Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I could close the thread. That would fix it.
Watch my YouTube to support my drug habitOriginally Posted by Oslo
Tony is gay for little Snorlax.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I will post. I swore I wouldn't, but now that the Supreme Court has made it's ruling on the Affordable Health Care Act, I can't resist.
It has not been found unconstitutional. It will stand. Obama has claimed a big victory.
Boehner warned the GOP members of the House not to gloat. Now he has to tell them not to cry.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
It was not found unconstitutional? They said that you could not use it under the Commerce Clause, that in and of itself makes it unconstitutional. They did suggest it can be used as a tax, but the original use of it was unconstitutional.
However now Obama has to run on what is the most unpopular law in the past century, and run on it as a TAX. Dude you think the Tea Party was tough before, wait till they attack Obamacare as the biggest tax increase ever!
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Give it up, Roy. No matter how you try to spin it, the Affordable Health Care Act, with the Individual Mandate in place, has survived.
My prediction: Eventually, the folks who labeled it "Obamacare" are going to be VERY sorry they did so. This is going to be his legacy.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
So again his legacy is a incredibly unpopular law, that adds in the biggest tax increase in history for the middle class and lower class? Dude please I hope that is his legacy as you just energized his opponents, and drags down his Presidency.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I love how you're trying to turn this into a victory. You're failing miserably.
Obama didn't make it into a tax, the Court interpreted it as one. The law hasn't truly changed one bit.
I know you folks in the GOP are upset because you have to cancel the big party you thought you would be throwing right now. But it seems you're just as stubborn as ever.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
The fact that you are back and are struggling to defend it shows I am not.
And yet it is still Obama's law, it has his signature attached to it. Unless he immediately strikes to repeal the law's mandate right now, the tax is on his hands.
Nothing stubborn about it, just relaying to you the reality of the situation, and how election for Obama just became ALOT harder now. And lets not forget, he cannot run against that "Radical Supreme Court" now that he has been trying out for the last few weeks.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I tend to think differently Roy. Here's some food for thought.
Romney is likely going to spend the rest of the campaign making this an issue. HOWEVER... He can promise to repeal it all he wants. Unless he comes up with a better plan to replace it with - and fast, I might add - such a promise is not going to get him very far.
And he's not doing too well, I might add. He's practically given up trying to win over voters in the state that he was governor of, and even members of his campaign team have been quoted as saying that the Latino vote is "a lost cause" for him now.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
The GOP has already said they plan to repeal and replace, keeping the more popular sections while striking down the tax mandate.
First latinos do not make up much of a vote in swing states, second not doing so well? NBC News-Marist has Romney TIED in three swing states, Michigan, New Hampshire, and North Carolina. To make matters worse for Obama the D/R/I in the Michigan poll is 32/25/43 without leaners, and 46/37/17 when adding leaners. If Obama cannot get above 50% in Michigan with a poll that has numbers that represent the 2008 election. HE is the one that is not doing well.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Wrong.
Boehnir and several others said that if the Court didn't strike down the whole thing, they would "repeal all that was left".
Your move.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
“Today’s decision does nothing to diminish the fact that Obamacare’s mandates, tax hikes and Medicare cuts should be repealed and replaced with common-sense reforms that lower costs and that the American people actually want,” McConnell said. “It is my hope that with new leadership in the White House and Senate, we can enact these step-by-step solutions and prevent further damage from this terrible law.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories...#ixzz1z6XZ0QXH
Cantor, who sets the floor schedule in the House, said in a statement that the House will vote on the repeal the week of July 9 – which Cantor said will clear the path for “patient-centered reforms that lower costs and increase choice.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-con...ly-127555.html
Days before President Obama's signature healthcare law goes in front of the Supreme Court, GOP front-runner Mitt Romney vowed to repeal and replace the law, speaking to a supportive crowd in a suburb of New Orleans.
"It's critical that we repeal Obamacare and, by the way, also replace it," he said. "I think I'm the only person in this race who's laid out what I would replace it with."
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/mar...rsary-20120323
They talk about repealing all of it no doubt, but what they do afterwards is to replace it with reforms.
Your move.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 28th June 2012 at 11:08 AM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Fine...
If their attempt to repeal it on the week of July 9th is any more successful than their last attempt, I'll eat my umbrella.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Hey it may not be, but anyone who votes against it, will be voting for a tax increase for the Middle Class.
By the way the minute the ruling was announced, the DOW dropped 120 points or 1 percent.
Also Mitt Romney has raised over 100,000 dollars in the last hour from donations.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Roy, do you honestly believe that the majority of wealthy Wall Street brokers are Democrats?
Edit: Oh, on another note:
Gee, Governor, call me crazy, but that's exactly what the Affordable Health Care Act does."Romney said he would like to see health care reform legislation that ensures "people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so," enables people with preexisting conditions to get insurance, gives states more support in their efforts to expand health care access and focuses on lowering the cost of such care."
Last edited by Dark Sage; 28th June 2012 at 11:39 AM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
You do realize President Obama received more money from Wall Street than any other President, and represented 20% of Obama's total donations in 2008 correct? Yes they are Democrats, but even they can see how this will hurt the economy.
Actually no it doesn't it does not allow people to keep the health insurance they want. Nor does it lower costs it infact raises them
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 28th June 2012 at 11:41 AM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Whatever you say, Roy...
Every member of the GOP in this country, including you, was ready to laugh in our faces when the almost-certain ruling (in your minds) against the law was announced, and now that you've fallen flat on your face, I'm seeing vandalism on Wikia calling Chief Justice Roberts a coward. People are calling Mr. Obama a liar, even though he is in no way responsible for this being interpreted as a tax.
I remember why I left this topic, and now I'm leaving again. It was not fun coming back.
I'll leave with this parting shot:
I wish could see the look on G.W. Bush's face right now. The Supreme Court Chief Justice that HE appointed was the deciding vote that ruled the Affordable Health Care Act Constitutional.
The irony is so thick you can cut it.
Last edited by Dark Sage; 28th June 2012 at 12:06 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Actually up to March the GOP believed they had little chance of it winning, it wasn't until the piss poor showing of White House Lawyers when the GOP and even Supreme Court insiders began to believe that it would be overturned.
Don't let the door hit you in the pussy on the way out.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
this is not correct
Code:ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; an opinion with respect to Part IV, in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined; and an opinion with respect to Parts III–A, III–B, and III–D. GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV. SCALIA, KENNEDY, THOMAS, and ALITO, JJ., filed a dissenting opinion. THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion.Code:CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the indi- vidual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. Pp. 16–30.I, II, III-C is the majority opinion and it does not contain the assertion you imply; III-A is not part of the judgementCode:CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part III–C, concluding that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause. Pp. 33– 44.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
In which my point still stands, the finding of 3C is that the Individual Mandate "MAY BE UPHELD" is through the taxation clause, NOT through the Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 28th June 2012 at 01:26 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
if you consult the first quoted section, you will find that it is only roberts' opinion that remarks on its invalidity with respect to commerce/necessary and proper.
this is in section III-A, which is not joined by the majority.
thus it is not unconstitutional in that no court has judged it unconstitutional in such a manner. only roberts' opinion claims this; it is not a part of the majority judgement.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
If you will read my edit, the suggestion in III-C that it "May be Upheld" shows that the majority judgement is that it cannot be upheld through the original Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause, but through Congress' power of taxation. If it wasn't there would be no need for the "May be Upheld" part, and would say that the original method through the Commerce Clause was valid.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 28th June 2012 at 01:34 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
the question of constitutionality for commerce/necessary and proper is moot; no majority judgement is offered to this effect. only roberts presents the argument in the negative, the other four join in opposition.
the fact that it qualifies under taxing does not offer a binding precedent as to whether it "cannot be upheld through the original Necessary and Proper Clause or the Commerce Clause". the judgement operates on a floor, not a ceiling; III-C does not argue that it can not be upheld via such clauses, but only asserts that it can be upheld via taxing.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
By suggesting it may be upheld through taxation and not through the original argument would make the original argument defacto unconstitutional. As I said before, if it could be done the other way it would have said so. If you wish to believe it does not do that you can however you would be in a fairly small minority and being a rather incorrect interpretation of it.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 28th June 2012 at 01:45 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
that is not what the majority judgement says; it does not "make the original argument defacto unconstitutional" - that is not how decisions operate as this would mean a vast field of uncertainty in which unspoken implications were made law.
to avoid such total ambiguity in decisions, this would have been actually accomplished had the majority joined with roberts when he was making such assertions in section III-A, III-B and III-D. they did not. instead, the majority decision provides us, in sum, on the subject of commerce:
note that they explicitly do not answer "whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance", instead providing that the taxing power is sufficient.Code:There may, however, be a more fundamental objection to a tax on those who lack health insurance. Even if only a tax, the payment under §5000A(b) remains a burden that the Federal Government imposes for an omission, not an act. If it is troubling to interpret the Commerce Clause as authorizing Congress to regulate those who abstain from commerce, perhaps it should be similarly troubling to permit Congress to impose a tax for not doing something. Three considerations allay this concern. First, and most importantly, it is abundantly clear the Constitution does not guarantee that individuals may avoid taxation through inactivity. A capitation, after all, is a tax that every- one must pay simply for existing, and capitations are expressly contemplated by the Constitution. The Court today holds that our Constitution protects us from federal regulation under the Commerce Clause so long as we ab- stain from the regulated activity. But from its creation, the Constitution has made no such promise with respect to taxes. See Letter from Benjamin Franklin to M. Le Roy (Nov. 13, 1789) (“Our new Constitution is now established . . . but in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes”). Whether the mandate can be upheld under the Com- merce Clause is a question about the scope of federal authority. Its answer depends on whether Congress can exercise what all acknowledge to be the novel course of directing individuals to purchase insurance. Congress’s use of the Taxing Clause to encourage buying something is, by contrast, not new. Tax incentives already promote, for example, purchasing homes and professional educa- tions. See 26 U. S. C. §§163(h), 25A. Sustaining the mandate as a tax depends only on whether Congress has properly exercised its taxing power to encourage purchas- ing health insurance, not whether it can. Upholding the individual mandate under the Taxing Clause thus does not recognize any new federal power. It determines that Congress has used an existing one. ... Third, although the breadth of Congress’s power to tax is greater than its power to regulate commerce, the taxing power does not give Congress the same degree of control over individual behavior. Once we recognize that Con- gress may regulate a particular decision under the Com- merce Clause, the Federal Government can bring its full weight to bear. Congress may simply command individ- uals to do as it directs. An individual who disobeys may be subjected to criminal sanctions. Those sanctions can include not only fines and imprisonment, but all the at- tendant consequences of being branded a criminal: depri- vation of otherwise protected civil rights, such as the right to bear arms or vote in elections; loss of employment op- portunities; social stigma; and severe disabilities in other controversies, such as custody or immigration disputes. By contrast, Congress’s authority under the taxing power is limited to requiring an individual to pay money into the Federal Treasury, no more. If a tax is properly paid, the Government has no power to compel or punish individuals subject to it. We do not make light of the se- vere burden that taxation—especially taxation motivated by a regulatory purpose—can impose.
thus the majority do not answer as to whether commerce/necessary and proper would be insufficient.
consider that roberts remarks in III-D that:
this is the stance that you are essentially presenting, but we must recall that roberts was not joined in this section of the opinion, and was not joined in III-A and B, in which he explicitly 'decides the question', as you suggest would be performed "defacto".Code:JUSTICE GINSBURG questions the necessity of rejecting the Government’s commerce power argument, given that §5000A can be upheld under the taxing power. Post, at 37. But the statute reads more naturally as a command to buy insurance than as a tax, and I would uphold it as a com- mand if the Constitution allowed it. It is only because the Commerce Clause does not authorize such a command that it is necessary to reach the taxing power question. And it is only because we have a duty to construe a stat- ute to save it, if fairly possible, that §5000A can be inter- preted as a tax. Without deciding the Commerce Clause question, I would find no basis to adopt such a saving construction.
this section is roberts' excuse for why he joined the majority even if he did not find support in commerce/necessary and proper - his opinion on commerce/necessary and proper remains separate from the majority judgement. judgements must be performed explicitly and the majority did not join this opinion!
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
By suggesting the taxing power is sufficient and having to go that course, again I note that it suggests that the commerce/necessary and proper clause is INSUFFICIENT.
You can try to ignore that, but it would be ignorant on your part not to acknowledge that if it was sufficient they would not have needed to seek out the power of taxation to maintain it as constitutional.
Remember the argument made by Obama all along was that the commerce/necessary and proper clause was all that was needed to cover it, and that it WAS NOT a tax! By having to change it to a tax, the court is saying that is the way it can be found valid, and not through the original argument. Because as I said for the umpteenth time, if they were to find the original way sufficient they would not have to go looking through the power of taxation. Period.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 28th June 2012 at 02:15 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
i think you overlook the fact that 4/5 on the majority decision do find commerce/necessary and proper to be adequate. you keep talking about 'they', but only roberts needed to make an excuse to join the majority to uphold via taxing.
this means that no majority opinion is provided which confirms the use of commerce/necessary and proper as unconstitutional or insufficient. only the sections from roberts' lone opinion reflect on this.
the implication of unconstitutionality which you draw from this is, at best, obiter, and thus can not be binding. it is not explicitly stated in the majority opinion.
Last edited by kurai; 28th June 2012 at 02:22 PM. Reason: but you don't have to insult me, i am only trying to help people understand the decision
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
May I ask where you find the opinion that the 5/4 majority finds the Commerce/Necessary and Proper Clause is sufficient? As from what I am reading they find that the only way for it to be sufficient is through taxation. If they did find it sufficient they would never have needed to use the taxation route and instead remark that the argument originally is sufficient to keep it valid.
Edit: I am not insulting you, I am helping you see that you are wrong in this context.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
the initial breakdown of who supported what was important, as there are multiple opinions provided by both the majority and the dissent
recall:
in part I of ginsberg's opinion, we find:Code:GINSBURG, J., filed an opinion concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and dissenting in part, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined, and in which BREYER and KAGAN, JJ., joined as to Parts I, II, III, and IV."
and so onCode:The provision of health care is today a concern of na tional dimension, just as the provision of old-age and survivors’ benefits was in the 1930’s. In the Social Secu- rity Act, Congress installed a federal system to provide monthly benefits to retired wage earners and, eventually, to their survivors. Beyond question, Congress could have adopted a similar scheme for health care. Congress chose, instead, to preserve a central role for private insurers and state governments. According to THE CHIEF JUSTICE, the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive. Since 1937, our precedent has recognized Congress’ large authority to set the Nation’s course in the economic and social welfare realm. See United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100, 115 (1941) (overruling Hammer v. Dagenhart, 247 U. S. 251 (1918), and recognizing that “regulations of commerce which do not infringe some constitutional prohibi- tion are within the plenary power conferred on Congress by the Commerce Clause”); NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 37 (1937) (“[The commerce] power is plenary and may be exerted to protect interstate commerce no matter what the source of the dangers which threaten it.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s crabbed reading of the Commerce Clause harks back to the era in which the Court routinely thwarted Congress’ efforts to regulate the national economy in the interest of those who labor to sustain it. See, e.g., Railroad Retirement Bd. v. Alton R. Co., 295 U. S. 330, 362, 368 (1935) (invalidating compulsory retirement and pension plan for employees of carriers subject to the Inter state Commerce Act; Court found law related essentially “to the social welfare of the worker, and therefore remote from any regulation of commerce as such”). It is a reading that should not have staying power.
ginsberg, sotomayor, breyer, kagan agreed with this assessment (4/5)
roberts explicitly disagrees in III-A/B/D as above (1/5)
neither of these are a part of the majority judgement (5/5) provided in III-C which limits its subject to the taxing power
"a majority did not find x to be constitutional via y" in no way means "a majority found that x is unconstitutional via y"; only the former is provided by the majority in a binding manner
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
No it means that the only way for a majority to find X constitutional is via y and that is through a binding manner, and that they did not agree that X would be constitutional through Z as original presented. Thus in the future if Congress were to try to pass another X, they would need to do it through Y and not Z. As the court found that to be the constitutional course.
Edit: And I will remind you if we take Roberts opinion, along with the minority 4 opinions of the Republicans that the Commerce Clause is not a constitutional path for Obamacare, we reach a 5/4 majority decision on it.
Last edited by Roy Karrde; 28th June 2012 at 02:49 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
no, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence
decisions do not work in the negative manner as you suggest, the minority opinions are not binding so as justify the statement that "they would need to do it through Y and not Z" [emphasis added]; the legislature may want to, but this does not make the alternative an unconstitutional path, as no such judgement was provided.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Actually it is evidence when the key words "may be valid" suggest that other paths "may not be valid" the other paths here were one through the commerce clause. The "may be valid" again is the keyword here as it takes the original path through the commerce clause and changes it to a separate path through the power of taxation. If they believed the commerce clause was a valid path here, it would have been included as a valid path, as such it is not.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Hate to do this, but...
According to my dad, the political science teacher, Roy is right... Sort of. They found in unconstitional under the Commerce Code, but NOT under the tax code.
That, however, is a hollow victory at best for the GOP, because the end result is, no matter what legal mumbo-jumbo you use, the Affordable Health Care Act is staying.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Tell your Dad I said thank you.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
cite the section of the decision in which the majority found that such compulsion was unconstitutional under commerce
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Again as I said, the "May be valid" argument, shows that the original line of thought is not valid under the commerce. If it was there would be no need to create a entirely new line of thought of how to make it valid. What the Supreme Court did here was spell out a path away from the Commerce Clause Argument, to one in which the individual mandate can be upheld. I cannot see why that is so hard for you to grasp.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
the majority define a valid path, but in doing so, it does not define the alternative as invalid. recall that 4/5 explicitly disagree with this course of action.
as you have edited in "And I will remind you if we take Roberts opinion, along with the minority 4 opinions of the Republicans that the Commerce Clause is not a constitutional path for Obamacare, we reach a 5/4 majority decision on it.", it is clear that additional explanation is needed...
this is absolutely not how decisions operate - please google to uncover the difference between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi. dissent is not binding and has no bearing on constitutionality. adding together separate parts of different opinions and opposing sides does not work.
after this, reflect on what it means for the majority to provide judgement in contrast to other, separate opinions. only roberts reflects the assertion you are providing.
it is important to directly cite the point at which the majority judgement decides that commerce is invalid, otherwise no decisive content on the matter is provided.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
Oh, btw Roy, I just checked Wall Street...
They recovered most of their losses, and ended the day down only 24 points.
Seems it wasn't much of a big deal to them after all.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
When that course of action was suggested and thus roundly rejected in favor of a valid course it did, you seem to be operating in a world in which the original commerce clause was not argued as the valid course here, because they did not accept it and instead choose a valid path through the taxation, it shows that they do not believe that the original argument is a valid path.
And again just working on your logic of using the minority opinion of the 4 liberal justices.
We have been over this, their unwillingness to go with the original argument is a direct challenge to it's validity at this point I even have a law professor backing me up. We have been over and over through this and so far you have not accept what is reality, judging by your past arguments I am going to assume you cannot accept it and I am going to just keep going, you may continue to have a failed line of thought.
Well it was a big deal, just curious as to what sparked the rally toward the end.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
I don't see why this arguement has any point at all.
The Court didn't kill it, which was what the GOP wanted. And the nature of the law itself has not changed at all. Obama will not be forced to rewrite it.
The House can try to repeal it on the 9th, as they say they'll try to, but I doubt they'll have any more success than they did last time. In fact, they fail to see that wasting time passing bills that don't have a prayer of reaching the President's desk is the very reason why their approval rating is in the gutter.
In the end, the Affordable Health Care Act is staying until such time as Obama leaves office. The earliest that might happen is January of 2013 - but I personally doubt it will be that soon, because my opinion of Romney is, he's a wind-up doll for the GOP.
That's what matters.
Heh... Come to think of it, this is kinda fun...
Last edited by Dark Sage; 28th June 2012 at 04:58 PM.
Re: 2012 U.S. Presidential Election
the argument has no bearing on the specific outcome.
that's the whole point - one can not claim something is unconstitutional when it is not clearly outlined as such in the outcome that did arrive. if such a claim is made by an individual, it calls into question the soundness of the rest of their arguments with regard to knowledge and understanding of the subject in question.
thus, if this decision had provided clear guidelines for the restriction of the commerce clause, it would be obvious: a) it would be widely discussed since this would have implications for other uses of the clause, b) it would be readily cited as its presence in the majority text is the essence of a precedential ruling
yes! the "4 liberal justices" do not establish a binding decision on the question of the commerce clause. neither do the 4 dissenting justices. only the chief justice makes this claim, and it is not a part of the majority ruling.
the issue is not over a "challenge to validity" - the validity is to be determined at a later date, in a later case. a failure to establish a ruling on the basis of another clause points to hesitation in the court, but it is absolutely not binding precedent. it does not judge anything to be an unconstitutional use of power. to claim so is a total misapplication of constitutional law.
Last edited by kurai; 28th June 2012 at 08:37 PM. Reason: a political science professor who might not have read any of the decision is not a law professor
Posting Permissions
