• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Health Care Reform Provision Is Unconstitutional, Federal Judge Rules

Gill said:
Who's ignoring a law ?? The law in Iowa still stands. The judges that made the law (I thought representatives were supposed to make law) are no longer in business.

Do you believe the people don't have the right to vote people in or out of office that they disagree with??? In case you forgot, this is still a representative democracy.
Click to expand...

See, you have it wrong. Judges didn't make the law. They ruled on the law. The same way judge after judge has ruled across the United States.

And people vote for representatives. That is where their constitutional power resides. Judges are not suppose to be voted on by popular opinion. This sends the wrong message, that the law isn't important, popular opinion is. And it seems like a good idea when it favors your position, but not so good when it doesn't.
 
“Virginia’s suit is based on a state statute that is not applicable nationwide, and the department believes this case should follow the ordinary course of allowing the courts of appeals to hear it first so the issues and arguments can be fully developed before the Supreme Court decides whether to consider it. As Judge Hudson noted in denying an injunction, the individual responsibility provision does not go into effect until 2014, so there is more than sufficient time for the courts to consider this case in their normal course of business.” — a Justice Department spokeswoman¹​

As Boo Radley said, we'll just have to stay tuned. (White hybrid popcorn is the best.)
 
Boo Radley said:
See, you have it wrong. Judges didn't make the law. They ruled on the law. The same way judge after judge has ruled across the United States.

And people vote for representatives. That is where their constitutional power resides. Judges are not suppose to be voted on by popular opinion. This sends the wrong message, that the law isn't important, popular opinion is. And it seems like a good idea when it favors your position, but not so good when it doesn't.
Click to expand...

See, there you have it wrong. Judges are voted into (and out) of office in large portions of the country.
 
hazlnut said:
It was too brilliant.
Click to expand...
For you to have thought of, yes...

:mrgreen:

But on to the topic.

What is that, again?

Oh yeah.

Well, I'm waiting on more rulings in this matter, dependent on what the repubs who now control the house do when they are seated next year.

If they somehow totally repeal the bill, it would be moot.
 
Watching the Dems implode on election day, then the Bush tax rates get extended, and now Obamacare getting challenged on consitutionality right before it gets defunded anyway.........

What a fantastic few weeks this has been. Perhaps a nation-saving few weeks at that.
 
Boo Radley said:
So? They had no idea there would planes either, or nuclear bombs. Life doesn't stand still. Nor are we obligated to hold ALL the same beliefs they held. Some actually believed in slavery, remember? Only some saw that it would one day end.
Click to expand...


Yep, you are correct, there at one time were horrible things like slavery in this country. Then it was abolished, not by a decree, or a regulative body, or even by popular vote, but rather through the amendment process. That is your solution. Not the courts, and not through the appointment of Czar's and ever increasing bureaucracy. You want Gay marriage, propose an amendment.


j-mac
 
Erod said:
Watching the Dems implode on election day,typical midterm shift then the Bush tax rates get extendedcompromise to extend unemployment benifits, and now Obamacare getting challengedactivists judge, case that will go nowhere on consitutionality right before it gets defunded anyway.........

What a fantastic few weeks this has been.if you're unemployed, your benefits will be extended, but if you're unemployed and sick, your new teabagger congressman may let you die Perhaps a nation-saving few weeks at that.because sick people without a job and health insurance will die faster??
Click to expand...
Go AMERICA!!
 
hazlnut said:
Go AMERICA!!
Click to expand...

Predictable, typical, and thoroughly brained-washed response.

Not get back to hanging those Julian Assange and Michael Moore posters on your ceiling.
 
j-mac said:
Yep, you are correct, there at one time were horrible things like slavery in this country. Then it was abolished, not by a decree, or a regulative body, or even by popular vote, but rather through the amendment process. That is your solution. Not the courts, and not through the appointment of Czar's and ever increasing bureaucracy. You want Gay marriage, propose an amendment.


j-mac
Click to expand...

Not exactly. There was a war, to start with, and then the courts actually did interfer in civil rights and it was not done by popular vote. The courts acted because the LAW enabled them to act. The law is clear concerning discrimination. And we don't vote on matters of the individual. To deny anyone rights, you have to have a just cause. I had a lawyer once try to explain that to folks on WS once. The majority is not free to impose their beliefs on others without just cause to do so.
 
Gill said:
See, there you have it wrong. Judges are voted into (and out) of office in large portions of the country.
Click to expand...

So, you see judges like representatives, not obligated to law, but whores for public opinion polls? Is that your ideal?
 
Last edited:
Besides, in the federal court system, judges are not elected, they're selected and serve for life.
 
Boo Radley said:
Not exactly. There was a war, to start with, and then the courts actually did interfer in civil rights and it was not done by popular vote. The courts acted because the LAW enabled them to act. The law is clear concerning discrimination.
Click to expand...

Yes, and for that to be law, and constitutional it was adopted through amendment. The problem today with far too many liberals, IMHO, is that they see the constitution a hinderance to what they want to impose on the body of the people, so they go through the courts to impose that will through unelected arbiters. This is tyranny.

And we don't vote on matters of the individual. To deny anyone rights, you have to have a just cause.
Click to expand...

You can't deny what you don't have the power to deny. IOW, if I don't give you the power to deny my rights, you simply can't do it.

I had a lawyer once try to explain that to folks on WS once.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Groucho was dead wrong, and a Marxist.

The majority is not free to impose their beliefs on others without just cause to do so.
Click to expand...

"Just cause" or not, we are not ruled by majority vote in this country. If you want something to be constitutional, you have to provide amendment. Period.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Yes, and for that to be law, and constitutional it was adopted through amendment. The problem today with far too many liberals, IMHO, is that they see the constitution a hinderance to what they want to impose on the body of the people, so they go through the courts to impose that will through unelected arbiters. This is tyranny.
Click to expand...

You do have a warped spin, which I attribute to reading much American (non) Thinker. ;) But know. There are laws on the books now, put there by our representatives, with our votes, and it is htese laws that form the legal rationale for the ruling you keep seeing. No activism, but adhereing to the law, as it is written.


You can't deny what you don't have the power to deny. IOW, if I don't give you the power to deny my rights, you simply can't do it.
Click to expand...

If I undertsand what you're saying, you're actually wrong. As we do deny homosexuals the legal right to marry who they love, without just cause, those who fight them having that right do deny them equal rights.


Yeah, Groucho was dead wrong, and a Marxist.
Click to expand...

No, I wasn't speaking to him. I had a friend who was a lawyer come on just long enough to explain the concept.

"Just cause" or not, we are not ruled by majority vote in this country. If you want something to be constitutional, you have to provide amendment. Period.

j-mac
Click to expand...

You're right, we are not ruled by majority vote, and we do have amendments one the books, which is why denying them equal rights is unconstitutional. Again, you have to at least understand why the courts are ruling they way they are. It is because of the admendments and laws on the books right now.
 
Boo Radley said:
You do have a warped spin, which I attribute to reading much American (non) Thinker. ;)
Click to expand...


Works both ways Joe, your spin I think is dictated by the host of liberal indoctrinators, and your proximity to the Ivory tower. :mrgreen:

But know. There are laws on the books now, put there by our representatives, with our votes, and it is htese laws that form the legal rationale for the ruling you keep seeing. No activism, but adhereing to the law, as it is written.
Click to expand...

You mean the interpretation don't you?

If I undertsand what you're saying, you're actually wrong. As we do deny homosexuals the legal right to marry who they love, without just cause, those who fight them having that right do deny them equal rights.
Click to expand...

Do the people's voice on the matter have any bearing at all? Referendums were held, and voted down. That is the will of the people, then judges came in and over ruled the election results, what do you call that?

You're right, we are not ruled by majority vote, and we do have amendments one the books, which is why denying them equal rights is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

Alright, let's use your argument....The rights of an unborn child in the right to live are being abridged by you because you (not you personally) used the courts to through Stare Decisis set precedent and make law through judicial fiat. How can you hold such double standard?


Again, you have to at least understand why the courts are ruling they way they are. It is because of the admendments and laws on the books right now.
Click to expand...

Not in all cases as I have shown.

j-mac
 
j-mac said:
Works both ways Joe, your spin I think is dictated by the host of liberal indoctrinators, and your proximity to the Ivory tower. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...

You don't know how funny this is considering who I am. :lol:


You mean the interpretation don't you?
Click to expand...

After a while, when nearly all judges see it the same way, it elevates to a little more than interpretation. But, yes, judges read the law and rule on what it says, what it means and what it effects. In part, that is why we have judges.

Do the people's voice on the matter have any bearing at all? Referendums were held, and voted down. That is the will of the people, then judges came in and over ruled the election results, what do you call that?
Click to expand...

On the law, no. If people held a referendum that people could steal from you, it wouldn't change the law, and you'd be damn glad it didn't. They ahve to change the law, which takes time and effort. Just being upset with the law is not enough to ignore it.


Alright, let's use your argument....The rights of an unborn child in the right to live are being abridged by you because you (not you personally) used the courts to through Stare Decisis set precedent and make law through judicial fiat. How can you hold such double standard?
Click to expand...

Don't mistake me for someone else. I'm a Catholic, don't forget. But, if you believe the unborn are a fetus and not yet a human being, that would change the view. Things do get complicated.


Not in all cases as I have shown.

j-mac
Click to expand...

Don't overestimate what you've shown. In fact, you haven't. Just disagreeng with the courts doesn't mean they didn't tackle the law. You really have to tackle their reading of the law. That's where the debate really begins.
 
Jetboogieman said:
Jeez, no complaints about activist judges here I see...
Click to expand...

judicial activism is when Judges step beyond the proper bounds of Judicial Review (which is a negative function; to void laws that are in violation of the Constitution as they pertain to the "cases or controversies" that come befor them) into Judicial Supremacy (wherein the Supreme Court claims that it's decisions are the Constitution) and into Judicial Positivism; which holds that judges have the right to enforce positive actions as well as negatively strike down unconstitutional ones.

Boo Radley said:
No, she didn't and wasn't. Sorry.
Click to expand...

she was correct, and the Founders agreed with her. that law students laughed is indicative of their education.

Whovian said:
rebuttal post of the day!
Click to expand...

:) we have certainly seemed to have fulfilled many of Jeffersons' direst warnings in this regards.
 
Boo Radley said:
So, you see judges like representatives, not obligated to law, but whores for public opinion polls? Is that your ideal?
Click to expand...

we have a system of checks and balances that seems to have no current check on judges. that doesn't bother you?





okay, how about this. I agree to the lefts' inclination to let the judiciary solve all major social issues for us. It can decide whether or not Obamacare is legal, whether or not gays can marry, whether or not an unborn child is to be considered a human... all of that.

so long as i get to pick the Judge. Roy Moore.


:)



now, note your response to this.
 
cpwill said:
we have a system of checks and balances that seems to have no current check on judges. that doesn't bother you?





okay, how about this. I agree to the lefts' inclination to let the judiciary solve all major social issues for us. It can decide whether or not Obamacare is legal, whether or not gays can marry, whether or not an unborn child is to be considered a human... all of that.

so long as i get to pick the Judge. Roy Moore.


:)



now, note your response to this.
Click to expand...

First, judges should be checked not on whether the populace agrees with their ruling, but if they ahere to proper procedure and rule of law. Just because you or I don't like the ruling doesn't mean the ruling was wrong, or incompetent or even judicial activism. Laws are in place, and since the first law was ever written, there has been debate on what the law meant. So, we have judges. If the judge is held not to the law, but to popular opinion, then the law and the meaning of the law will change fasted the the Flash trying on a million shoes. There's no consistency and no respect for rule of law.

You always miss the point the CP. For you, it is about the only answer being the one you've predetermined to be the right answer, evidence and logic be damned. I'm sorry for that. But, if the court rules against health care reform, so be it. We shold go back to work and not whine about the judges. And if the judges looked at the law, and thier trullings have repeatedly pointed to the law, well, too bad for you. Go back to work making a better case, or change the law. You'd still be wrong to be so discriminatory toward others, but at least the judges would then be on your side, supporting the law, and not being subject to popular opinion.
 
cpwill said:
she was correct, and the Founders agreed with her. that law students laughed is indicative of their education.
Click to expand...

No, she wasn't, and I did link some reading for you on this. You're one line sillness not withstanding, she was wrong. And not just on that. (as if she was right on one thing it would make the ten other things OK :lamo).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom