The Intelligent & Relentless Pursuit of Muscle™
Politics and World Issues
 
SCOTUS to Take on Health Reform
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24827

MaximusB wrote:
... And THIS ^^^ is what SCOTUS is probably looking at in the future.

What other bullshit (good or bad) will future governments (regardless of whom is in power) will people be forced to purchase, in the name of "the Commerce Clause."

Perhaps SCOTUS hopes to nip this in the bud, right here and right now, to prevent this very issue.


Should have done that in 38.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24827

benos4752 wrote:
LMAO. So I posted this question on fb, I was a little more wordy there, but basically, "If contracts are null and void if entered into under duress, how can the federal government force someone to buy health insurance? If your options are to either buy it or be fined, than you are entering into the contract under duress; being forced into it."

Liberal I know posted this; "Your contract was written and signed for when a doctor delivered you and when you started paying taxes. If you can pay taxes you can pay into healthcare. Think about it before you elect to get into a debate."

My reply, "I think you need to learn to follow your own advice. Explain to me how your contract was written and signed when you're born. And how the issue of buying healthcare and paying for it out of my own pocket, or receiving a fine, which is the issue of the individual mandate, has anything to do with taxes."

And finally, proving that he has no idea what he is talking about, he replied, "Take a moment, educate yourself on healthcare. You pay taxes, I pay taxes and the majority of unpaid bills are paid for by our taxes. You have already paid into the healthcare system when your parents paid taxes and had you. If you have a job, pay taxes you already own the social healthcare system."

This is what we're up against...it would be funny if people like him weren't out the voting.


O_O

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13663

thunderbolt23 wrote:
...Of course, that isn't terribly surprising when you insist that a 2,700 page bill chocked full of random parts (like a Frankenstein' monster) be passed before anyone can read it.


Heh, speaking of it's monstrous bulk....

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to--to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?


http://freebeacon.com/...ual-punishment/

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

MaximusB
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14626

Sloth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
...Of course, that isn't terribly surprising when you insist that a 2,700 page bill chocked full of random parts (like a Frankenstein' monster) be passed before anyone can read it.


Heh, speaking of it's monstrous bulk....

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to--to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?


http://freebeacon.com/...ual-punishment/




Fuck it, no one else read the law, why should they ?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

MaximusB wrote:

Fuck it, no one else read the law, why should they ?


Heh, exactly.

Although maybe that cuts the other way - by gum, someone ought to read the damn thing and figure out what it says.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

thunderbolt23
Level

Join date: Mar 2003
Posts: 8162

Here is a good point re: the government lawyer's performance:

Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn't that he's a bad lawyer, it's that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn'tâ??not because he didn't know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.

http://online.wsj.com/...ss_opinion_main

Based on what I've read, he still could have done a better job, as he at least should have been prepared to nuance some of these points. At the end of the day, however, he had a crappy position that he can't defend, and that ain't his fault.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

ZEB
Level

Join date: Sep 2003
Posts: 19363

thunderbolt23 wrote:
Here is a good point re: the government lawyer's performance:

Mr. Verrilli may not be Daniel Webster, but he was more than competent. The problem isn't that he's a bad lawyer, it's that he is defending a bad law with the bad arguments that are the best the Administration could muster. Liberal Justices such as Sonia Sotomayor all but begged him to define a limiting principle on the individual mandate and therefore on federal power. He couldn'tâ??not because he didn't know someone would ask but because such a principle does not exist.

http://online.wsj.com/...ss_opinion_main

Based on what I've read, he still could have done a better job, as he at least should have been prepared to nuance some of these points. At the end of the day, however, he had a crappy position that he can't defend, and that ain't his fault.




All completely true, however there was never a need for him to sound like a stammering fool. One would think that by now he'd have had enough time to rehearse how to answer the inevitable questions.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

njrusmc
Level 4

Join date: Jun 2008
Posts: 1118

Am I complete asshole for saying "If you get hurt and don't have insurance, too fucking bad"?

I pay my premiums, I've served in combat, I've worked since I was 11, and I made the choice to succeed in life. Why should I support those who contribute nothing by choice?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24827

njrusmc wrote:
Am I complete asshole for saying "If you get hurt and don't have insurance, too fucking bad"?

I pay my premiums, I've served in combat, I've worked since I was 11, and I made the choice to succeed in life. Why should I support those who contribute nothing by choice?


Altruism.

People in need need it more than you.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

orion
Level 5

Join date: Jun 2005
Posts: 24827

MaximusB wrote:
Sloth wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
...Of course, that isn't terribly surprising when you insist that a 2,700 page bill chocked full of random parts (like a Frankenstein' monster) be passed before anyone can read it.


Heh, speaking of it's monstrous bulk....

Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia humorously invoked the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids cruel and unusual punishments, when discussing the Obamacare legislation during oral argument today at the Supreme Court.

JUSTICE SCALIA: Mr. Kneedler, what happened to the Eighth Amendment? You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages?

(Laughter.)

JUSTICE SCALIA: And do you really expect the Court to do that? Or do you expect us to--to give this function to our law clerks?

Is this not totally unrealistic? That we are going to go through this enormous bill item by item and decide each one?


http://freebeacon.com/...ual-punishment/




Fuck it, no one else read the law, why should they ?


If they hand down a verdict along the lines "fuck this, I am not reading this, its probably unconstitutional" I would go gay for Scalia.

No reason for the judiciary to actually read laws.

Fuck that!

Nobody else does.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

StevenF
Level 4

Join date: Feb 2003
Posts: 4353

njrusmc wrote:
Am I complete asshole for saying "If you get hurt and don't have insurance, too fucking bad"?

I pay my premiums, I've served in combat, I've worked since I was 11, and I made the choice to succeed in life. Why should I support those who contribute nothing by choice?


I agree with this. But part of the problem is its so god damn expensive. I won't pretend to know anything about economics but there has to be a way to make it more affordable to us commoners.

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

Sloth
Level

Join date: Dec 2002
Posts: 13663

...A land of laws decays almost imperceptibly into a land of legalisms, which is why America has 50 percent of the world's lawyers. Like most of his colleagues, lifetime legislator John Conyers (a congressman for 47 years) didn't bother reading the 2,700-page health-care bill he voted for. As he said with disarming honesty, he wouldn't understand it even if he did: "They get up and say, 'Read the bill." What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

It would be churlish to direct readers to the video posted on the Internet of Representative Conyers finding time to peruse a copy of Playboy while on a commuter flight to Detroit. So let's take him at his word that it would be unreasonable to expect a legislator to know what it is he's actually legislating into law. Who does read the thing? "What happened to the Eighth Amendment" sighed Justice Scalia the other day. That's the bit about cruel and unusual punishment. "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages . . . ? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?"

He was making a narrow argument about "severability"--about whether the Court could junk the "individual mandate" but pick and choose what bits of Obamacare to keep. Yet he was unintentionally making a far more basic point: A 2,700-page law is not a "law" by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there's no equality: Instead, there's a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown, and unnumbered bureaucracy. It's not just that the legislators who legislate it don't know what's in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation's most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.

If the Supreme Court really wished to perform a service, it would declare that henceforth no law can be longer than, say, 27 pages--or, at any rate, no longer than the copy of Playboy Congressman Conyers was reading on that commuter flight.

C'mon, Justice Kennedy. Obamacare v. Playboy: It would be a decision for the ages--and an act of bracing constitutional hygiene.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...mark-steyn?pg=1

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

MaximusB
Level 5

Join date: Apr 2006
Posts: 14626

The Liberal spin on this now is, should Conservatives strike the law down, they are activist judges. If the law was upheld, would it also be due to activist judges ?

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report
 

DrSkeptix
Level 3

Join date: Nov 2004
Posts: 2253

Sloth wrote:
...A land of laws decays almost imperceptibly into a land of legalisms, which is why America has 50 percent of the world's lawyers. Like most of his colleagues, lifetime legislator John Conyers (a congressman for 47 years) didn't bother reading the 2,700-page health-care bill he voted for. As he said with disarming honesty, he wouldn't understand it even if he did: "They get up and say, 'Read the bill." What good is reading the bill if it's a thousand pages and you don't have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?"

It would be churlish to direct readers to the video posted on the Internet of Representative Conyers finding time to peruse a copy of Playboy while on a commuter flight to Detroit. So let's take him at his word that it would be unreasonable to expect a legislator to know what it is he's actually legislating into law. Who does read the thing? "What happened to the Eighth Amendment" sighed Justice Scalia the other day. That's the bit about cruel and unusual punishment. "You really want us to go through these 2,700 pages . . . ? Or do you expect us to give this function to our law clerks?"

He was making a narrow argument about "severability"--about whether the Court could junk the "individual mandate" but pick and choose what bits of Obamacare to keep. Yet he was unintentionally making a far more basic point: A 2,700-page law is not a "law" by any civilized understanding of the term. Law rests on the principle of equality before it. When a bill is 2,700 pages, there's no equality: Instead, there's a hierarchy of privilege micro-regulated by an unelected, unaccountable, unconstrained, unknown, and unnumbered bureaucracy. It's not just that the legislators who legislate it don't know what's in it, nor that the citizens on the receiving end can never hope to understand it, but that even the nation's most eminent judges acknowledge that it is beyond individual human comprehension. A 2,700-page law is, by definition, an affront to self-government.

If the Supreme Court really wished to perform a service, it would declare that henceforth no law can be longer than, say, 27 pages--or, at any rate, no longer than the copy of Playboy Congressman Conyers was reading on that commuter flight.

C'mon, Justice Kennedy. Obamacare v. Playboy: It would be a decision for the ages--and an act of bracing constitutional hygiene.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...mark-steyn?pg=1


"The internal effects of a mutable policy are still more calamitous. It poisons the blessing of liberty itself. It will be of little avail to the people, that the laws are made by men of their own choice, if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow. Law is defined to be a rule of action; but how can that be a rule, which is little known, and less fixed?"

The Federalist, No. 62

  Post New Thread | Reply | Quote | Report