2012 U.S. Presidential Election

[Dark Sage]

My theory is, Roy, that Roberts sided with the moderates because the four dissenting Justices were being TOO conservative, and too unwilling to compromise. They wanted to kill the whole law, even the parts that they admitted were constitutional. The unrelenting nature of their views caused Roberts to side with the President.

That is only a theory on my part. We won't know the truth until the next tell-all book written about the Court is released.

[Roy Karrde]

My theory is, Roy, that Roberts sided with the moderates because the four dissenting Justices were being TOO conservative, and too unwilling to compromise. They wanted to kill the whole law, even the parts that they admitted were constitutional. The unrelenting nature of their views caused Roberts to side with the President.

That is only a theory on my part. We won't know the truth until the next tell-all book written about the Court is released.

Well the law should have been killed because there was no sever-ability clause, meaning if one part is unconstitutional, the entire thing is unconstitutional. There is nothing radical or moderate about that, it's the law.

But if you read the dissent by Justice Scalia, it refers to Justice Ginsburg as the dissent, suggesting that it was originally written as part of a majority opinion.

[Dark Sage]

More news...

In a move that is not surprising in the least, the Justice Department has announced that they will not be prosecuting their boss Eric Holder on the criminal contempt charge that the House voted to indict him on relating to the "Fast & Furious" investigation.

Which means, more or less, that the investigation will likely not go any further.

All-in-all, this has not been a very good week for the GOP.

[Gavin Luper]

Oh of course you are right, my sister has preexisting conditions and because of it for a time my parents had to forgo insurance to pay for insurance and her and the rest of us. Honestly when the economy gets this down, for alot of people there is a choice between insurance, or paying the water/electric or tax bill.

You just made a case for free universal health care, Roy, congratulations.

Seriously.

If that is a problem for poorer folk - choosing whether to pay health insurance or bills - make the health insurance, a basic form of it, free and universal, easing the pressure on these poor folk. Well-argued, sir, well-argued.

How about I propose a health care plan that the GOP is sure to love?

It's basically the same as Obama's plan, but we scrap the mandate. If someone doesn't want to buy insurance, he doesn't have to...

HOWEVER... If he doesn't, and he goes into an emergency room seeking treatment, they get to kick him out like any other deadbeat unless he provides proof that he can pay for it.

And it doesn't matter if he's bleeding from multiple stab wounds and used his last ounce of strength to crawl into the place. No way to pay, too bad.

I'm sure that the heartless leadership of the House would find that to their liking.

Does this actually happen in the US? Are people refused medical treatment because they don't have insurance?

Or, if they don't have it, are they simply forced to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars out of their own pocket?

[Roy Karrde]

More news...

In a move that is not surprising in the least, the Justice Department has announced that they will not be prosecuting their boss Eric Holder on the criminal contempt charge that the House voted to indict him on relating to the "Fast & Furious" investigation.

Which means, more or less, that the investigation will likely not go any further.

All-in-all, this has not been a very good week for the GOP.

Umm no, the Republicans can now pursue a Civil Case in Court, which was expected all along to get the documents.

You just made a case for free universal health care, Roy, congratulations.

Seriously.

If that is a problem for poorer folk - choosing whether to pay health insurance or bills - make the health insurance, a basic form of it, free and universal, easing the pressure on these poor folk. Well-argued, sir, well-argued.

Except it is not free, it never have been free, it will never be free, there is no country in which it is free. You pay for it through taxes, you pay for it through limited resources, you pay for it through poorer treatment, you pay for it through poorer technology. And if the economy of your country collapses, you pay for it by having no health care at all.

Now do I think there should be safety nets? Do I think we should break up the monopolies per state? Of course, but that does not mean subjecting a country to universal health care and hurting the system.

Does this actually happen in the US? Are people refused medical treatment because they don't have insurance?

Or, if they don't have it, are they simply forced to pay thousands upon thousands of dollars out of their own pocket?

There are a variety of options in the U.S. from Medicaid which is Health Care for the poor, to hospitals and clinics providing free services such as Parkland in Dallas, to doctors providing payment plans.

greetings,

i think you will find that your quoted section, the clerk primarily discusses the implications of the judgement on the taxing clause and not the commerce clause - the specific application of the mandate as examined provides the sui generis (unique) condition under the taxing power which fulfills constitutional validity.

I would disagree, the entire argument in this case was that if the Commerce Cause was expanded to cover this, it would open up the ability to use it to "force people to buy broccoli" as the argument goes. As he said, this creates a unique condition through taxation, but as he also said, it denies the Government the power to use it to create new regulations through the Commerce Clause which was the fear and argument all along.

the second section you highlight is exactly analogous to roberts' remarks in III-D, wherein "And it is only because we have a duty to construe a statute to save it", which is also mirrored in the minority dissent via "ut res magis valeat quam pereat". given that both of these are obiter, it is necessary to recognize that this is not actually binding.

The clerk and law professor seems to indicate that these are binding, do you have any references of his level to say it is not?

most of the discussion about the "majority" decision on the subject of commerce is actually talking about this combination of roberts and the dissent, which is 5-4. but because this is obiter dicta, it does not define this use of the commerce clause as unconstitutional, it only points to the likelihood of such a definition in the event of a future case. this is important, but you can't skip that intermediate step in establishing an actual judgement of unconstitutionality, which was my objection at the very offset.

Right now we are going in circles, you have your beliefs I have mine, unless you have a outside source such as a law professor or clerk like I brought in and what Dark Sage brought in to back this up, the argument is pretty much over.

[Dark Sage]

Umm no, the Republicans can now pursue a Civil Case in Court, which was expected all along to get the documents.

But by the time that even starts, it may be time to start campaigning for 2016...

Face it, Roy, Issa has nothing, he'll never get anything, and this whole farce is just hurting the GOP.

[Roy Karrde]

But by the time that even starts, it may be time to start campaigning for 2016...

Oh no doubt but that did not stop the Democrats in 2007 from going after Bush's people.

Face it, Roy, Issa has nothing, he'll never get anything, and this whole farce is just hurting the GOP.

And, let me get this straight, why do you want Issa to have nothing? People died here, a U.S. Citizen died here, 300 plus Mexicans died here. This isn't some political back and forth, these are people's lives we are talking about. There is a point you put politics aside and just want the f'ing truth.

[Dark Sage]

And, let me get this straight, why do you want Issa to have nothing? People died here, a U.S. Citizen died here, 300 plus Mexicans died here. This isn't some political back and forth, these are people's lives we are talking about. There is a point you put politics aside and just want the f'ing truth.

It would help if the guy running the "investigation" wasn't a car thief who respected Executive Privledge. A lot of people don't realize that the President has the right to do that, and he's far from the only one who has. Bush and Reagan both did it far more than Obama has.

[kurai]

I would disagree, the entire argument in this case was that if the Commerce Cause was expanded to cover this, it would open up the ability to use it to "force people to buy broccoli" as the argument goes. As he said, this creates a unique condition through taxation, but as he also said, it denies the Government the power to use it to create new regulations through the Commerce Clause which was the fear and argument all along.

The clerk and law professor seems to indicate that these are binding, do you have any references of his level to say it is not?

Right now we are going in circles, you have your beliefs I have mine, unless you have a outside source such as a law professor or clerk like I brought in and what Dark Sage brought in to back this up, the argument is pretty much over.

the problem is that one must understand the distinction between obiter and ratio and how it relates to the application of judicial decisions. the clerk is making an argument for the necessity of the commerce definition in relation to the taxing power, but this is not binding in law at present, because no majority judgement to this effect exists (only an implicit majority agreement). the dark sage "law professor" source offers no elaboration on how it ought to be interpreted.

consider that what you are suggesting is that the dissent actually won - its opinion is entirely reliant on producing a restrictive definition of commerce clause powers (the majority judgement is not, it produces a definition of taxing power). but roberts did not sign that opinion: it is not the majority judgement, and there is no real way for it to act as binding precedent.

since you insist, here is a law professor and an attorney remarking as such:

Although a majority of the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act yesterday under the Tax and Spending Clause, five justices - Justice Roberts in obiter dictum and four other justices in dissent - expressed their opinion that the enforcement mechanism of individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause. In contrast, had Congress simply expanded Medicare to cover everybody it would have been perfectly constitutional under the Spending Clause. Think for a moment about what that means.

The only provisio to the general validity of PPACA is that the government’s ability and discretion to cut off state medicaid funds is to be interpreted as narrowly as possible, meaning that individual states can effectively opt out of the new coverage expansions mandated by PPACA. So extra medicaid funds are carrots, but not sticks. Since the law was generally upheld, the severability questions are moot. And interestingly, it appears that there are five votes for the idea that the mandate does exceed the Commerce power, but this is dicta, since the mandate is a valid exercise of the taxing power. I’ll have to muse on that further. Overall, a big win for the Administration, which had been bracing for a harder hit than this.

remember, obiter dictum is by definition not a binding rule of law! it literally means 'something said in passing'. it is important that 5 justices provided a similar opinion on the matter, but it has not been decided that this power is unconstitutional.

because this source is obiter, consider that if a similar case were to arise, and a lower court were to decide that compulsion of non-participants was a valid use of the commerce clause, it would not be ignoring binding precedent. they could either say:

a) we think this is a valid use, maybe the obiter in the PPACA case is not applicable to this case, feel free to take this to the supreme court and get them to actually offer a binding decision
b) the majority of scotus seems to think this is invalid, so we will cite obiter as our reason for judging against such power, feel free to take this to the supreme court and get them to actually offer a binding decision

however, if a lower court were to encounter another new case following the newly established taxing power doctrine (whether it is sui generis or not, as the clerk argues, a similar situation can be replicated), they would have to ignore the binding ratio found in PPACA in order to reject the new legislation. this would be a pretty radically activist position (it is ignoring a clear legal rule), and the decision would be overturned at a higher level - it would not make it to the roberts court, as it is unlikely to feel like overturning itself so soon.

but scotus absolutely would issue a clarifying ruling on the extent of the commerce clause, because no legal rule exists as to its application presently. only the implication that a majority of justices would rule in a particular way - this is the difference between obiter and ratio. it is important that this is enough to persuade the federal government to not try using commerce this way until the make-up of the court changes, but it does not bind lower courts to rule against such uses in any particular way. another decision is needed to provide an actual ruling that such an exercise of power is unconstitutional, as we only have obiter evidence at present.

[Leon-IH]

There are a variety of options in the U.S. from Medicaid which is Health Care for the poor, to hospitals and clinics providing free services such as Parkland in Dallas, to doctors providing payment plans.

So what you're saying is that you have a hideously disorganised and inefficient form of universal healthcare.

[Gavin Luper]

Except it is not free, it never have been free, it will never be free, there is no country in which it is free. You pay for it through taxes, you pay for it through limited resources, you pay for it through poorer treatment, you pay for it through poorer technology. And if the economy of your country collapses, you pay for it by having no health care at all.

Now do I think there should be safety nets? Do I think we should break up the monopolies per state? Of course, but that does not mean subjecting a country to universal health care and hurting the system.

Are you for real? Of course it is paid for with taxes - but it's FREE for the individual using it. That's the whole point: that for those who are the most exposed and vulnerable (say, people who are recently unemployed, laid off, homeless, whatever) and who need medical care, there is something actually available to them free of charge. Those who are employed and affluent have the same option available to them, or they can opt for a higher level of private cover, which they would have to pay for themselves.

There would not be a situation where there is no health cover at all because the system single-handedly ruins the economy - I can't believe this is your argument.

As it is, I understand that people are forced to pay thousands upon thousands that they can't afford - leading to bankruptcy, poverty, crime and shonky dealings and loans - which is worse for the economy and the health system. If people didn't have this burden and had some basic universal safety net, the standard of living would improve along with it.

As far as I can see, you are arguing against this proposal because you fear that the wealthy will have to share the health system with the poor, or you fear that in allowing the poor access to the health care system, the standard of care for the wealthy would be diminished. That's the main concern you have, isn't it? Not that the far more numerous poor might actually get access to the care they need?

[Roy Karrde]

Are you for real? Of course it is paid for with taxes - but it's FREE for the individual using it. That's the whole point: that for those who are the most exposed and vulnerable (say, people who are recently unemployed, laid off, homeless, whatever) and who need medical care, there is something actually available to them free of charge. Those who are employed and affluent have the same option available to them, or they can opt for a higher level of private cover, which they would have to pay for themselves.

Again you are not getting my point, if you are paying for it in taxes it is not free, you are just shifting the cost from paying for it through the insurance every month, to paying for it through the government every month.

There would not be a situation where there is no health cover at all because the system single-handedly ruins the economy - I can't believe this is your argument.

I am not saying it single-handedly ruins the economy, although it could contribute to it. I am saying that when you have a health care system completely reliant on the Government, if the Government gets in trouble, as we are seeing in Greece. The health care system fails completely. If you want further proof I would suggest reading this.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...2b9df19d45.2b1

As far as I can see, you are arguing against this proposal because you fear that the wealthy will have to share the health system with the poor, or you fear that in allowing the poor access to the health care system, the standard of care for the wealthy would be diminished. That's the main concern you have, isn't it? Not that the far more numerous poor might actually get access to the care they need?

I could care less for what the wealthy get, I am worried about the standard of care for the middle class and elderly as it begins to diminish as the abuse of the system rises. Health Care is not a infinite resource, it is a finite one that when abused can lead to massive trouble ( The Parkland Hospital example I gave ). To make this a Wealthy vs Poor thing ignores the fact that the Wealthy and Middle Class and a significant amount of the Poor already share a high standard of care, one that would diminish if a Universal System was introduced such as Medicare.