• 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!

Supreme Court health care arguments under way

I don't think so.

I have seen no evidence to support either your reading or understanding of our founding documents, in any of your posts that I have read so far.
 
I have seen no evidence to support either your reading or understanding of our founding documents, in any of your posts that I have read so far.

And I've seen nothing from you. But as neither of us are Constitutional scholars, of what value do you think our reading would be?
 
And I've seen nothing from you. But as neither of us are Constitutional scholars, of what value do you think our reading would be?

I have clearly stated that the Constitution and the commerce clause have NOTHING to do with the federal government forcing people to buy a product from private industry. If you have read and understood the founding documents, you would either agree or disagree with this, if you disagree, you would find it easy to point out where and what in the constitution grants the federal government such power. I won't hold my breath.

'Constitutional scholar'? Oh, you mean college professor because they couldn't handle a real job? Got it. No, one does not need to overpay for an education so they can understand a really quite simple document.
 
I have clearly stated that the Constitution and the commerce clause have NOTHING to do with the federal government forcing people to buy a product from private industry. If you have read and understood the founding documents, you would either agree or disagree with this, if you disagree, you would find it easy to point out where and what in the constitution grants the federal government such power. I won't hold my breath.

'Constitutional scholar'? Oh, you mean college professor because they couldn't handle a real job? Got it. No, one does not need to overpay for an education so they can understand a really quite simple document.


That is merely your opinion. And yes, when I want my car fixed, I ask a mechanic. When I'm ill, I see a doctor. And when I want to something about law, I ask someone who knows something about it. I know this makes me a radical, but that's how I roll.

On this issue, I've seen knowledgable people reach two different conclusions. This suggests to me the issue isn't as clear as you think it is. And that is why it is before the courts, who will listen to arguments, look at law, and reach a decision. And it is this process we're discussing. You seem to feel that only if they rule as you believe can it not be judicial activism. I believe as those who know disagree, it will be which argument wins the day, and that either will most likely be decided based on law and not activism.
 
I'm saying I used it is a joke aimed at conservatives, so if you were capable of laughing at yourself you should be laughing at yourself (for a multitude of reaons).

Well, for one, no I don't think you did at all; you meant it earnestly and then when you couldn't up with a rational explanation as to why it's "judicial activism," then you said it was a joke. You didn't expect to be challenged on it.

And for another, I've never said a word about "judicial activism" that I can think of, so whatever you want to say about "conservatives" regarding it, it doesn't apply to me. As most things regarding "conservatives" don't generally apply to me, anyway.

So while I do agree your statement was a "joke," it wasn't the ha-ha kind, except in that you thought you were making a salient point.
 
That is merely your opinion.

You know, liberals are so damn predictable it's amazing. Ask a question, get a load of words that are meaningless and never address the question. It really is pointless to interact with them as they very rarely add anything of value to a discussion.

I chalk it up to being set in their positions and unwilling (or unable) to learn, or to be honest with their beliefs.

If it is easy for you to come up with where the Constitution states the fed has the power to force people to engage in commerce, let's have it... quit dodging.
 
You know, liberals are so damn predictable it's amazing. Ask a question, get a load of words that are meaningless and never address the question. It really is pointless to interact with them as they very rarely add anything of value to a discussion.

I chalk it up to being set in their positions and unwilling (or unable) to learn, or to be honest with their beliefs.

If it is easy for you to come up with where the Constitution states the fed has the power to force people to engage in commerce, let's have it... quit dodging.

So, you don't want a complete answer? I would say conservatives are so predictable, but I think that's true. I think it is lazy non-thinkers who don't want to explore issues that are on the table before them.

Now start from the beginning, follow our discussion. We're discussing what judicial activism is. The posting of differing legal opinions has already been done.
 
So, you don't want a complete answer? I would say conservatives are so predictable, but I think that's true. I think it is lazy non-thinkers who don't want to explore issues that are on the table before them.

Now start from the beginning, follow our discussion. We're discussing what judicial activism is. The posting of differing legal opinions has already been done.

And you avoid giving an answer the question yet again.

Try exploring an issue. Read the Constitution and find out where it says the feds have the power to force people to purchase from private companies, and let us know. Until you do that, you offer nothing but your 'feeling' that the mandate is a good thing.
 
And you avoid giving an answer the question yet again.

Try exploring an issue. Read the Constitution and find out where it says the feds have the power to force people to purchase from private companies, and let us know. Until you do that, you offer nothing but your 'feeling' that the mandate is a good thing.

That is not our issue. Do you deny that experts have a disagree about this?
 
That is not our issue. Do you deny that experts have a disagree about this?

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.
 
Just adding my input here.

I listened to and read the entire day 2 and 3 oral arguments and I think the SC ruling the mandate unconstitutional is basically a forgone conclusion. To me it is very clear Kennedy and Roberts want no part of it. Kennedy also seems to lean in the direction of throwing out the entire law. But, I think the odds of that happening are a bit lower.

The ultimate irony would be if the SC tosses this on a party line vote just like the Dems passed it on a party line vote.
 
I would not be surprised if the mandate is found unconstitutional on more like a 7-2 vote. Tossing out the entire act may be closer.
 
Just adding my input here.

I listened to and read the entire day 2 and 3 oral arguments and I think the SC ruling the mandate unconstitutional is basically a forgone conclusion. To me it is very clear Kennedy and Roberts want no part of it. Kennedy also seems to lean in the direction of throwing out the entire law. But, I think the odds of that happening are a bit lower.

The ultimate irony would be if the SC tosses this on a party line vote just like the Dems passed it on a party line vote.

Well said, and it does look like the direction it is headed.

The ultimate insult would be if one of the liberal judges flipped. There were obviously times were a couple of them clearly had doubts of the constitutionality of the mandate. So if one were to flip it would take way from the left's ability to say it was party line or activism.
 
Well, for one, no I don't think you did at all; you meant it earnestly [blah blah blah]

Whatever, dude. As usual you know what I meant better than I do, so I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of my thoughts.
 
You know, liberals are so damn predictable it's amazing.

And that wasn't at all predictable, coming from a right-wing partisan. :lol
 
I would not be surprised if the mandate is found unconstitutional on more like a 7-2 vote. Tossing out the entire act may be closer.

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.
 
Whatever, dude. As usual you know what I meant better than I do, so I'll have to defer to your superior knowledge of my thoughts.

:roll:

Are we on record, then, that according to you, finding the mandate unconstitutional would NOT be "judicial activism"?
 
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.

A 9-0 ruling would be stunning. I mean, that's how it SHOULD go, but I see a few of them (like Ginsburg) who would dissent just to dissent if the outcome were not in doubt.
 
And that wasn't at all predictable, coming from a right-wing partisan. :lol

Right wing partisans support abortion, gay marriage, legalization of drugs? Wow, that's amazing to know.
 
A 9-0 ruling would be stunning. I mean, that's how it SHOULD go, but I see a few of them (like Ginsburg) who would dissent just to dissent if the outcome were not in doubt.

Ginsburg seemed to have issues with the tax vs penalty argument. Not sure if thats enough to get her to rule the mandate unconstitutional though. I can envision a scenario where she votes no and then retires so that Obama can replace her before the election.
 
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:
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.
 
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."
 
:roll:

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?
 
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.
 
Back
Top Bottom