the panel made was that the commerce clause is sufficiently broad enough, that if it's fairly well defined how the mandate is tied to regulation (it appears to be), and is driven by some limiting principle(s), then the court shouldn't interefere. They believed Roberts will clearly state how this power to mandate is limited by a/b/c and thus not some widepread green light on a very wide interpretation in every other situation...and then not rule it unconstitutional.
    Last edited by Mach; 03-29-12 at 12:31 PM.

  2. #572
    Sage

    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Last Seen
    Today @ 04:59 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    23,387

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by ZIRP4EVA View Post
    Maybe. There were a couple points here and there when listening where I thought maybe all four of the lib judges would rule it unconstitutional. Breyer and Kagan (for obvious reasons) I would say are total locks though.
    I would be careful of counting your chickens....we will see in June what the vote is. I beleive it will be 5 to 4 to uphold. Kenedy will be the decider.

  3. #573
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,606

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Odd, the NPR show today has me beliving they will not interfere with congress and will not strike the mandate down. And certainly would not strike down the centerpiece of a democratic presidents term, on a party-line vote.

    The basic case the panel made was that the commerce clause is sufficiently broad enough, that if it's fairly well defined how the mandate is tied to regulation (it appears to be), and is driven by some limiting principle(s), then the court shouldn't interefere. They believed Roberts will clearly state how this power to mandate is limited by a/b/c and thus not some widepread green light on a very wide interpretation in every other situation...and then not rule it unconstitutional.
    They said more or less the same on the eve of the Bush v. Gore decision -- i.e., the court would not "interfere" with "Florida law."
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  4. #574
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post


    Are we on record, then, that according to you, finding the mandate unconstitutional would NOT be "judicial activism"?
    No, I don't believe we are. I think that the mandate is clearly supported under existing precedent. The Court is supposed to give deference to laws passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected President. I've seen evidence in the past that conservative majority will cast aside its sound judgment to reach a political end (see Bush v. Gore) and I'm not confident that they won't do the same thing here. So in short, if they come out against the mandate I can't say definitively whether it would be the result of objective analysis (possible, given their very conservative judicial philiosophy), judicial activism, or more likely, a combination of the two.

    So, are we on record that finding the mandate unconstitutional COULD be judicial activism?
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  5. #575
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, I don't believe we are. I think that the mandate is clearly supported under existing precedent.
    This and the mention of Bush v Gore as activism should show you (Harshaw) the pointlessness of the debate with this guy.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  6. #576
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    You have offered nothing but dodging and diversion.

    It is understandable because there is nothing in the Constitution that supports the power you 'feel' the federal government should have.

    When you actually have an argument, rather than constant dodging of reality, let us know.
    Lord, do they give you guys classes on how to dodge. Our issue is judicial activism. Focus. I linked those who disagree with you in the other thread. here, we're discussing judicial activism. People disagree on the law. That's the point. The court will rule on which view of the law is correct. That is not judicial activism.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #577
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Mach View Post
    Odd, the NPR show today has me beliving they will not interfere with congress and will not strike the mandate down. And certainly would not strike down the centerpiece of a democratic presidents term, on a party-line vote.

    The basic case the panel made was that the commerce clause is sufficiently broad enough, that if it's fairly well defined how the mandate is tied to regulation (it appears to be), and is driven by some limiting principle(s), then the court shouldn't interefere. They believed Roberts will clearly state how this power to mandate is limited by a/b/c and thus not some widepread green light on a very wide interpretation in every other situation...and then not rule it unconstitutional.
    I don't think it's clear enough yet to predict what they will do. I don't think either side should rest easy just yet.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  8. #578
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Today @ 10:24 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,606

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, I don't believe we are. I think that the mandate is clearly supported under existing precedent. The Court is supposed to give deference to laws passed by the elected legislature and signed by the elected President. I've seen evidence in the past that conservative majority will cast aside its sound judgment to reach a political end (see Bush v. Gore) and I'm not confident that they won't do the same thing here. So in short, if they come out against the mandate I can't say definitively whether it would be the result of objective analysis (possible, given their very conservative judicial philiosophy), judicial activism, or more likely, a combination of the two.

    So, are we on record that finding the mandate unconstitutional COULD be judicial activism?
    Oh . . . then it wasn't meant to be a joke. OK. One of these days, you may actually decide what you really meant. More likely, though, what you "meant" will vary according to the convenience of the moment.

    And you keep using this word "clear," though you don't seem to be able or willing to come up with the goods when asked to show the clarity. (Like, say the "clarity" of the mandate being intended as a tax, both in the language of the statute, and in the record of legislative intent.) It's an old legal joke that any time you see the word "clear" you can bet that whatever follows will be anything but. I see you will carry on that tradition with pride.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #579
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Lord, do they give you guys classes on how to dodge. Our issue is judicial activism. Focus. I linked those who disagree with you in the other thread. here, we're discussing judicial activism. People disagree on the law. That's the point. The court will rule on which view of the law is correct. That is not judicial activism.
    You can not state where the Constitution gives the fed powers you 'feel' it should have, so you say others are dodging, and need to focus? Get a grip.

    I have put up the long accepted definition of judicial activism, that you ignore it because it does not fit your needs/beliefs is your own issue.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  10. #580
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    You can not state where the Constitution gives the fed powers you 'feel' it should have, so you say others are dodging, and need to focus? Get a grip.

    I have put up the long accepted definition of judicial activism, that you ignore it because it does not fit your needs/beliefs is your own issue.
    No one said I can't. I've merely already linked that before, as have others. The point here is to accept that there are honest disagreements and that a court will have to decide on one or the other. Doing so, basing it on law, is not activism.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •