• 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

disneydude said:
Yes....thousands. I graduated from Law School....and I stand by my statement. Thomas is deadspace on the court. Every other justice participates while he sits back and does nothing. The guy is a disgrace to the court.
Click to expand...

What specialty do you practice?


j-mac
 
j-mac said:
What specialty do you practice?


j-mac
Click to expand...
Primarily criminal and civil rights. However, I have also practiced employment law, contractractual law and some insurance law as well.
 
Opening up across state lines wouldn't help that much. Articles on that have been linked before. It is as likely to raise rates in other states as to lower them. We can go over all the minor changes often offered up, but I don't really see the need.

And conspiracy theories aside, a single payer system would be better all around. If we were serious about health care reform, that is the way we would go. Today, the public option would have been better than where we ended, but I doubt those who went crazy over that option will stand up and take their fair share of blame as to where we ended up.

As for the court, as i read it, they are divided and it will fall to the tie breaking judges. It will be a split decision either way. Whiel i would prefer something more solid, it will be interesting to see where they fall.
 
disneydude said:
Yes....thousands. I graduated from Law School and have been practicing law for many years....and I stand by my statement. Thomas is deadspace on the court. Every other justice participates while he sits back and does nothing. The guy is a disgrace to the court.
Click to expand...

Really? Because I find that he holds to his own judicial philosophy extremely consistently, and almost always explains his position clearly and very well in his many, many dissenting opinions. The only time I can recall him even seeming inconsistent is in a cross burning case...the name escapes me at the moment.
 
RightOfCenter said:
Really? Because I find that he holds to his own judicial philosophy extremely consistently, and almost always explains his position clearly and very well in his many, many dissenting opinions. The only time I can recall him even seeming inconsistent is in a cross burning case...the name escapes me at the moment.
Click to expand...

Consistency does not always mean intelligent. You can be consistently irrational in your logic just look at Rhenquist. Rhenquist would author the most convuluted, yet consistent decisions that bent over backwards to reach the conclusion that he wanted.
 
disneydude said:
Consistency does not always mean intelligent. You can be consistently irrational in your logic just look at Rhenquist. Rhenquist would author the most convuluted, yet consistent decisions that bent over backwards to reach the conclusion that he wanted.
Click to expand...

Or, you can consistently misspell a man's name, to make another example.
 
disneydude said:
Consistency does not always mean intelligent. You can be consistently irrational in your logic just look at Rhenquist. Rhenquist would author the most convuluted, yet consistent decisions that bent over backwards to reach the conclusion that he wanted.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that's a matter of opinion. Lawyers usually have things against judges that don't hold the same opinions.
 
Boo Radley said:
Opening up across state lines wouldn't help that much. Articles on that have been linked before. It is as likely to raise rates in other states as to lower them. We can go over all the minor changes often offered up, but I don't really see the need.
Click to expand...

Well, thanks for playin'....Someone call the SCOTUS, boo doesn't see the need, send 'em all home.

And conspiracy theories aside, a single payer system would be better all around. If we were serious about health care reform, that is the way we would go. Today, the public option would have been better than where we ended, but I doubt those who went crazy over that option will stand up and take their fair share of blame as to where we ended up.
Click to expand...

Public option in this country will NEVER fly, so you can just forget it.

As for the court, as i read it, they are divided and it will fall to the tie breaking judges. It will be a split decision either way. Whiel i would prefer something more solid, it will be interesting to see where they fall.
Click to expand...

