If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Administration lawyers are concerned about an activist Supreme Court. Reagan Administration lawyers. And they are worried that an activist court will throw out Obamacare   (latimes.com) divider line 225
    More: Interesting, supreme courts, obamacare, Reagan administration, judicial restraint, Justice Antonin Scalia, Reagan Administration lawyers, administrative laws, judicial activisms  
•       •       •

3388 clicks; posted to Politics » on 01 Apr 2012 at 5:15 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



225 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-01 02:35:10 PM
John G. Roberts sure does have a punchable face.
 
2012-04-01 02:40:25 PM
Pshaw, judicial activism has always been OK when it's conservative judicial activism. It's the liberal judicial activism that's destroying America.

Not sure what the difference is? Just ask John Boehner, or Eric Cantor, or Mitch McConnell. That's what Roberts does.
 
2012-04-01 03:22:49 PM
The court's leading conservatives objected and spoke of their duty to enforce limits set by the Constitution. If the government can force people to enter the market and buy insurance, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "what's left?"

"The federal government is not supposed to be a government that has all powers," he said.


f*cking bullshiat. if you really gave a damn about limiting government authority and power then you'd dismantle the war on drugs laws and go after the gotdamn patriot act. you don't care about limiting government, you just care about limiting OBAMA and the Democrats. the rest is merely sophistry.
 
2012-04-01 03:34:24 PM
FTA: If the government can force people to enter the market and buy insurance, Justice Antonin Scalia asked, "what's left?"

You mean like... auto insurance?
 
2012-04-01 04:01:18 PM
If [they strike down the law], it would be the first time since 1936 that the Supreme Court voided a major federal regulatory law.

This is why people are saying "If they uphold the bill, it's fine, if they overturn it, it's radical." No matter how much Fark Independents keep prattling on about how this it's somehow a double standard to say that, the fact of the matter is that the history of the Supreme Court over the last 80 years has been one of very broad deference to the federal government. If they strike down the law, it will be a radical departure from previous precedent, and as this article plainly shows, you don't have to be a liberal to think that. All you have to be is knowledgeable about constitutional law.
 
2012-04-01 04:02:32 PM
This is why you always check to see if judicial nominees are secretly crossing their fingers under the table.
 
2012-04-01 04:06:12 PM

Rincewind53: If [they strike down the law], it would be the first time since 1936 that the Supreme Court voided a major federal regulatory law.

This is why people are saying "If they uphold the bill, it's fine, if they overturn it, it's radical." No matter how much Fark Independents keep prattling on about how this it's somehow a double standard to say that, the fact of the matter is that the history of the Supreme Court over the last 80 years has been one of very broad deference to the federal government. If they strike down the law, it will be a radical departure from previous precedent, and as this article plainly shows, you don't have to be a liberal to think that. All you have to be is knowledgeable about constitutional law.


reason and knowledge of history aren't useful to the GOP shills. this isn't about being historically accurate, its about winning the white house. And if they have to pretend that black is white and that 2 + 2 = 5 well then...so be it! Party first, Party last and Party always.
 
2012-04-01 04:57:46 PM

Weaver95: Rincewind53: If [they strike down the law], it would be the first time since 1936 that the Supreme Court voided a major federal regulatory law.

This is why people are saying "If they uphold the bill, it's fine, if they overturn it, it's radical." No matter how much Fark Independents keep prattling on about how this it's somehow a double standard to say that, the fact of the matter is that the history of the Supreme Court over the last 80 years has been one of very broad deference to the federal government. If they strike down the law, it will be a radical departure from previous precedent, and as this article plainly shows, you don't have to be a liberal to think that. All you have to be is knowledgeable about constitutional law.

reason and knowledge of history aren't useful to the GOP shills. this isn't about being historically accurate, its about winning the white house. And if they have to pretend that black is white and that 2 + 2 = 5 well then...so be it! Party first, Party last and Party always.


If they were to pretend that black is white, they would have a long- or even medium-term political strategy more in-depth than "Make the current Democrat President a one-term President at all costs"
 
2012-04-01 05:10:30 PM

King Something: If they were to pretend that black is white, they would have a long- or even medium-term political strategy more in-depth than "Make the current Democrat President a one-term President at all costs"


Oh they've got a long term plan, but the leadership knows better than to actually TELL the rank and file that the plan involves selling 'em out to the highest bidder. no, they'll keep it vague and distract everyone with abortion, states rights or comments about 'socialism' and/or birth control pills. But the long term plan has always been to cede more power, control and authority to corporations while locking down as many citizens as possible.
 
2012-04-01 05:17:57 PM
Will of the people. Elections have consequences. Blargh.
 
2012-04-01 05:21:38 PM
Throw out Obamacare, throw out Medicare, stop treating people without insurance at emergency rooms and wait a few months for the single payer government run healthcare constitutional amendment to pass.
 
2012-04-01 05:29:15 PM
Look you dipshiats, you complaining about activist judges is just as stupid as when the conservatives do it. I think you need to look up this whole checks and balances thing.
 
2012-04-01 05:29:39 PM
Um, the USSC is explicitly intended to be the final sanity check on laws. They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits, so they're by definition an activist court, since 1789 or so.
 
2012-04-01 05:31:26 PM

Jim_Callahan: Um, the USSC is explicitly intended to be the final sanity check on laws. They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits, so they're by definition an activist court, since 1789 or so.


Wrong. They have the power of judicial review because of legal precedent and judicial activism.
 
2012-04-01 05:31:33 PM
The only outcome is that Supreme Court nominations are going to become even more contentious -- like all the other judicial nominations, the minority party in the Senate will begin to filibuster them and drag out the process for months. It will be a further breakdown of the Senate.
 
2012-04-01 05:33:25 PM

Jim_Callahan: They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits . . .


So, USSC is supposed to ignore stare decisis?
 
2012-04-01 05:34:28 PM

James F. Campbell: You mean like... auto insurance?


*yawn*

Please cite where the Federal government mandates that individuals buy auto insurance. My state does, but that's a different matter, altogether. My state could also mandate I buy health insurance, sign up for Medicaid, or pay a fine, and there wouldn't be an issue. Why is this difficult to understand?

Single-payer national health insurance would constitutional. Democrats hate it because it takes away "employer-sponsored" insurance. It's also paid for with a progressive income tax, which modern progressives hate. A progressive tax paid into a fund for government-sponsored coverage, as the penalty for not having private insurance would also probably be okay. Again, though, Democrats didn't want that.
 
2012-04-01 05:35:18 PM

Rincewind53: This is why people are saying "If they uphold the bill, it's fine, if they overturn it, it's radical." No matter how much Fark Independents keep prattling on about how this it's somehow a double standard to say that, the fact of the matter is that the history of the Supreme Court over the last 80 years has been one of very broad deference to the federal government. If they strike down the law, it will be a radical departure from previous precedent, and as this article plainly shows, you don't have to be a liberal to think that. All you have to be is knowledgeable about constitutional law.


So to prove their not activist, they shouldn't decide the case based on its merits but instead on its political ramifications.
 
2012-04-01 05:35:46 PM

bulldg4life: Will of the people. Elections have consequences. Blargh.


Unless the black guy wins.
 
2012-04-01 05:35:56 PM

Jim_Callahan: Um, the USSC is explicitly intended to be the final sanity check on laws. They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits, so they're by definition an activist court, since 1789 or so.


You mean when they granted themselves that power, in Marbury v. Madison? I believe that was in 1803.

/so it goes, as someone has to be the final sanity check
//but it was supposed to have been the congress
///unfortunately that doesn't work either, as voters are dumb
 
2012-04-01 05:37:22 PM

thornhill: It will be a further breakdown of the Senate.


Is it even possible for it to be any more broken than it has been since Arlen Specter snitched parties?
 
2012-04-01 05:37:26 PM

hurdboy: James F. Campbell: You mean like... auto insurance?

*yawn*

Please cite where the Federal government mandates that individuals buy auto insurance. My state does, but that's a different matter, altogether. My state could also mandate I buy health insurance, sign up for Medicaid, or pay a fine, and there wouldn't be an issue. Why is this difficult to understand?

Single-payer national health insurance would constitutional. Democrats hate it because it takes away "employer-sponsored" insurance. It's also paid for with a progressive income tax, which modern progressives hate. A progressive tax paid into a fund for government-sponsored coverage, as the penalty for not having private insurance would also probably be okay. Again, though, Democrats didn't want that.


I'm a libtastic libby lib and I would be down with all of that.
 
2012-04-01 05:39:26 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Jim_Callahan: They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits . . .

So, USSC is supposed to ignore stare decisis?


They are if a law is unconstitutional... but all we have to do is read the article to see what happens when a society's laws are built on a proverbial house of cards, where a whole shiat-ton of stuff suddenly displays itself as potentially unconstitutional.
 
2012-04-01 05:39:49 PM

hurdboy: Single-payer national health insurance would constitutional. Democrats hate it because it takes away "employer-sponsored" insurance. It's also paid for with a progressive income tax, which modern progressives hate. A progressive tax paid into a fund for government-sponsored coverage, as the penalty for not having private insurance would also probably be okay. Again, though, Democrats didn't want that.


wat
 
2012-04-01 05:40:06 PM

Mrbogey: So to prove their not activist, they shouldn't decide the case based on its merits but instead on its political ramifications.


Way to not understand the point at all.

On the merits, this case fits very well into established precedent, that the Supreme Court gives high deference to Congressional action as relates to interstate commerce, and upholding the law will not say anything about political ramifications because it fits squarely within precedent. If they decide to overturn it, it will be seen as a nakedly political action, to overturn 80 years of precedent because they don't like a law. Not liking a law is not grounds for calling it unconstitutional.
 
2012-04-01 05:41:06 PM

Satanic_Hamster: Unless the black guy wins.


In that case, usurper shoving things down our throats blargh
 
2012-04-01 05:41:15 PM

gameshowhost: Three Crooked Squirrels: Jim_Callahan: They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits . . .

So, USSC is supposed to ignore stare decisis?

They are if a law is unconstitutional... but all we have to do is read the article to see what happens when a society's laws are built on a proverbial house of cards, where a whole shiat-ton of stuff suddenly displays itself as potentially unconstitutional.


TEEHEE I'M RETARDED
/wrong article
//let me douse myself in tar; you guys collect the feathers :/
 
2012-04-01 05:41:59 PM

hurdboy: James F. Campbell: You mean like... auto insurance?

*yawn*

Please cite where the Federal government mandates that individuals buy auto insurance. My state does, but that's a different matter, altogether. My state could also mandate I buy health insurance, sign up for Medicaid, or pay a fine, and there wouldn't be an issue. Why is this difficult to understand?

Single-payer national health insurance would constitutional. Democrats hate it because it takes away "employer-sponsored" insurance. It's also paid for with a progressive income tax, which modern progressives hate. A progressive tax paid into a fund for government-sponsored coverage, as the penalty for not having private insurance would also probably be okay. Again, though, Democrats didn't want that.


I don't know what dirty pinko Commie socialists you're talking to, but I'm fully in support of progressive taxes paying for Medicare for All. I was pissed when the public option was taken off the table.
 
2012-04-01 05:44:02 PM

Jim_Callahan: Um, the USSC is explicitly intended to be the final sanity check on laws. They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits, so they're by definition an activist court, since 1789 or so.


Actually, the Supreme Court is in general supposed to follow their own precedence. It's called stare decisis and it's short for a Latin phrase meaning "to stand by decisions and not disturb the undisturbed." And the Supreme Court wasn't really an "activist" court until it established the principle of judicial review in 1803. Note that judicial review is not written directly into the Constitution, but is (as Chief Justice Marshall argued), inherent in the thing.
 
2012-04-01 05:44:03 PM

hurdboy: My state does, but that's a different matter, altogether.


I've never understood this argument. States are just a subset of the Federal government. They can't exceed Federal laws, but they can act within their own laws. If states have a power, why is it anathema that the Federal government does it?

It's like around 2008 a bunch of people suddenly read the 10th Amendment and decided it would fix everything, along with the 2nd. The rest of it can go fark itself.
 
2012-04-01 05:44:31 PM
The Supreme Court is well within its jurisdiction to strike down Obamacare. On the other hand, at least two and possibly more of the Justices seem to have been bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers and their friends. The process for impeaching a Supreme Court judge is essentially the same as for a president--impeached by the House, tried in the Senate. If the Democrats can take back the House Alito and Thomas seem like likely candidates.
 
2012-04-01 05:45:26 PM
Oops, Scalia and Thomas. Dang Eyetalians.
 
2012-04-01 05:47:30 PM

Rincewind53: On the merits, this case fits very well into established precedent, that the Supreme Court gives high deference to Congressional action as relates to interstate commerce, and upholding the law will not say anything about political ramifications because it fits squarely within precedent.


And that's nice if you think stare decisis is an end unto itself.

Something isn't Constitutional just because it fits within arguments made in the past.

Consequently, just because you like something doesn't make it Constitutional.
 
2012-04-01 05:47:45 PM
Was that a headline or a telegram?
 
2012-04-01 05:49:11 PM
How the fark can Thomas even rule on ACA's constitutionality when his wife Ginni has brought hundreds of thousands of dollars into their joint bank accounts through her lobbying for the industry?

/Think Anthony Weiner was on a big kick on this topic before being so rudely interrupted.
 
2012-04-01 05:49:38 PM

clambam: The Supreme Court is well within its jurisdiction to strike down Obamacare. On the other hand, at least two and possibly more of the Justices seem to have been bought and paid for by the Koch Brothers and their friends. The process for impeaching a Supreme Court judge is essentially the same as for a president--impeached by the House, tried in the Senate. If the Democrats can take back the House Alito and Thomas seem like likely candidates.


That is extremely unlikely, and in fact, the chance that it will happen is so close to zero that it should be said to be zero.

And impeachment does not remove a justice from the bench (just as it doesn't remove a President from office), that can only be done through conviction. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, and that was over 200 years ago; he wasn't convicted. So, even though technically it is possible to remove a Justice through impeachment and conviction, in reality the only way to remove a justice is retirement or death.
 
2012-04-01 05:52:29 PM

Mrbogey: And that's nice if you think stare decisis is an end unto itself.

Something isn't Constitutional just because it fits within arguments made in the past.

Consequently, just because you like something doesn't make it Constitutional.


And your point is? This thread is about whether or not it would be activist or radical to overturn 80 years of precedence. Everything you just said is completely correct, and does not address that issue in the slightest.

Brown v. Board of Education was radical, activist, and completely correct and constitutional.
 
2012-04-01 05:53:07 PM

Jim_Callahan: Um, the USSC is explicitly intended to be the final sanity check on laws. They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits, so they're by definition an activist court, since 1789 or so.


You would probably enjoy reading some books about the history of the court and its decisions. I love Rehnquist's The Supreme Court, Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court and Jeffrey Toobin's The Nine.
 
2012-04-01 05:53:29 PM
What is this thread, my homework thread????? I'm in a constitutional law class this spring, started Monday. And right now most of what we're talking about is Marbury v. Madison. With a little bit of McCulloch v. Maryland thrown in for good measure.
 
2012-04-01 05:55:00 PM

James F. Campbell: John G. Roberts sure does have a punchable face.


I think he's kinda DILFy.
 
2012-04-01 05:55:05 PM

Rincewind53: And your point is? This thread is about whether or not it would be activist or radical to overturn 80 years of precedence. Everything you just said is completely correct, and does not address that issue in the slightest.

Brown v. Board of Education was radical, activist, and completely correct and constitutional.



Activist and radical are not synonymous in all cases. Radical decisions happen sometimes when previous activism pushed the balance too hard one way. So either you hold to stare decisis and let the unconstitutional expansion stand or you reign it in.

The oral arguments suggesting what the limits of US Constitution are suggests the top 5 will vote that Obamacare is too much of a grab.
 
2012-04-01 05:56:11 PM

lennavan: Look you dipshiats, you complaining about activist judges is just as stupid as when the conservatives do it. I think you need to look up this whole checks and balances thing.


Uh but it is conservatives complaining about activist judges, did you not see St. Reagan's name in the headline?
 
2012-04-01 05:57:33 PM

LockeOak: hurdboy: James F. Campbell: You mean like... auto insurance?

*yawn*

Please cite where the Federal government mandates that individuals buy auto insurance. My state does, but that's a different matter, altogether. My state could also mandate I buy health insurance, sign up for Medicaid, or pay a fine, and there wouldn't be an issue. Why is this difficult to understand?

Single-payer national health insurance would constitutional. Democrats hate it because it takes away "employer-sponsored" insurance. It's also paid for with a progressive income tax, which modern progressives hate. A progressive tax paid into a fund for government-sponsored coverage, as the penalty for not having private insurance would also probably be okay. Again, though, Democrats didn't want that.

I'm a libtastic libby lib and I would be down with all of that.


i5.photobucket.com
 
2012-04-01 06:00:03 PM

Rincewind53: That is extremely unlikely, and in fact, the chance that it will happen is so close to zero that it should be said to be zero.

And impeachment does not remove a justice from the bench (just as it doesn't remove a President from office), that can only be done through conviction. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, and that was over 200 years ago; he wasn't convicted. So, even though technically it is possible to remove a Justice through impeachment and conviction, in reality the only way to remove a justice is retirement or death.


So what would you say the odds were of someone losing the popular vote, losing the electoral vote, and then having the will of the people overturned by a governor who just happened to be his brother and a Supreme Court a significant percentage of whose members just happened to have been appointed by his father? Pretty farking unlikely, isn't it? It seems to me we're living in the age of unlikelihood now.
 
2012-04-01 06:00:43 PM

Mrbogey: Rincewind53: And your point is? This thread is about whether or not it would be activist or radical to overturn 80 years of precedence. Everything you just said is completely correct, and does not address that issue in the slightest.

Brown v. Board of Education was radical, activist, and completely correct and constitutional.


Activist and radical are not synonymous in all cases. Radical decisions happen sometimes when previous activism pushed the balance too hard one way. So either you hold to stare decisis and let the unconstitutional expansion stand or you reign it in.

The oral arguments suggesting what the limits of US Constitution are suggests the top 5 will vote that Obamacare is too much of a grab.


Okay, so you agree then that overturning established Commerce Clause jurisprudence would be radical? While of course the court is not bound by precedent, it is guided by it and operates with a presumption that it must justify any break from precedent with good reason. The majority of constitutional law scholars have come out and said that the ACA is not a "grab" and under the current view of things as has stood for decades is completely constitutional.

Even if you personally think the law is unconstitutional, it doesn't chance that for the Court to overturn the law, it would be making a "grab" of their own and unsettling established precedent to push back against Congress.
 
2012-04-01 06:04:00 PM

clambam: Rincewind53: That is extremely unlikely, and in fact, the chance that it will happen is so close to zero that it should be said to be zero.

And impeachment does not remove a justice from the bench (just as it doesn't remove a President from office), that can only be done through conviction. Only one Supreme Court justice has ever been impeached, and that was over 200 years ago; he wasn't convicted. So, even though technically it is possible to remove a Justice through impeachment and conviction, in reality the only way to remove a justice is retirement or death.

So what would you say the odds were of someone losing the popular vote, losing the electoral vote, and then having the will of the people overturned by a governor who just happened to be his brother and a Supreme Court a significant percentage of whose members just happened to have been appointed by his father? Pretty farking unlikely, isn't it? It seems to me we're living in the age of unlikelihood now.


Bbbuuuttt Bush v. Gore isn't really a strong argument as to why you think it's possible that the Senate and the House will jointly impeach, then convict a sitting Supreme Court justice for... what exactly? What illegal things have they done, besides made decisions you and me probably disagree with? The Constitution requires impeachment to be for "good cause", you can't just impeach for the hell of it.

It hasn't happened in the last 223 years, and I'd say there is a 99.9999% chance it won't happen in the next 223 years.
 
2012-04-01 06:08:01 PM

LockeOak: I'm a libtastic libby lib and I would be down with all of that.


And, see, I'm not really liberal. There's things government can do well. Insurance is one of them. Where government health care falls down is when they attempt to be single-provider.

Serious Black: I don't know what dirty pinko Commie socialists you're talking to, but I'm fully in support of progressive taxes paying for Medicare for All. I was pissed when the public option was taken off the table.


So, you'd be okay with the "payroll tax" breaks expiring at the end of the year?
I am.
Along with all of the "Bush Tax Cuts." All of them. Not just the rate on the top bracket. All of them. And the doubled child credit. And the AMT fixes. And the marriage penalty fixes. All of them.

(Being married without any kids, my own taxes will go up. So be it.)

GAT_00: If states have a power, why is it anathema that the Federal government does it?


It's the essence of Federalism. Not every other state has a form of government similar to mine, even though the Federal Bill of Rights is based on law that existed in my state prior to the US Federal system.

Biological Ali: wat


House Democrats didn't even seriously attempt a single-payer insurance system. There was the half-hearted "public option" nonsense that was DOA in the Senate. Bernie Sanders introduced a single-payer insurance bill in the Senate. It failed there, and Pelosi wouldn't even consider it for the House.

Taking away the health benefits bargaining chip further relegates organized labor into its rightful place in the dustbin of history. Since what's left of organized labor have firmly attached themselves to the Democratic Party's ship, it'll never happen.

Same reason why they didn't modify the Civil Rights Act to include sexual orientation as a protected class. Would have ended the gay marriage issue and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in one fell swoop. But it wouldn't even pass the Democrats' caucus.
 
2012-04-01 06:12:19 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Jim_Callahan: They're supposed to ignore precedent and examine things on their own merits . . .

So, USSC is supposed to ignore stare decisis?


Yes. Well, they can honor it if they find it appropriate, but they are under no obligation to do so.
 
2012-04-01 06:14:15 PM

hurdboy: James F. Campbell: You mean like... auto insurance?

*yawn*

Please cite where the Federal government mandates that individuals buy auto insurance. My state does, but that's a different matter, altogether. My state could also mandate I buy health insurance, sign up for Medicaid, or pay a fine, and there wouldn't be an issue. Why is this difficult to understand?

Single-payer national health insurance would constitutional. Democrats hate it because it takes away "employer-sponsored" insurance. It's also paid for with a progressive income tax, which modern progressives hate. A progressive tax paid into a fund for government-sponsored coverage, as the penalty for not having private insurance would also probably be okay. Again, though, Democrats didn't want that.


Using this logic the states would be able to do anything they want to. Because if you look at the bill of rights, it specifically states it only applies to the federal government. No more 1st amendment protections from state goverments etc...
 
2012-04-01 06:16:19 PM

Warlordtrooper: hurdboy: James F. Campbell: You mean like... auto insurance?

*yawn*

Please cite where the Federal government mandates that individuals buy auto insurance. My state does, but that's a different matter, altogether. My state could also mandate I buy health insurance, sign up for Medicaid, or pay a fine, and there wouldn't be an issue. Why is this difficult to understand?

Single-payer national health insurance would constitutional. Democrats hate it because it takes away "employer-sponsored" insurance. It's also paid for with a progressive income tax, which modern progressives hate. A progressive tax paid into a fund for government-sponsored coverage, as the penalty for not having private insurance would also probably be okay. Again, though, Democrats didn't want that.

Using this logic the states would be able to do anything they want to. Because if you look at the bill of rights, it specifically states it only applies to the federal government. No more 1st amendment protections from state goverments etc...


14th Amendment extended the Bill of Rights to the states.
 
Displayed 50 of 225 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report