View Poll Results: Would you support the action posted below?

Voters
24. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    11 45.83%
  • No

    13 54.17%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 66

Thread: Not defending the health care bill

  1. #51
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by MaggieD View Post
    I voted "No." IMO, this would be a subversion of the Democratic process. No different than our Wisconsin legislators who refuse to show up because they know they'll be out-voted.
    I see it as completely different because th eJustice department is not a representative of the people, nor does not defending an issue prevent legislative representation. What is happening in Wisconsin involves people choosing to not represent the people as well as preventing the represenation of other people.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  2. #52
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Here's the question, for liberals and conservatives alike.

    To preface this I'd like request two things:

    First, that I ask you to answer under the hypothetical that the Obama Administration did not come out and say that they would not defend DOMA in court. IE, I don't want the conservatives on here saying "Absolutely, if they did it we should to". I want the question answered based simply on itself and your feelings in a general sense as to how the various branches of government should work.

    Two, the poll is not necessarily asking for your PERSONAL opinion...IE would you agree with the principle of the action...but on a governmental procedural action. The govermental version of "I don't agree with what he's saying, but I agree with his right to say it". I'm not asking if you'd agree that it SHOULD be done, but rather should it be allowable.

    So here's the question:

    If Republicans win in 2012 and the new President decides that he believes the Health Care Law that was passed is unconstitutional, do you think it is acceptable and alright for him to have the Justice Department refuse to defend the law in court cases allowing it to be challenged in court without any proper defense of its legality being put forward by the state?
    Since 2004, such has been done some 13 times. Seems a little late to argue about it now. But, yes, I think it is allowable.

    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.

  3. #53
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    I don't think so. We have a government set up with checks and balances, no one can make a move without someone else potentially shooting it down. It makes everyone accountable. If one branch can act with immunity, then we no longer have those checks and balances. As much as I hate DOMA and Obamacare and think neither should exist, it rests in the purview of the courts to make the determination if they're Constitutional or not, not with the Presidency. It is the job of the justice system to defend the laws on the books and if you don't like the laws on the books, there are means to have them removed. Ignoring them does not remove them.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  4. #54
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I don't think so. We have a government set up with checks and balances, no one can make a move without someone else potentially shooting it down. It makes everyone accountable. If one branch can act with immunity, then we no longer have those checks and balances. As much as I hate DOMA and Obamacare and think neither should exist, it rests in the purview of the courts to make the determination if they're Constitutional or not, not with the Presidency. It is the job of the justice system to defend the laws on the books and if you don't like the laws on the books, there are means to have them removed. Ignoring them does not remove them.
    I agree only to a point. A half assed defense isn't much better than no defense, and it is hard to defend what you don't believe in. However, regardless, as it has already been allowed, and I don't remember much debate on this in the past, I think the horse has left the barn so to speak.

    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.

  5. #55
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    I agree only to a point. A half assed defense isn't much better than no defense, and it is hard to defend what you don't believe in. However, regardless, as it has already been allowed, and I don't remember much debate on this in the past, I think the horse has left the barn so to speak.
    Just because past presidents have ignored the system doesn't mean the system goes away. The existing system ought to be the expectation, regardless of what has happened in the past.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  6. #56
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    I don't think so. We have a government set up with checks and balances, no one can make a move without someone else potentially shooting it down. It makes everyone accountable. If one branch can act with immunity, then we no longer have those checks and balances. As much as I hate DOMA and Obamacare and think neither should exist, it rests in the purview of the courts to make the determination if they're Constitutional or not, not with the Presidency. It is the job of the justice system to defend the laws on the books and if you don't like the laws on the books, there are means to have them removed. Ignoring them does not remove them.
    Again, the courts are the ones to rule a law unconstitutional. The president does not, and in neither this case or the one Zyphlin proposes are they. The cases will still get their days in court.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  7. #57
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:25 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,797

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Again, the courts are the ones to rule a law unconstitutional. The president does not, and in neither this case or the one Zyphlin proposes are they. The cases will still get their days in court.
    Which is fine, but until they are ruled unconstitutional, they remain in force as laws of the land. The President has no power to declare them unconstitutional, it's not his job. His job is to defend the laws we have, so long as we have them.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  8. #58
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Which is fine, but until they are ruled unconstitutional, they remain in force as laws of the land. The President has no power to declare them unconstitutional, it's not his job. His job is to defend the laws we have, so long as we have them.
    Correct, and again that is the case here. DOMA is still in effect and the law of the land. Nothing done changes that.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  9. #59
    Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Huntsville, AL (USA)
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    9,772

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    I think we all need to stop and look at all sides of the issue, which to me appear to be:

    1. What is the role of the Attorney General (AG) at the Department of Justice?

    2. What is the relationship between the AG and the President of the United States where offerring legal advise is concerned?

    3. What is the "chain of command", as it were, for either upholding a law and interpreting same between the DoJ, the Supreme Court and Congress?

    4. What "means test", i.e., heightened scrutiny measure, is applied by either the DoJ or the SC or Congress, and is such testing utilized by all three legal entities in exactly the same way? In other words, does the DoJ, SC and Congress use the same guidelines when applying "heightened scrutiny" to an issue involving discriminatory practises? We'll get back to that in a moment...

    I found these two articles which I believe speak directly to the points I've outlined above and should help answer the question placed before us from the OP.

    Article 1: Obama: DOMA Unconstitutional, DOJ Should Stop Defending In Court

    Article 2: DOMA Is Unconstitutional

    I think everyone interesting in this matter should read them. However, I also believe everyone providing input on this poll should familiarize themselves to exactly what the role of the DoJ is and what the AG's role is in relation to the POTUS. For only when armed with such knowledge can one honestly render a virdict on the matter. To that, the DoJ's website. From its website:

    The Judiciary Act of 1789 created the Office of the Attorney General which evolved over the years into the head of the Department of Justice and chief law enforcement officer of the Federal Government. The Attorney General represents the United States in legal matters generally and gives advice and opinions to the President and to the heads of the executive departments of the Government when so requested. In matters of exceptional gravity or importance the Attorney General appears in person before the Supreme Court. Since the 1870 Act that established the Department of Justice as an executive department of the government of the United States, the Attorney General has guided the world's largest law office and the central agency for enforcement of federal laws.
    So, what we have here isn't a matter of the Justice Dept not upholding the law (DOMA). Their office just won't defend it in court for the reasons Redress recently pointed out, i.e., objection to clause 3 of the Act which, according to AG Holder and supported by the President, doesn't meet the higher standard of strutiny they've apparently outlined. Thus, the question becomes "what's the higher standard now being applied"? But even if neither the SC nor Congress adopts these "higher standards of scrutiny", both would still have to graple with justifying how anti-discrimination laws would not apply equally to gays and lesbians as they apparently do towards other minorities. (See article 2 above, "DOMA Is Unconstitutional" which outlines the four heighten scrutiny standards generally applied to such discrimination/Equal Protection cases) Moreover, how do you justify upholding DOMA when Congress just repealed DODT? One law takes gays and lesbians out of the perverbial closets; the other puts them right back in it! How do you rationalize that?

    Based on this new knowledge (for I admit I had no idea what "DOMA" stood for or what the law entailed before posting to this thread and answering the poll), I think I've provided the best non-bias response I could give on the matter. To that, my initial position stands. The AJ has consulted with the President on the matter and they have determine that DOMA is unconstitutional and, as such will not defend such from the Executive Branch. It is, therefore, up to the courts themselve (perhaps even the Supreme Court) to render final virdict on the law's constitutionality. For what it's worth, I think the law will be overturned even if the "higher standards" (whatever it is) isn't adopted.
    Last edited by Objective Voice; 02-25-11 at 01:38 PM.

  10. #60
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Not defending the health care bill

    Quote Originally Posted by Objective Voice View Post
    It is, therefore, up to the courts themselve (perhaps even the Supreme Court) to render final virdict on the law's constitutionality. For what it's worth, I think the law will be overturned even if the "higher standards" (whatever it is) isn't adopted.
    Well, no. The next step is the House of Representatives decides if it will defend the law.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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