5-4 still means that Obamacare goes bye, bye.....And Kennedy was asking more Libertarian style questions today, which are leading the pundits to surmise that he will fall to the right.

j-mac
 
disneydude said:
Yes....thousands. I graduated from Law School and have been practicing law for many years....and I stand by my statement. Thomas is deadspace on the court. Every other justice participates while he sits back and does nothing. The guy is a disgrace to the court.
Click to expand...

that's a silly comment. Having argued a couple dozen federal appellate cases I note that often judges ask questions that appear to be nothing more than trying to outdo the people sitting next to them. Maybe listening makes more sense-especially to the advocates who have spent hundreds of hours on the cases
 
Redress said:
Calling any Supreme Court Justice an "intellectual lightweight" is so painfully stupid....
Click to expand...


true, and I note it is only because of the Dem senate leader who is responsible for Thomas being on the court. Thomas was in the top half of his class at Yale Law which means he is very strong academically. Not the superstars like Roberts, Souter, Scalia or Alito but certainly as smart or smarter as many of the justices before him such as Stevens and Burger and Marshall.
 
disneydude said:
Consistency does not always mean intelligent. You can be consistently irrational in your logic just look at Rhenquist. Rhenquist would author the most convuluted, yet consistent decisions that bent over backwards to reach the conclusion that he wanted.
Click to expand...


what is funny its pretty much a GIVEN that the Clinton and Obama selections will back dem policies no matter what while Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are all considered up in the air on this issue. Apparently the dems pick robots to be justices while the GOP picks people who are more independent (remember Souter?)
 
TurtleDude said:
true, and I note it is only because of the Dem senate leader who is responsible for Thomas being on the court. Thomas was in the top half of his class at Yale Law which means he is very strong academically. Not the superstars like Roberts, Souter, Scalia or Alito but certainly as smart or smarter as many of the justices before him such as Stevens and Burger and Marshall.
Click to expand...

Right, because we all know that law school grades are the ultimate measure of intelligence. That's how we know that Obama is a genius. :thumbs:
 
TurtleDude said:
what is funny its pretty much a GIVEN that the Clinton and Obama selections will back dem policies no matter what while Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are all considered up in the air on this issue. Apparently the dems pick robots to be justices while the GOP picks people who are more independent (remember Souter?)
Click to expand...

Or maybe it's because the Act is constitutional, and it's a no-brainer that it is, but conservatives on the Court are so politically motivated that they will probably find a way to rule against it. See Bush v. Gore.
 
AdamT said:
Or maybe it's because the Act is constitutional, and it's a no-brainer that it is, but conservatives on the Court are so politically motivated that they will probably find a way to rule against it. See Bush v. Gore.
Click to expand...

So the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to create commerce so it can regulate commerce?
 
sawyerloggingon said:
Justice Kennedy's questions today were very encouraging, he has libs crapping in their pants.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I'm so hopeful right now, I feel like the Far Side dog silently wishing "Please, oh please!" as he hides behind the open clothes drier lid watching the cat approaching closer and closer, lured by the sign that reads "Cat Fud inside". :mrgreen:
 
RightOfCenter said:
So the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to create commerce so it can regulate commerce?
Click to expand...

Create commerce? You mean we don't already have a health care system? People never got sick before? Que?
 
AdamT said:
Create commerce? You mean we don't already have a health care system? People never got sick before? Que?
Click to expand...

I'm sorry. I was assuming that you were following the oral arguments regarding the mandate requiring everyone to purchase healthcare. So I'll ask again: is it within the scope of the Commerce Clause for Congress to create commerce (requiring those that do not need nor want health insurance to purchase it anyway) in order to regulate commerce (the regulations contained within the Affordable Care Act).
 
Last edited:
RightOfCenter said:
I'm sorry. I was assuming that you were following the oral arguments regarding the mandate requiring everyone to purchase healthcare.
Click to expand...

I was following them. I was assuming that you weren't blindly quoting a snippet of a question from the arguments without having the first idea what it means.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
I was following them. I was assuming that you weren't blindly quoting a snippet of a question from the arguments without having the first idea what it means.
Click to expand...

I edited that post and added more to it. And I assure you that I know what it means and am starting to think that you don't have a better answer to that question than Mr. Verrilli did.
 
AdamT said:
Or maybe it's because the Act is constitutional, and it's a no-brainer that it is
Click to expand...

Then it should be easy to explain exactly how. Do so. See if you can do better than Nancy Pelosi's "are you KIDDING???" explanation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom