Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: GarMan on March 27, 2012, 07:08:52 PM
-
I find this entertaining...
Justice Kennedy talking about the individual mandate at today's Supreme Court Hearing on ObamaCare:
"But the reason, the reason this is concerning, is because it requires the individual to do an affirmative act. In the law of torts our tradition, our law, has been that you don’t have the duty to rescue someone if that person is in danger. The blind man is walking in front of a car and you do not have a duty to stop him absent some relation between you. And there is some severe moral criticisms of that rule, but that’s generally the rule.
And here the government is saying that the Federal Government has a duty to tell the individual citizen that it must act, and that is different from what we have in previous cases and that changes the relationship of the Federal Government to the individual in the very fundamental way."
I smell trouble.
-
Speaking of trouble -
Shouldn't the supreme court be devoid of partisan politics?
It seems to me that in analyzing the healthcare bill, it's either constitutional or it's not. How can people reach different conclusions based on analyzing the documents?
Also, why is it a given that four justices will vote that it is constitutional and four will vote that isn't? That's a loud scream of issues. Eight justices might as well not show up. I mean, what's the purpose of having them in there if they're just going to support a particular party?
-
Speaking of trouble -
Shouldn't the supreme court be devoid of partisan politics?
It seems to me that in analyzing the healthcare bill, it's either constitutional or it's not. How can people reach different conclusions based on analyzing the documents?
Also, why is it a given that four justices will vote that it is constitutional and four will vote that isn't? That's a loud scream of issues. Eight justices might as well not show up. I mean, what's the purpose of having them in there if they're just going to support a particular party?
They should be devoid of partisan politics and judge this as you have stated. Unfortunately, there are fundamental philosophical differences between the way the political ideologies interpret the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily mean that their position is partisan. The way I understand it, Kennedy was key to this and was actually expected to support the bill. So far, he seems to the the one pointing out the most obvious Constitutional challenge, and after today, I wouldn't be surprised if one of the more Liberal justices sways towards the more Conservative perspective. The Dems are already planning the tar and feather party for Donald Verrilli. I'm also a bit surprised that Kagan didn't recuse herself from the case.
-
Speaking of trouble -
Shouldn't the supreme court be devoid of partisan politics?
It seems to me that in analyzing the healthcare bill, it's either constitutional or it's not. How can people reach different conclusions based on analyzing the documents?
Also, why is it a given that four justices will vote that it is constitutional and four will vote that isn't? That's a loud scream of issues. Eight justices might as well not show up. I mean, what's the purpose of having them in there if they're just going to support a particular party?
You are right. It should be simple. To me it is - the Constitution does NOT allow the Feds to FORCE someone to BUY a Private good. Period. The Commerce Clause allows the Feds to REGULATE Commerce which is more of an inclusive action (basically building rules around things - i.e. prevent monopolies, prevent companies from dumping toxic waste, define a process for importing goods, etc). Regulating Commerce DOES NOT EQUAL forcing ALL citizens to buy a good or product. It just doesn't.
Some judges however use a partisan view which they should not. Some are even activist judges (which I include Ginsberg in this group). She has even said that she doesn't agree with the Constitution on few occasions. I am not sure how you can uphold the document if you don't even agree with it. She is basically ruling on the case based off what she thinks it should be.
http://news.yahoo.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-trashes-constitution-she-impeached-232200921.html (http://news.yahoo.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-trashes-constitution-she-impeached-232200921.html)
-
In spite of the clamor over Treyvon (which I find as predictable as the sun rising in the east) I have been following closely the case of the Constitutionality of ObamaCare being argued before the Supreme Court. I would have thought initially that the complications of this Act would have made it tedious but it's really been quite engaging.
As others have pointed out it really comes down to the constitutionality of the individual mandate and, if that is deemed unconstitutional by the court, should the rest of the Act be stricken too. The arguments on the side of the states and the NFIB were meritorious while the government's attorneys simply looked and sounded foolish (and I'm a layman when it comes to Constitutional law). I think the ideological left-leaning justices even found the regimes' attorneys foolish (except for, perhaps, Ginsberg and Kagan, Ginsberg even attempted to help them defend their own position at one time). It was remarkable that Justice Kagan was quiet; she probably should have recused herself but, barring that action, it was probably by design that she remained mostly silent since she was the original Architect of the constitutional arguments in favor of the Act.
I think that ObamaCare is in trouble but we won't know for sure until June of this year when the Court publishes it's ruling. I would not be surprised to see that the ruling is not along ideological lines. If the Supreme Court doesn't strike this legislation down I think we might as well get used to it being around forever because even if Romney gets the nomination (and wins the general election) I still simply don't trust that the Republicans will kill it; the power that the legislation has over us (the People) is simply too tempting for them to give up. (They'll make motions to kill it along with other political gestures but in the end they'll just try to 'fix' it with more legislation...and they'll be fixing it forever.)
-
In spite of the clamor over Treyvon (which I find as predictable as the sun rising in the east) I have been following closely the case of the Constitutionality of ObamaCare being argued before the Supreme Court. I would have thought initially that the complications of this Act would have made it tedious but it's really been quite engaging.
As others have pointed out it really comes down to the constitutionality of the individual mandate and, if that is deemed unconstitutional by the court, should the rest of the Act be stricken too. The arguments on the side of the states and the NFIB were meritorious while the government's attorneys simply looked and sounded foolish (and I'm a layman when it comes to Constitutional law). I think the ideological left-leaning justices even found the regimes' attorneys foolish (except for, perhaps, Ginsberg and Kagan, Ginsberg even attempted to help them defend their own position at one time). It was remarkable that Justice Kagan was quiet; she probably should have recused herself but, barring that action, it was probably by design that she remained mostly silent since she was the original Architect of the constitutional arguments in favor of the Act.
I think that ObamaCare is in trouble but we won't know for sure until June of this year when the Court publishes it's ruling. I would not be surprised to see that the ruling is not along ideological lines. If the Supreme Court doesn't strike this legislation down I think we might as well get used to it being around forever because even if Romney gets the nomination (and wins the general election) I still simply don't trust that the Republicans will kill it; the power that the legislation has over us (the People) is simply too tempting for them to give up. (They'll make motions to kill it along with other political gestures but in the end they'll just try to 'fix' it with more legislation...and they'll be fixing it forever.)
I hope it is June at the latest but sooner.
Nonetheless, if it is struck down, this is a HUGE blow to the One especially since gas prices are still rising and he has no signature piece of legislation. It also helps out Romney because one of the big complaints against him is that he didn't have the same trump card to critique Obamacare as the others due to Romneycare being the model. If Obamacare goes away, this isn't as much of an issue for Mitt in the debates. Probably a non-issue.