• 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

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...

That's how the law sees it .... don't like it, try and get it changed.

Do you see judges as infallible gods ??? Sure looks like it.
 
Gill said:
That's how the law sees it .... don't like it, try and get it changed.

Do you see judges as infallible gods ??? Sure looks like it.
Click to expand...

No, but I trust a mechanic to know more than I do. A doctor to know more than I do. And a judge to more than I do. And I read their rulings. When they point to the law, then the debate is about the law, and not that judges are evil people.

And for the record, I am working to change the law in Iowa. I want judges held accountabe for being competent and following the law, and not to appeasing public opinion.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
No, but I trust a mechanic to know more than I do. A doctor to know more than I do. And a judge to more than I do. And I read their rulings. When they point to the law, then the debate is about the law, and not that judges are evil people.

And for the record, I am working to change the law in Iowa. I want judges held accountabe for being competent and following the law, and not to appeasing public opinion.
Click to expand...

Different mechanics can have different opinions on how to replace a piston, different doctors can diagnose symptoms completely differently, and different judges can interpret the law differently.

Perhaps the voters in Iowa didn't feel the judges were competent or followed the law. Who are you to challenge that ??
 
Gill said:
Different mechanics can have different opinions on how to replace a piston, different doctors can diagnose symptoms completely differently, and different judges can interpret the law differently.

Perhaps the voters in Iowa didn't feel the judges were competent or followed the law. Who are you to challenge that ??
Click to expand...


Granted there are different ways to skin a cat but in the end the goal is to skin a cat.
 
Gill said:
Different mechanics can have different opinions on how to replace a piston, different doctors can diagnose symptoms completely differently, and different judges can interpret the law differently.

Perhaps the voters in Iowa didn't feel the judges were competent or followed the law. Who are you to challenge that ??
Click to expand...

Sure they can, just as different judges can, but if you go to five, ten or 12 mechanics, and they all say the same thing, what's the odds they are all wrong? If you get a second, third or ten opinion on a medical condition from doctors and they all say the same thing, what are the odds they are all wrong? Would you trust your life on the popular vote? if a majority said the doctor got it wrong, and vote for you not to receive the life saving treatment, would you go with the majority?

How many Iowans do you think really know the law? Seriously? How many do you think even read the ruling?
 
Boo Radley said:
Sure they can, just as different judges can, but if you go to five, ten or 12 mechanics, and they all say the same thing, what's the odds they are all wrong? If you get a second, third or ten opinion on a medical condition from doctors and they all say the same thing, what are the odds they are all wrong? Would you trust your life on the popular vote? if a majority said the doctor got it wrong, and vote for you not to receive the life saving treatment, would you go with the majority?

How many Iowans do you think really know the law? Seriously? How many do you think even read the ruling?
Click to expand...

Knowing Iowans as I do, I would bet they are very familiar with the law and the ruling. Iowans pride themselves on being politically savvy. That's why they stubbornly cling to their caucus. They love to get together and hash out things one on one.

The rest of your post is nonsense. You proved your own theory incorrect, which I doubt was your intent.
 
ricksfolly said:
>>

The judge obviously didn't do his home work, there are already many cases of forced participation, clear legal precedents, Social Security, Income Tax, FDIC, closed shop unions, auto insurance, schools...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

Name one thing the federal government forces all American citizens to buy from private companies.
 
ricksfolly said:
>>

The judge obviously didn't do his home work, there are already many cases of forced participation, clear legal precedents, Social Security, Income Tax, FDIC, closed shop unions, auto insurance, schools...

ricksfolly
Click to expand...

You do not HAVE to buy auto insurance... you can choose not to own a car, so you would not have to then buy insurance.

You cannot choose not to breath.
 
The Mark said:
Wait, so you're suggesting they found a judge that was more likely to support them to judge the case?

What a novel concept!
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, they did! But that's not uncommon. Pres. G. W. Bush found all kinds of lower district judges who Conservative who supported his position on evidence surpression against terrorist detainees and got them to rule his way.

Point is both sides do it. It's the main reason Presidents since FDR lick their chops whenever a vacacy occurs anywhere within the judiciary so that can nominate and/or appoint anyone they choose to the bench who share their political views. It happens...not much we can do about it 'cept call/write your Senator and complain about the nominee...if you understand the tactic and what may be coming down the pipe.
 
Gill said:
Knowing Iowans as I do, I would bet they are very familiar with the law and the ruling. Iowans pride themselves on being politically savvy. That's why they stubbornly cling to their caucus. They love to get together and hash out things one on one.

The rest of your post is nonsense. You proved your own theory incorrect, which I doubt was your intent.
Click to expand...

I know Iowans pretty well myself, and no, I doubt they know the law on the whole or even read the ruling.

So, explain, you would let people vote on your doctor's treatment plan? Now, I know it's easier not to address the point. But that is exactly what you're claiming. Not making a legal argument, but that those who aren't experts can vote against what those who know judge. You have to be able to apply that belief to other professions as well.
 
Boo Radley said:
I know Iowans pretty well myself, and no, I doubt they know the law on the whole or even read the ruling.

So, explain, you would let people vote on your doctor's treatment plan? Now, I know it's easier not to address the point. But that is exactly what you're claiming. Not making a legal argument, but that those who aren't experts can vote against what those who know judge. You have to be able to apply that belief to other professions as well.
Click to expand...

Other professions like our lawmakers ??? Would you let people that know nothing about law write the laws that govern us ???

Oh wait, you already do.

It's obvious you know NOTHING about Iowans if you think they are all ignorant. But your attitude is typical of many libs. Everybody is ignorant except the enlightened ones (liberals).
 
MaggieD said:
That's interesting.

If we are going to force insurance companies to insure those with pre-existing conditions, we've GOT to have everybody in the plan. I don't know how healthcare can work without it.

Although, an appeal to SCOTUS may change that opinion...
Click to expand...
i agree with you except the nagging 10% unemployment if you are going to force everyone to get health insurance than you need to force everyone to get a job and force the employer to offer insurance to pay for it.
 
I think it is clear now that this bill was thrown together with nary a minute of actual consideration or debate, purely to try to get Obama's name in a 7th-grade history book 10 years from now. Dems passed it without so much flipping through the stupid thing.

They'll be in the history books, but not for his intended reason.

This Congress will go down as the most pathetic in American history, with bug-eyed Nancy and Komrade Reid's faces all over it.
 
Gill said:
Other professions like our lawmakers ??? Would you let people that know nothing about law write the laws that govern us ???

Oh wait, you already do.

It's obvious you know NOTHING about Iowans if you think they are all ignorant. But your attitude is typical of many libs. Everybody is ignorant except the enlightened ones (liberals).
Click to expand...

First, judges are not writing the law. It is ignorant to argue they are. That's why I keep asking that you and others actually read their rulling.

Second, judges know nothing about the law? That too is an ignorant proposition.

And third, I never said all Iowans were ignorant (a word you seem to be interpreting as stupid, which is actually a different thought). But, I do doubt that many have read the ruling. Without doing that, you can't know how well they addressed the law. Instead, you rely on home spun comments and myths, whihc are often wrong.
 
Boo Radley said:
First, judges are not writing the law. It is ignorant to argue they are. That's why I keep asking that you and others actually read their rulling.

Second, judges know nothing about the law? That too is an ignorant proposition.
Click to expand...

Reading and comprehending is helpful before writing a post that makes you look foolish.

Gill said:
Other professions like our lawmakers ???
Click to expand...

Do judges write laws, well some do but that's another thread. LAWMAKERS means those that make and write our laws, i.e. politicians. :roll:

Now... what were you saying about ignorant statements ???

And third, I never said all Iowans were ignorant (a word you seem to be interpreting as stupid, which is actually a different thought). But, I do doubt that many have read the ruling. Without doing that, you can't know how well they addressed the law. Instead, you rely on home spun comments and myths, whihc are often wrong.
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll bite. How many Iowans haven't read or understand the law ??? I'm sure you know since you claim most didn't.
 
Gill said:
Reading and comprehending is helpful before writing a post that makes you look foolish.
Click to expand...

I read an comprehen just fine. They don't have to write laws, or know about writing laws to know the law. You're making a meaningless distinction and somehow think it profound. It isn't.


Do judges write laws, well some do but that's another thread. LAWMAKERS means those that make and write our laws, i.e. politicians.
Click to expand...

Again, while writing a law takes skill, there is little to sugegst those we elect are skilled at doing so. For example, would you argue that Al Franken is likely to know much about writing laws? You start with a faulty premise, and ingore that judges understand LAW. And I suspect many know more about writing them than some in congress do.

Ok, I'll bite. How many Iowans haven't read or understand the law ??? I'm sure you know since you claim most didn't.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me how many?

I live here, and I talk daily to people who voted against them and I have yet to meet one who has read the ruling. They can quote talking head idiots, but not one knows what the ruling said.

Now, I assume some have read it. But I would be shocked if you could prove most did. What do you base your notion on?
 
Erod said:
I think it is clear now that this bill was thrown together with nary a minute of actual consideration or debate, purely to try to get Obama's name in a 7th-grade history book 10 years from now. Dems passed it without so much flipping through the stupid thing.

They'll be in the history books, but not for his intended reason.

This Congress will go down as the most pathetic in American history, with bug-eyed Nancy and Komrade Reid's faces all over it.
Click to expand...

For most pathetic congress in history will actually be the ones who voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act (without reading it, and yes I'm aware of Nancy's quote on Obamacare). Giving into popular demand instead of what was right. The patriot act is the single most vicious attack on the constitution.

But hey, don't let me get in the way if your partisanship.

Both Democrats and Republicans have screwed your nation down the river.
 
Boo Radley said:
I read an comprehen just fine. They don't have to write laws, or know about writing laws to know the law. You're making a meaningless distinction and somehow think it profound. It isn't.
Click to expand...

Obviously it isn't, since you still don't even comprehend what I was saying. DO POLITICIANS WRITE OUR LAWS ???? DO WE VOTE POLITICIANS INTO AND OUT OF OFFICE ???

Try thinking for a change rather than popping off with your usual hyper partisan response.


Again, while writing a law takes skill, there is little to sugegst those we elect are skilled at doing so. For example, would you argue that Al Franken is likely to know much about writing laws? You start with a faulty premise, and ingore that judges understand LAW. And I suspect many know more about writing them than some in congress do.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point !!

Can you tell me how many?
Click to expand...

Your the one claiming they don't know anything about the ruling or the law, so it's up to you to prove they don't.

I live here, and I talk daily to people who voted against them and I have yet to meet one who has read the ruling. They can quote talking head idiots, but not one knows what the ruling said.

Now, I assume some have read it. But I would be shocked if you could prove most did. What do you base your notion on?
Click to expand...

Sounds to me like you have ignorant friends. When I lived there, I was very impressed with their knowledge.

By the way, aren't you the one always insisting on proof ? I hardly think that your daily discussions constitutes any type of proof that YOU would accept if the shoe was on the other foot.
 
Gill said:
Obviously it isn't, since you still don't even comprehend what I was saying. DO POLITICIANS WRITE OUR LAWS ???? DO WE VOTE POLITICIANS INTO AND OUT OF OFFICE ???

Try thinking for a change rather than popping off with your usual hyper partisan response.
Click to expand...

Then you're making a really stupid point. Politicians represent us, which is why we vote on them. They are not always experts on law, and they soemtimes have their writings sent back to them by experts, the courts. So, two very different roles with two very different responsibilities, and who answer to very different standards. You're inarticluate point seems misguided, if not plain inacurate.



Thanks for proving my point !!
Click to expand...

:lamo Speaking of comprehension difficulties.


Your the one claiming they don't know anything about the ruling or the law, so it's up to you to prove they don't.
Click to expand...

Not really. You claimed Iowans know the law and the ruling. I sad I doubt it. I do doubt it. And I explaine dwhy.

Sounds to me like you have ignorant friends. When I lived there, I was very impressed with their knowledge.

By the way, aren't you the one always insisting on proof ? I hardly think that your daily discussions constitutes any type of proof that YOU would accept if the shoe was on the other foot.
Click to expand...

I didn't use the word friends. I said I talk to people. From all around the state. A good number of people, 20 to thirty at a time.
 
Jetboogieman said:
For most pathetic congress in history will actually be the ones who voted for the Iraq war and the Patriot Act (without reading it, and yes I'm aware of Nancy's quote on Obamacare). Giving into popular demand instead of what was right. The patriot act is the single most vicious attack on the constitution.

But hey, don't let me get in the way if your partisanship.

Both Democrats and Republicans have screwed your nation down the river.
Click to expand...

Years from now, the Iraq War will go down as a necessary and strategically critical move by the U.S.

It's a lot easier to keep that rogueish, disturbed, and dangerous third world region at bay from across the fence than halfway around the world.
 
Gill said:
Obviously it isn't, since you still don't even comprehend what I was saying. DO POLITICIANS WRITE OUR LAWS ???? DO WE VOTE POLITICIANS INTO AND OUT OF OFFICE ???

Try thinking for a change rather than popping off with your usual hyper partisan response.
Click to expand...

Yes politicians write our laws. Yes we vote politicians into and out of office. Do either of these answers mean that they know history? Nope. Part of being a judge is also about knowing history. If you don't know the history of a law then you cannot uphold the intentions of the law. The same applies to our Constitution. No law maker is actually required to know our Constitution. A judge however must know it and know its history.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom