2012 Presidential race

[akhhorus]

Mitt has "declared" a "truce" on healthcare reform. I speak fluent bullsh*tnese, this is what he really said: "my pollsters tell me that no one likes my slamming of a policy that I myself supported and put into practice, so I'll just shut up now."

[shally]

Originally Posted by akhhorus

Mitt has "declared" a "truce" on healthcare reform. I speak fluent bullsh*tnese, this is what he really said: "my pollsters tell me that no one likes my slamming of a policy that I myself supported and put into practice, so I'll just shut up now."

again, this is NOT what the election will be decided on.. just a waste of time to make it a central issue

[akhhorus]

Originally Posted by shally

again, this is NOT what the election will be decided on.. just a waste of time to make it a central issue

I don't disagree but this is a tactical retreat. The base wants hear about how obamacare is evil and Roberts issue traitor, any other republican could have kept flogging Obama on this, Romney can't.

[RedskinsDave]

The election will and should be about the economy. Only people rooting against Mitt would have an issue with him backing away from the health care debacle.

The more leaks there are, the more Roberts looks like a turd.

[akhhorus]

This is interesting:

Link

Did Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts write both the majority ruling and the dissenting opinion in the ObamaCare case? Earlier this week, CBS News reported that Roberts switched his vote late in the process after initially voting against the law's individual mandate, writing the majority opinion and saving the law in the process.

Now, at Salon, law professor Paul Campos writes that sources inside the high court tell him that a substantial portion of the final dissenting opinion signed jointly by Justices Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito was in fact initially drafted inside John Roberts' chambers:

My source insists that “most of the material in the first three quarters of the joint dissent was drafted in Chief Justice Roberts’ chambers in April and May.” Only the last portion of what eventually became the joint dissent was drafted without any participation by the chief justice.

This source insists that the claim that the joint dissent was drafted from scratch in June is flatly untrue. Furthermore, the source characterizes claims by Crawford’s sources that “the fact that the joint dissent doesn’t mention [sic] Roberts’ majority … was a signal the conservatives no longer wished to engage in debate with him” as “pure propagandistic spin,” meant to explain away the awkward fact that while the first 46 pages of the joint dissent never even mention Roberts’ opinion for the court (this is surely the first time in the court’s history that a dissent has gone on for 13,000 words before getting around to mentioning that it is, in fact, dissenting), the last 19 pages do so repeatedly.

If this is true, it means that there's probably a new balance of power in the court with Roberts fighting with both sides more then Tony Kennedy ever did. If him and Scalia fighting was the impetus for switching his vote, Roberts and that side of the court won't be able to agree on much.

[RedskinsDave]

And if Roberts let a tiff sway his vote on something this important, he needs to step down from the court. He came up with a never before used excuse to justify a law that isn't constitutional. At least the lefties on the court flat out ignored the constitution instead of making up a whole new reason to allow the law.

[Keino]

The lefties on the court argued that it was constitutional based upon the commerce clause. That's not ignoring the Constitution, that's interpreting the Constitution. The court has never consistently applied the Commerce clause in my opinion. I mean it is the commerce clause that was used to say that I cannot grow my own pot legally even if I don't distribute it intrastate, nevermind interstate.

[RedskinsDave]

The commerce clause would make this law unconstitutional. They had to make the case that it didn't apply here despite the fact that it most certainly does. That's why Roberts made up a the tax idea. Taxes are legal. Forcing Americans to buy commercial goods and penalizing them for not doing so is not, unless you have a judge with his panties in a bunch.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

The commerce clause would make this law unconstitutional. They had to make the case that it didn't apply here despite the fact that it most certainly does. That's why Roberts made up a the tax idea. Taxes are legal. Forcing Americans to buy commercial goods and penalizing them for not doing so is not, unless you have a judge with his panties in a bunch.

This is your opinion (and the opinion of 5 Justices, including Roberts). The Liberal side of the court thought it was Constitutional and so opined.

Americans are forced all the time to buy things, including insurance as a matter of law. If you want to drive you have to buy auto-insurance and can be fined and otherwise punished if not. I don't see why if a person has access to healthcare they shouldn't have to buy insurance since no hospital can turn them away. If the argument is that the states can force people to buy insurance but the feds cannot, then I am not buying. The states are not allowed to violate the Constitution either.

But again, my point above was that the Commerce clause application has almost always been somewhat arbitrary, even when it was applied on issues like preventing hotels & restaurants from discriminating against any color but green. How is home-growing a plant for personal use an Interstate commerce issue?

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by Keino

This is your opinion (and the opinion of 5 Justices, including Roberts). The Liberal side of the court thought it was Constitutional and so opined.

Like I said, they ignored it. Otherwise they couldn't have let this law stand.

Americans are forced all the time to buy things, including insurance as a matter of law. If you want to drive you have to buy auto-insurance and can be fined and otherwise punished if not. I don't see why if a person has access to healthcare they shouldn't have to buy insurance since no hospital can turn them away. If the argument is that the states can force people to buy insurance but the feds cannot, then I am not buying. The states are not allowed to violate the Constitution either.

The states have always had different rights that the federal government does not have in this area.

But again, my point above was that the Commerce clause application has almost always been somewhat arbitrary, even when it was applied on issues like preventing hotels & restaurants from discriminating against any color but green. How is home-growing a plant for personal use an Interstate commerce issue?

I don't know why anyone needs to commerce clause to say growing an illegal substance is illegal.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Like I said, they ignored it. Otherwise they couldn't have let this law stand.

Seriously dude, you are arguing that people whose entire job is to interpret the Constitution ignored it. I realize you don't like the law, but that's a bit absurd my friend.

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

The states have always had different rights that the federal government does not have in this area.

The issue is conceptual though. States have never had the power to act in a manner that is in conflict with the Supreme law of the land. Ergo, imposing a law that requires individuals to carry insurance cannot be legal and constitutional on the state level if your argument that requiring individuals to purchase a consumer good is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

I don't know why anyone needs to commerce clause to say growing an illegal substance is illegal.

That's what they came up with when the issue was before them. It gives the wiggle room in the event the law changes. This is what the court does. It avoids having to make tough calls, allowing the will of the people in the form of enacted legislation to carry the day mostly while leaving room for it to be overturned in the future. See Roe v Wade, Plessy V Ferguson and just about every other "controversial decision" rendered by the court.

[RedskinsDave]

Originally Posted by Keino

Seriously dude, you are arguing that people whose entire job is to interpret the Constitution ignored it. I realize you don't like the law, but that's a bit absurd my friend.

Aren't you the same guy who was worried about the right side of the court taking liberties with their opinions? Now that the left did just that we have to grin and bear it?

The issue is conceptual though. States have never had the power to act in a manner that is in conflict with the Supreme law of the land. Ergo, imposing a law that requires individuals to carry insurance cannot be legal and constitutional on the state level if your argument that requiring individuals to purchase a consumer good is unconstitutional. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional.

Wrong. There absolutely is a difference there. The federal government cannot order its citizens to buy commercial goods (prior to last week) but states have had that right for a long time. The car insurance example doesn't work anyways since they require that if you want to drive. This law penalizes you for not doing something regardless of anything else you do or don't do. If you want to live in America, you buy health insurance or pay the fine (tax per Roberts). There is nothing else like this.

That's what they came up with when the issue was before them. It gives the wiggle room in the event the law changes. This is what the court does. It avoids having to make tough calls, allowing the will of the people in the form of enacted legislation to carry the day mostly while leaving room for it to be overturned in the future. See Roe v Wade, Plessy V Ferguson and just about every other "controversial decision" rendered by the court.

Those laws restricted what the government could control. This one expands what it can do to us.

[Keino]

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Aren't you the same guy who was worried about the right side of the court taking liberties with their opinions? Now that the left did just that we have to grin and bear it?

I am the guy who vocalized that the entire court has become too political. What concerned me about the Right side of the court, Scalia in particular, is that he wrote into an opinion comments on an issue that was not before the court and clearly considered same in rendering his opinion. That was most certainly unprecedented. I recognize that we are bound by their decisions based upon their legal opinions. I never claimed any Justice ignored the Constituion.

And no, don't grin and bear it. Fight it the way everyone not happy with a SCOTUS decision does. It's an uphill fight that may prove fruitless, but 50 years later it may be overturned (Plessy v. Ferguson overturned by Brown V. Board; Roe v. Wade yet to be overturned).

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Wrong. There absolutely is a difference there. The federal government cannot order its citizens to buy commercial goods (prior to last week) but states have had that right for a long time. The car insurance example doesn't work anyways since they require that if you want to drive. This law penalizes you for not doing something regardless of anything else you do or don't do. If you want to live in America, you buy health insurance or pay the fine (tax per Roberts). There is nothing else like this.

Sure it works. The comment I responded to was "you cannot be forced to buy a consumer good as a matter of law" (paraphrasing b/c I don't feel like scrolling up to C&P). That is false. If you want to drive, then you must purchase auto-insurance. The difference here really is that driving an automobile is a privilege, and the feds are saying (like every other industrialized nation) that basic healthcare is a right of citizenship. I am still mulling that position over, but I am pretty much on the side that thinks that basic healthcare is a right of citizenship, which is why I wanted a single-payer system. Having said that I recognize that attracting the best and brightest minds means that the profession needs to be lucrative, so I support a highly regulated market.

But you are still missing my point. How can the States have a right that is Unconstitutional? The answer is they cannot and so the narrow conceptual comment to which I was responding still holds true. I agree there is nothing like this. I also think that there is no other industry in which profit and saving lives comes into conflict like the healthcare industry.

The best part of this law is the one that has gotten the least attention. There is a provision that requires insurers to spend 85% of policy premiums on service. Not Marketing, lobbying etc. Service. Some think that this little provision will move us to a single payer system when insurers have to actually provide the double cheeseburger that people are paying for.

Originally Posted by RedskinsDave

Those laws restricted what the government could control. This one expands what it can do to us.

I don't know about that. One of the results of Plessy being turned on its head was that the Federal government was able to expand its ability to tell a private business owner what to do. Similarly, with Roe, they effectively told 40 states that their laws banning abortion could not be enforced, thus expanding the Feds ability to tell states what they can and cannot do.

[akhhorus]

The Commerce clause doesn't allow a mandate for non-economic activity. Nothing changed in the Obamacare decision. Roberts clearly wrote that Congress can mandate non-economic activity if its the form of a tax(regardless of what any politician calls it) and did nothing to limit the use of the Commerce clause outside of that. Wickard was law before Obamacare and nothing's changed.

[RedskinsDave]

Except the people who crafted the law specifically said it wasn't a tax and actually argued the mandate was legal. That's the comedy in all of this.

Sean, requiring you to have insurance in order to drive will never be the same as this.