Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Harry Boy, Dec 13, 2010.
A JUDGE SPEAKS, IS HE RIGHT?
Federal judge in Va. strikes down health care law - Yahoo! News
Two other judges said it was constitutional, is this just another activist judge who needs to get some face time????
This will not be settled on this level, it will have to work itself all the way to Clarence, the sex creep, Thomas and his crew..
That's what I'm hoping for, brother! :rocker:
The government cannot mandate that a citizen buy insurance, and fine them if they don't. To do so is unconstitutional IMO.
or is this just another judge who has read and understands the constitution?????
No where in the constitution does it say I HAVE to own health insurance...
I buy it becuase it's a good product to have, but I should not be forced to buy it.
I think were seeing the Obama Adminstration plument in flames with this and the tax deal.
He has completely pissed away the people, he had so much momentum and went straight down the status quo line and created an entire generation of peopel who will never again get interested, becuase in the end, it will never matter.
The only difference is WHO's special interests gets the money...
The mandate is not unconstitutional. And if it makes it to SCOTUS, as I assume it will, I fully expect them to reach the same conclusion.
Judicial activism, to me, is creating new policy based on political considerations where no right to do so is enumerated. This ruling is the opposite, it states that the right of the government to force people to purchase insurance does not exist in the constitution.
I will be interested to see what happens in the supreme court, should be fascinating.
Like just about everything these days, it will probably be a 5-4 decision, with Justice Kennedy being the swing vote one way, or the other.
Whether he is right or wrong, I hope this helps kill the bill and any other version of government health care.
Why can the government order me to buy a product in order to exist?
What else can the government order me to buy/consume?
Can I be jailed if I don't live my life according to the dictates of the government?
This seems to be quite fascist to me.
That goes for Medicare, too, right?
Have you not heard of ze National Socialist Party? Zay will tell you vhat you can do ount vhat you can't!
Previously commented on "activist judge", well apparently he is pretty controversial, did not know as a judge that you could continue to be involved with the political process...
Is this an appearance of impropriety, the standard for conflict of interest, if so he should have recused himself..
Health Care Judge's Interest In Anti-Health Care PR Shop Raises Questions | TPMMuckraker
Many on the left think the Constitution needs to be re written.
Obama is supposed to be an expert on Constitutional law ... :rofl:
Jack you really need to read the commerce section of the Constitution. A few of us brought this up when they wrote the bill. The only way this bill goes forward as is would be by a Constitutional amendment. If this goes forward technically the government could force you to buy anything and everything they want.
That friggin Michelle is try to force people to eat her sh!t, she wants the Govt to tell you what to eat, Obama wants to be a dictator the liberals want a Dictator, left wing liberal democrats want to run your whole life, the dirty bastards HATE FREEDOM.
First of all, the debate over the mandate is a red herring. If it eventually is ruled unconstitutional by SCOTUS, the law will simply be amended.
There are numerous ways you can look at it. You could view it as a tax, in which case it's constitutional. Or you could view it as a regulation, like the minimum wage, which forces private actors to behave a certain way.
At the end of the day, I think the strongest case, as Mark Hall argues, is that the mandate falls under the government's plenary power to tax income. But really, since the insurance companies will file in support of the mandate, I'd be surprise if the corporatist Roberts court would rule to overturn.
If you read the court's decision, while the gov't has the right to regulate commerce "among the several states", Virginia's AG argued, successfully that it doesn't have the right to force you to participate in the commerce and you have the right not to participate, which is the underlying premise of mandated coverage.
The Feds would have had a stronger case arguing (enough to overcome the mandate????) that it was within their taxing authority but it puts the President in a bind, since he argued strenuously that the Health Care Bill was NOT a tax during the debate leading up to the vote. If they stress the "it's a tax therefore it's allowed" argument, you can already see the 2012 reelection ads by the 527s juxtaposing " you're taxes won't up one dime if you earn less than $250K" with the arguments that we can tax you...alot for HCR
Separate names with a comma.