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?
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'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).
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.
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.
That is not our issue. Do you deny that experts have a disagree about this?
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, for one, no I don't think you did at all; you meant it earnestly [blah blah blah]
You know, liberals are so damn predictable it's amazing.
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.
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.
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.
And that wasn't at all predictable, coming from a right-wing partisan. :lol
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.
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.
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.
: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.