Total Posts:53|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Health Care Law Ruled Unconstit

Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 9:45:28 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 9:41:48 AM, comoncents wrote:
What do you think?

Meh.

What do you think the supreme court will do?

Nothing. The state and federal governments will work out a compromise excepton whereby it won't be illegal. It undercut's the feds argument a tad, but nothing so much where the entire system will collapse.
Caramel
Posts: 855
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:04:41 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 9:45:28 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/13/2010 9:41:48 AM, comoncents wrote:
What do you think?

Meh.

What do you think the supreme court will do?

Nothing. The state and federal governments will work out a compromise excepton whereby it won't be illegal. It undercut's the feds argument a tad, but nothing so much where the entire system will collapse.

Is that really Volkov?

It seems to me that this will be the token case for the Supreme Court to use to make their stand on the issue. Being a federal law, is there really anything a state court can do about it?
no comment
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:07:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:04:41 AM, Caramel wrote:
Being a federal law, is there really anything a state court can do about it?

it was a federal court in Virginia.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:12:50 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 9:41:48 AM, comoncents wrote:
Health Care Law Ruled Unconstitutional?

http://www.nytimes.com...


In my state?


What do you think?
What do you think the supreme court will do?

I haven't read the opinion.. but if it's a good one they ought not accept hearing any appeal of it.

and if they do... they ought to rule the law unconstitutional.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:13:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:04:41 AM, Caramel wrote:
Is that really Volkov?

Indeed.

It seems to me that this will be the token case for the Supreme Court to use to make their stand on the issue. Being a federal law, is there really anything a state court can do about it?

As matt said, it was a federal court, though it really only has statewide implications because it was in relation to the State of Virginia itself, and not the federal government. However, it will certainly be seen as a precedent, if not appealed and overruled later on (good possibility, by the way).
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:15:07 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
The current conservative makeup of the court suggests an unfavorable ruling for health care. It will be a HUGE case, though. It will be interesting to see how it goes.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:19:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:16:28 AM, JBlake wrote:
We can find out if conservatives really mean it when they say they don't like "activist judges."

There's nothing activist about striking down an unconstitutional law.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:25:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:19:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:16:28 AM, JBlake wrote:
We can find out if conservatives really mean it when they say they don't like "activist judges."

There's nothing activist about striking down an unconstitutional law.

This. If all of our justices were strict constructionists, that would mean the end of probably around 90% of all federal laws.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:27:48 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'd hate to say it, but Reasoning is right - judge can't be "activist" if he's not bending the constitution to his will. But, it is a subjective viewpoint that he has, unless he became a constitutional expert in the time I was gone, so feel free to pick at hit.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:28:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:16:28 AM, JBlake wrote:
We can find out if conservatives really mean it when they say they don't like "activist judges."

lol, you mean like those judges who have Nifty interpretations of the constitution???

yeah, if they show themselves to be "activisty" then they'll let the thing stand.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:57:00 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:19:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:16:28 AM, JBlake wrote:
We can find out if conservatives really mean it when they say they don't like "activist judges."

There's nothing activist about striking down an unconstitutional law.

That's what all activist judges claim to do. Usually they are right. So this would render the concept "activist" next to meaningless.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
lewis20
Posts: 5,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 12:08:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:25:00 AM, J.Kenyon wrote:
This. If all of our justices were strict constructionists, that would mean the end of probably around 90% of all federal laws.

Got to start somewhere.
"If you are a racist I will attack you with the north"- Abraham Lincoln

"Do not wear clothing woven of two kinds of material" - Leviticus 19 19

"War is a racket" - Smedley Butler
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 12:11:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:57:00 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:19:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
There's nothing activist about striking down an unconstitutional law.

That's what all activist judges claim to do. Usually they are right. So this would render the concept "activist" next to meaningless.

there's "activist" meaning one who actively strikes down laws...

and then "activist" in that they put forth new/ridiculous interpretations of older laws (The Constitution) to allow for things they would want but don't actually have the power to actually make legal... and so instead Actively undermine their role in government in order to get a quick fix for a favored project.

You're talking about the first one... everyone else, the second.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 4:14:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:13:24 AM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:04:41 AM, Caramel wrote:
Is that really Volkov?

Indeed.

It seems to me that this will be the token case for the Supreme Court to use to make their stand on the issue. Being a federal law, is there really anything a state court can do about it?

As matt said, it was a federal court, though it really only has statewide implications because it was in relation to the State of Virginia itself, and not the federal government. However, it will certainly be seen as a precedent, if not appealed and overruled later on (good possibility, by the way).

But if the house passes repel, and more state come on...

Anything can happen...

I don't think anything will, but this seems ballsy. The portion of the law does not go into effect for years. Forcing people to pay for healthcare is a vital portion of this bill.
We will see what happens.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 4:20:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:16:28 AM, JBlake wrote:
We can find out if conservatives really mean it when they say they don't like "activist judges."

You really think that a rule in favor of unconstitutionality would fall in line with a "activist judge."
I find it the opposite.

An activist judge would force to uphold this in a constitutional light; whereas, "Judicial restraint" would cause the court to choose it "unconstitutional," but I am sure anyone can manipulate the situation to fit their cause.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 4:32:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 4:14:03 PM, comoncents wrote:
But if the house passes repel, and more state come on...

The House will not repeal healthcare. Even with remaining Blue Dogs, I don't think the GOP has enough votes. What do you need to repeal legislation, two-thirds? They need at least 290 votes for that, which means 48 Democrats have to switch their votes. Not happening. They'll be able to screw around with its funding, sure, but that's about it.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 5:21:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 12:11:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:57:00 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:19:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
There's nothing activist about striking down an unconstitutional law.

That's what all activist judges claim to do. Usually they are right. So this would render the concept "activist" next to meaningless.

there's "activist" meaning one who actively strikes down laws...

and then "activist" in that they put forth new/ridiculous interpretations of older laws (The Constitution) to allow for things they would want but don't actually have the power to actually make legal

So the standard is novel interpretation or ridiculous interpretation?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 7:32:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It's not the entire law being ruled unconstitutional, just the individual mandate to buy health insurance, which has absolutely no justification. Don't confuse it with the rest of the law (which, while still unconstitutional, is not nearly as obviously so).
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:02:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Prediction: the Supreme Court decision will be a 5-4

The mandate is supposedly justified based on the commerce clause because lack of insurance means that the uninsured use emergency rooms as their primary care facility, requiring hospitals to charge higher costs to the insured to recoup their losses.

Some of you have suggested that the Supreme Court should let the Virginia decision stand. This is not possible. Two Clinton-appointed judges have ruled it Constitutional. The Supreme Court must step in to settle these disparate rulings.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
JBlake
Posts: 4,634
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2010 11:23:47 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:32:49 PM, mongoose wrote:
It's not the entire law being ruled unconstitutional, just the individual mandate to buy health insurance, which has absolutely no justification. Don't confuse it with the rest of the law (which, while still unconstitutional, is not nearly as obviously so).

Tell me again why the individual mandate is "obviously unconstitutional?"
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 12:46:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 7:32:49 PM, mongoose wrote:
It's not the entire law being ruled unconstitutional, just the individual mandate to buy health insurance, which has absolutely no justification.
Without it having a law against discriminating based on conditions prior to the insurance is even stupider.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 6:29:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 4:32:30 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/13/2010 4:14:03 PM, comoncents wrote:
But if the house passes repel, and more state come on...

The House will not repeal healthcare.

I am talking about Feb, when they have the majority.

(No doubt that it will never go through the senate though.)

I am not saying that it will be repealed, but it will get symbolically voted against in the house.

Even with remaining Blue Dogs, I don't think the GOP has enough votes. What do you need to repeal legislation, two-thirds? They need at least 290 votes for that, which means 48 Democrats have to switch their votes. Not happening. They'll be able to screw around with its funding, sure, but that's about it.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 6:29:43 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 5:21:26 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/13/2010 12:11:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:57:00 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 12/13/2010 11:19:34 AM, Reasoning wrote:
There's nothing activist about striking down an unconstitutional law.

That's what all activist judges claim to do. Usually they are right. So this would render the concept "activist" next to meaningless.

there's "activist" meaning one who actively strikes down laws...

and then "activist" in that they put forth new/ridiculous interpretations of older laws (The Constitution) to allow for things they would want but don't actually have the power to actually make legal

So the standard is novel interpretation or ridiculous interpretation?

That is what it has become, yes.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 6:31:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:02:56 PM, bluesteel wrote:
Prediction: the Supreme Court decision will be a 5-4

The mandate is supposedly justified based on the commerce clause because lack of insurance means that the uninsured use emergency rooms as their primary care facility, requiring hospitals to charge higher costs to the insured to recoup their losses.


But does the word "regulation" mean "force."
To me it seems as if Congress can regulate interstate commerce, not force individuals to engage in it.

Some of you have suggested that the Supreme Court should let the Virginia decision stand. This is not possible. Two Clinton-appointed judges have ruled it Constitutional. The Supreme Court must step in to settle these disparate rulings.
comoncents
Posts: 5,647
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2010 6:34:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 12/13/2010 11:23:47 PM, JBlake wrote:
At 12/13/2010 7:32:49 PM, mongoose wrote:
It's not the entire law being ruled unconstitutional, just the individual mandate to buy health insurance, which has absolutely no justification. Don't confuse it with the rest of the law (which, while still unconstitutional, is not nearly as obviously so).

Tell me again why the individual mandate is "obviously unconstitutional?"

That is funny!!!

(P.S. it is not obviously, goose. It is all in how you interpret the Constitution. To you it seems obvious, but to more "active" interprets it is obvious that it is Constitutional. )