Sign Up | Log In
REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS
Judges order Justice Department to clarify Obama remarks on health law case
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:06 PM
AURAPTOR
America loves a winner!
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:25 PM
HERO
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 1:41 PM
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:23 PM
M52NICKERSON
DALEK!
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 2:58 PM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Now that is funny coming from the right, the side that coined the phase activist judges. This is also ridiculous because court is asking Holder to explain what President means. Nothing but saber rattling.
Quote: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/obamas-unsettling-attack-on-the-supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html There was something rather unsettling in President Obama’s preemptive strike on the Supreme Court at Monday’s news conference. “I’d just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is the biggest problem on the bench is judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint — that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law,” Obama said. “Well, here’s a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that, and not take that step.” To be clear, I believe the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause. I think overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself. Especially in the wake of Bush v. Gore and Citizens United, it would look like a political act to have the five Republican-appointed justices voting to strike down the law and the four Democratic appointees voting to uphold it. That unfortunate outcome would risk dragging the court down to the partisan level of a Congress that passed the law without a single Republican vote. As much as the public dislikes the individual mandate, a party-line split would not be a healthy outcome for public confidence in the court’s integrity. And yet, Obama’s assault on “an unelected group of people” stopped me cold. Because, as the former constitutional law professor certainly understands, it is the essence of our governmental system to vest in the court the ultimate power to decide the meaning of the constitution. Even if, as the president said, it means overturning “a duly constituted and passed law.” Of course, acts of Congress are entitled to judicial deference and a presumption of constitutionality. The decision to declare a statute unconstitutional, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote in 1927, is “the gravest and most delicate duty that this court is called on to perform.” But the president went too far in asserting that it “would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step” for the court to overturn “a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.” That’s what courts have done since Marbury v. Madison. The size of the congressional majority is of no constitutional significance. We give the ultimate authority to decide constitutional questions to “a group of unelected people” precisely to insulate them from public opinion. I would lament a ruling striking down the individual mandate, but I would not denounce it as conservative justices run amok. Listening to the arguments and reading the transcript, the justices struck me as a group wrestling with a legitimate, even difficult, constitutional question. For the president to imply that the only explanation for a constitutional conclusion contrary to his own would be out-of-control conservative justices does the court a disservice. Worse, the president’s critique, and in particular the reference to “unelected” judges, buys into an unfortunate and largely unwarranted conservative critique of judicial power. We want our judges unelected. We want them to have the final constitutional say. The president should be arguing for a second term to prevent the court from tipping in an even more conservative direction, not channeling tired critiques from the right about activist judges legislating from the bench.
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:08 PM
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:37 PM
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 3:43 PM
Tuesday, April 3, 2012 4:26 PM
FREMDFIRMA
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: It's violates the Rules of Professional Responsibilty to question the integrity of the Courts in the way he did.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 2:48 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Fremdfirma: The day we fail to question simply cause we're told not to, is the day we're lost completely. -Frem .
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:16 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Show me where he said it would be unprecedented. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:28 AM
SIGNYM
I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.
Quote:Lawyers have a legally recognized monopoly, as such we are held by the Courts to ethical standards of their choosing, but generally recommended by nonpartisan legal scholars. We agree to abide by these standards in exchange for the right to practice law. This recognizes both the unique relationship and responsibility we have to both our clients and the Courts and is a centuries old tradition.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:33 AM
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:37 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: Rappy, you're now "layering" your signature with multiple defenses? Yanno what? If you think that's going to change anyone's mind here, you're a sad pathetic little man. Anyone who has had any extended discussion with you knows that you're a greedy deluded pimp for capitalism who would sell his mother for a few shekels. All they have to do is look up what you've said, like the quotes I've memorialized for you (above).
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:39 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Are you serious ? The comments of the President are at the very start of this whole conversation , the point of this thread, and you're asking where he said it ? Ok, here it is... " Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress ". The ruling of the Court against O-Care would not be unprecedented, the law was not passed by a "strong majority " , and it wouldn't have mattered to the Court even if it were passed by a strong majority.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 3:43 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: The florid 2000 election was the result of a biased Florida court. Had it done its job, the USSC would not have to have stepped in. * Note to everyone* - Do not believe me. I do not know what I think I know on matters concerning of what I think or believe. n
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:25 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Are you serious ? The comments of the President are at the very start of this whole conversation , the point of this thread, and you're asking where he said it ? Ok, here it is... " Ultimately, I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress ". The ruling of the Court against O-Care would not be unprecedented, the law was not passed by a "strong majority " , and it wouldn't have mattered to the Court even if it were passed by a strong majority. Thank you, when I asked for that I could not find it. Now, as posting in the other thread, the Supreme Court has not over turned a major piece of federal legislation in over 80 years. So to do so now would be against modern precident. Also, strong majority is subjective. The law did pass with 60 votes in the Senate. That is a super majority. You keep saying it does not matter, but keep bringing it up. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
JONGSSTRAW
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:33 AM
Quote:Originally posted by SignyM: "Lawyers" may have to abide by a set of ethics, but the Supreme Court Justices do not. They are wholly unaccountable.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:41 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Now, as posting in the other thread, the Supreme Court has not over turned a major piece of federal legislation in over 80 years. So to do so now would be against modern precident. ]
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 4:49 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: It passed by a mere 7 votes in the House, which has 435 members, not 100. But I'M not the one who brought it up in the 1st place, that was Obama. As you can plainly read.
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: And also... the entire drama and circus in the courts over Florida 2000 were nothing less than an absolute joke. All one needed to do was read the instructions on the ballot. Right there, the instructions were plain and direct, as to how to vote. If , at any time while still in the poling station, a voter felt they had a question or needed a new ballot, all they needed to do was ask. Claims of some getting confused, or mis-remembering a vote for 1 candidate while thinking they were voting for another, should have been completely ignored. Once you drop that ballot in the box, your vote is made. Take all the time you want to check things are accurate before so, fine. But try to bitch and phony up excuses for why you "may " have been duped or confused, and still voted the way you did... sorry. Tough cookies.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 5:11 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: The legislation could pass with every vote in the Senate and House, be signed by the President and universally loved and still be unconstitutional. As for the last 80 years...I think you'll find that a little off...by 80 years give or take a few months.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:00 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court. Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration. ]
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 8:12 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Hero: Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Name the last major piece of federal regulation overturned by the Supreme Court. Now by major I mean landmark legislation which was a center piece of a given administration. ] I was going to mention US v Jones (2011), but you are too narrow in your "landmark legislation" definition. For that we have to go back to Citizens United. That does not eliminate other cases, just that's the first one that comes to mind. There was a case during the Bush admin on Gitmo as well. I'm sure if you limit your inquiry more carefully you'll get the answer you want. For example, name the number one show on TV and by number one I mean shows on basic cable networks in existence for at least fifty years and whose call letters start with C and whose leading actor is a white male playing a navy cop. The answer is NCIS which proves that CBS is the number one network.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 9:07 AM
NIKI2
Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...
Quote:...as a political spectacle, with the eyes of the nation upon them, it was clear to see that we have a large contingent, perhaps a majority, of committed judicial activists on the Court. Only they’re on the conservative side of the ledger. I think EJ Dionne is largely correct:Quote:Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office? It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches [...]Here we were in a court of law, and instead of the main topics being settled precedent like Wickard v. Filburn or recent cases like Gonzalez v. Raich, you had the conservative justices picking through the health care law and sounding like talk-radio hosts, with hypotheticals about broccoli and invocations of the Cornhusker Kickback. And while Jon Walker makes a good point about the implications of the Court striking down the individual mandate, and while some of the Justices and even the legal team on the conservative side agreed that a single-payer plan would be Constitutional, in the rare event that a future Democratic Administration passed such legislation, I have no doubt that conservatives would turn on a dime and find another reason to call THAT unconstitutional. And I have no doubt that this set of judicial activists on the Court, at least, would agree with them. This is not really about protecting the individual mandate – one which doesn’t come with enough of a strong set of social protections to really defend, nor is it strong enough (the penalties are weak, there’s a hardship exemption, and there’s pretty much no enforcement power) for a strong objection. It’s about a majority or near-majority on the Supreme Court quite literally making it up as they go along, in obeisance to raw ideology. http://news.firedoglake.com/2012/03/30/the-supreme-courts-conservative-activist-judges/ it in a nutshell. As is this:Quote:In the face of seven decades of precedent, the Supreme Court’s grant of certiori to six cases attacking the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is an astonishing display of judicial activism. The decision to do so seems alarmingly consistent with the extremist philosophy of Clarence Thomas, who flatly does not believe in stare decisis. That the federal government’s power to regulate commerce is even being questioned is virtually inexplicable as a legal matter: the law deals with the $2.7 trillion health insurance industry, in a country in which 62 percent of all bankruptcies are occasioned by medical debt. As political theater, however, the motivation becomes clearer. Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, has been deeply involved in organizing nationwide opposition to the health reform. She even set up her own political action committee, Liberty Central, whose Web site says that the Affordable Care Act “tramples on the Constitution.” The group encourages readers to attend rallies and fund raisers for the plaintiffs in the pending hearings, from which Clarence Thomas refuses to recuse himself. Conservatives rail against “free riders” all the time, so one might have expected them to be supportive of a requirement that people buy into a health care system enabling greater efficiency in cost-spreading. Indeed, the first versions of the Affordable Care Act were hatched by the conservative Heritage Foundation and shepherded into being by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. So what’s behind the turn of heart? Alas, it goes to yet larger political stakes. Limiting the commerce clause in the fashion pressed by these appellants would also undo the legal grounding for … well, everything: the Social Security Act, unemployment insurance benefits, Medicare, the National Labor Relations Act, the Occupational and Safety Health Act, the Clean Air Act, all federal disaster relief, the Anti-Trust Act, the Equal Pay Act, and all jurisprudence related to public accommodations, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That, in a nutshell, is why Supreme Court validation of the Affordable Care Act will be so important. “Judicial activism” doesn’t begin to describe the havoc if the justices decide otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/25/on-the-health-care-law-is-the-court-being-thoughtful-or-partisan/activist-judges-with-a-clear-agenda can't help wondering if that's what the conservatives have in mind; certainly everything listed above is something they're against. So setting precedence against all of those things is perhaps a doorway to getting rid of them all? Makes me wonder. Nonetheless, the fact of an "activist" Supreme Court is undeniable. For all the years conservatives have used "activist" to decry any judgment with which they disagree, it's current conservative judges who have taken activism to a new height! The one that gets me is "Conservatives rail against “free riders” all the time, so one might have expected them to be supportive of a requirement that people buy into a health care system enabling greater efficiency in cost-spreading." AS OF RIGHT NOW, there are millions of what they'd call "free riders"--people who receive medical care without having to pay for it. The rest of us "socialists" are paying for it NOW by our taxes and health-care insurance premiums. So what, aside from an agenda to maintain the status quo and hatred of anything Obama, could be their intention in doing away with something that ends the "free riders" of today and replacing them with private enterprise being paid for by those who use it? I'm not going to get roped into ridiculous back and forths about the minutia of something our rabid right-wingers hold dear to without even realizing what it MEANS in real dollars and cents; I merely make the case that the actions of the current Supreme Court are those of partisan, activist judges, not impartial Supreme Court jurists who put legality aside in favor of agenda.
Quote:Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office? It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches [...]
Quote:In the face of seven decades of precedent, the Supreme Court’s grant of certiori to six cases attacking the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act is an astonishing display of judicial activism. The decision to do so seems alarmingly consistent with the extremist philosophy of Clarence Thomas, who flatly does not believe in stare decisis. That the federal government’s power to regulate commerce is even being questioned is virtually inexplicable as a legal matter: the law deals with the $2.7 trillion health insurance industry, in a country in which 62 percent of all bankruptcies are occasioned by medical debt. As political theater, however, the motivation becomes clearer. Clarence Thomas’s wife, Virginia, has been deeply involved in organizing nationwide opposition to the health reform. She even set up her own political action committee, Liberty Central, whose Web site says that the Affordable Care Act “tramples on the Constitution.” The group encourages readers to attend rallies and fund raisers for the plaintiffs in the pending hearings, from which Clarence Thomas refuses to recuse himself. Conservatives rail against “free riders” all the time, so one might have expected them to be supportive of a requirement that people buy into a health care system enabling greater efficiency in cost-spreading. Indeed, the first versions of the Affordable Care Act were hatched by the conservative Heritage Foundation and shepherded into being by Mitt Romney in Massachusetts. So what’s behind the turn of heart? Alas, it goes to yet larger political stakes. Limiting the commerce clause in the fashion pressed by these appellants would also undo the legal grounding for … well, everything: the Social Security Act, unemployment insurance benefits, Medicare, the National Labor Relations Act, the Occupational and Safety Health Act, the Clean Air Act, all federal disaster relief, the Anti-Trust Act, the Equal Pay Act, and all jurisprudence related to public accommodations, including the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That, in a nutshell, is why Supreme Court validation of the Affordable Care Act will be so important. “Judicial activism” doesn’t begin to describe the havoc if the justices decide otherwise. http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/03/25/on-the-health-care-law-is-the-court-being-thoughtful-or-partisan/activist-judges-with-a-clear-agenda can't help wondering if that's what the conservatives have in mind; certainly everything listed above is something they're against. So setting precedence against all of those things is perhaps a doorway to getting rid of them all? Makes me wonder. Nonetheless, the fact of an "activist" Supreme Court is undeniable. For all the years conservatives have used "activist" to decry any judgment with which they disagree, it's current conservative judges who have taken activism to a new height! The one that gets me is "Conservatives rail against “free riders” all the time, so one might have expected them to be supportive of a requirement that people buy into a health care system enabling greater efficiency in cost-spreading." AS OF RIGHT NOW, there are millions of what they'd call "free riders"--people who receive medical care without having to pay for it. The rest of us "socialists" are paying for it NOW by our taxes and health-care insurance premiums. So what, aside from an agenda to maintain the status quo and hatred of anything Obama, could be their intention in doing away with something that ends the "free riders" of today and replacing them with private enterprise being paid for by those who use it? I'm not going to get roped into ridiculous back and forths about the minutia of something our rabid right-wingers hold dear to without even realizing what it MEANS in real dollars and cents; I merely make the case that the actions of the current Supreme Court are those of partisan, activist judges, not impartial Supreme Court jurists who put legality aside in favor of agenda.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:18 AM
BIGDAMNNOBODY
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Hey, you guys are trying to DEBATE these ijts?
Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Let them have their fun, they enjoy so much finding anything negative about Obama, why ruin their pleasure (and encourage them, to boot)?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:22 AM
STORYMARK
Quote:Originally posted by BigDamnNobody: Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Hey, you guys are trying to DEBATE these ijts? Why are you posting in this thread? Quote:Originally posted by Niki2: Let them have their fun, they enjoy so much finding anything negative about Obama, why ruin their pleasure (and encourage them, to boot)? Why not? They let you have your fun (and lot's of it) finding anything negative about republicans. Besides, weren't you going to stop debating Auraptor for the umpteenth time?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: Would you like cheese with your whine?
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 10:52 AM
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:00 AM
WULFENSTAR
http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: LOL! Riiiight. Yeah, miiiight just want to brush up on them readin skills. You're starting to sound like a typical, fact-shy wingnut. Ive been here years longer than Niki, ya boob.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:47 AM
Quote:Originally posted by Wulfenstar: Story is just a troll.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 11:50 AM
Quote:Originally posted by BigDamnNobody: Quote:Originally posted by Storymark: LOL! Riiiight. Yeah, miiiight just want to brush up on them readin skills. You're starting to sound like a typical, fact-shy wingnut. Ive been here years longer than Niki, ya boob. Subtlety is not your strong suit, of that I am certain.
Wednesday, April 4, 2012 2:53 PM
RIONAEIRE
Beir bua agus beannacht
Thursday, April 5, 2012 3:43 AM
Quote: I'm for freedom, yes
Quote:You've taken my quotes completely out of context, edited them
Thursday, April 5, 2012 3:54 AM
Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:14 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: Freedom absolutely fails and IS crushed, under true, pure democracy. Democracy is little more than mob rule, and not the rule of law. 2nd, your warping of what freedom means is the absolute worst, far left wing sociialist bullshit imaginable.
Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:37 AM
Thursday, April 5, 2012 4:54 AM
Quote:Originally posted by m52nickerson: Rappy for all your talk you really have no idea what freedom is. I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.
Thursday, April 5, 2012 5:19 AM
Quote:Originally posted by AURaptor: You think freedom is measured by how much you can get from govt?
YOUR OPTIONS
NEW POSTS TODAY
OTHER TOPICS
FFF.NET SOCIAL