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.

(NewsBusters)   Newsweek writer wants to impeach the Supreme Court for doing its job as decided in Marbury V Madison. Also wants the wizard to grant him a brain   (newsbusters.org) divider line 111
    More: Dumbass, U.S. Supreme Court, Newsweek, obamacare, Ben Shapiro, Big Journalism, Roberts Court, Gilded Age, Democratic-Republican Party  
•       •       •

1814 clicks; posted to Politics » on 05 Apr 2012 at 10:55 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-04-05 10:05:42 AM  
But Constitution Jesus hates Marbury vs. Madison:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

This case allows for judicial review of the Constitution and made it possible for appointed activist judges to interpret the Constitution, creating a new mandate that in turn becomes the law of the land.


Don't make Supreme Court Judge cry again.
 
2012-04-05 10:11:59 AM  
Newsweek used to be a magazine. It is now a pamphlet.
 
2012-04-05 10:50:24 AM  
Newsweek published an article advocating we impeach judges for judicial activism written by someone who also authored a book titled America's Prophets: How Judicial Activism Makes America Great (new window).

This is just embarrassing.
 
2012-04-05 10:59:39 AM  
Newsweek is weak news.

Nutclusters are nutty.
 
2012-04-05 11:03:49 AM  
His argument was given due consideration by the country's highest court and rejected by a 9-0 vote.
 
2012-04-05 11:04:04 AM  
Thomas should be impeached for tax fraud.
 
2012-04-05 11:06:27 AM  
Remember folks. When we like what they rule, it's the third branch of government doing their job and it's been that way since the 19th century. When we don't like their ruling, they're un-elected dictators usurping the will of the people. Keep it straight, everyone.
 
2012-04-05 11:07:06 AM  
I have no idea if Newsbusters has a legit point on this matter and I won't click to find out. Once they demonstrated they have the sandiest vaginas on the internet they ceased to be worth reading.

Having said that, judicial review is now supported by 200+ years of precedent, so the suggestion that judges should be impeached for engaging in it is pants-on-head retarded.
 
2012-04-05 11:10:14 AM  

tnpir: I have no idea if Newsbusters has a legit point on this matter and I won't click to find out. Once they demonstrated they have the sandiest vaginas on the internet they ceased to be worth reading.

Having said that, judicial review is now supported by 200+ years of precedent, so the suggestion that judges should be impeached for engaging in it is pants-on-head retarded.


Yeah, dammit. I clicked on the link before I noticed the newsbusters thing. It's already been a long morning. Now I must atone for the sin of clicking on that shiatty site.
 
2012-04-05 11:12:16 AM  
I simply can't believe the insane things I imagine Liberals think!
 
2012-04-05 11:12:54 AM  
Marbury v. Madison is a funny one. It basically decided that even though it isn't laid out in the Constitution, that it had the right itself to decide Constitutionality.
 
2012-04-05 11:15:17 AM  

Muta: Thomas should be impeached for tax fraud.


I thought the problem was that while taxes were paid on his wife's income, it wasn't reported as required. It also wasn't reported that his wife was acting as a lobbyist for companies that were involved in cases before the supreme court. Thomas didn't recuse himself from these cases, even though his family was making money lobbying for a particular decision.

That's why some want to impeach Thomas.
 
2012-04-05 11:15:48 AM  
I know better than to click on anything by Nutbusters, but even if some liberal talking head is proposing to impeach Supreme Court justices simply for the act of judicial review (and I'll agree that that's ridiculous), it pales in comparison with the suggestions by Republican whores over the past decade that the Constitution ought to be loosely interpreted during a "time of 'war'," that there was nothing wrong with arresting and indefinitely detaining people without probable cause or due process, and that torture is acceptable as long as you call it something else.

/so vote Democrat?
 
2012-04-05 11:19:02 AM  

EWreckedSean: Marbury v. Madison is a funny one. It basically decided that even though it isn't laid out in the Constitution, that it had the right itself to decide Constitutionality.


I've always been a bit leary of Marbury vs. Madison because of the total lack of ethical standard or accountability the court operates under. The entire concept relies on each individual justice policeing their own behavior to super-human levels. If any of them fail to do so (and many of them have) the public is left to hope that their fellow judges will outvote them, or that they will not be faced with any important cases.
 
2012-04-05 11:19:54 AM  

tnpir: Having said that, judicial review is now supported by 200+ years of precedent, so the suggestion that judges should be impeached for engaging in it is pants-on-head retarded.


The Newsweek guy is basically saying that the mandate is so clearly constitutional that if they decide it isn't, then they're maliciously undermining their job as justices. He's also making the hilarious assumption that the only reason they could possibly rule against it is to deny health care to the poor.
 
2012-04-05 11:25:47 AM  

EWreckedSean: Marbury v. Madison is a funny one. It basically decided that even though it isn't laid out in the Constitution, that it had the right itself to decide Constitutionality.


Marbury v. Madison was one hell of a bootstrap for judicial activism.
 
2012-04-05 11:26:43 AM  

EWreckedSean: Marbury v. Madison is a funny one. It basically decided that even though it isn't laid out in the Constitution, that it had the right itself to decide Constitutionality.


Even though it's not laid out expressly in the Constitution, there's plenty of evidence that judical review was always intended to be part of the Constitution.

The real question is whether Congress could pass a law that says "the Supreme Court does not have the power to review this law." Technically under the Constitution, they can:

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.


Art. III, Section 2, Clause 2, for those of you playing at home.

So, it's somewhat of an open question whether ObamaCare could have had a provision that says "The Supreme Court cannot overturn any of the provisions of this bill." If Congress can alter the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court, then could they create unreviewable legislation?

AFAIK, that's never happened, but it's one of those constitutional oddities that make interesting discussion points for parties.*

* Only applicable if you have very nerdy friends...
 
2012-04-05 11:28:55 AM  

Lumpmoose: But Constitution Jesus hates Marbury vs. Madison:

Marbury v. Madison (1803)

This case allows for judicial review of the Constitution and made it possible for appointed activist judges to interpret the Constitution, creating a new mandate that in turn becomes the law of the land.

Don't make Supreme Court Judge cry again.


Goddamn, that painting cracks me up.
Its like some elementary history book vomited all over the artist while he rage jerked it muttering "liberals..." under his breath.
 
2012-04-05 11:29:23 AM  
I can think of lots of reasons to oust Justice Scalia from the Supreme Court and would love to see it happen. Will it? Never.
 
2012-04-05 11:29:26 AM  

tlchwi02: I've always been a bit leary of Marbury vs. Madison because of the total lack of ethical standard or accountability the court operates under. The entire concept relies on each individual justice policeing their own behavior to super-human levels. If any of them fail to do so (and many of them have) the public is left to hope that their fellow judges will outvote them, or that they will not be faced with any important cases.


The problem is that at any time over 200 years we could have amended the Constitution to explicit deny the power of JudicialReview to SCotUS, but we haven't.

People only dislike Marbury and the notion of Judicial Review when the court rules in a way they don't like, which is the exact reason why we've never denied this power to them - only half the people at any time think it's a problem.
 
2012-04-05 11:29:43 AM  
I want the judges of the Supreme Court impeach because it would be fun to watch. As far as the brain thingy goes, no thank you!
 
2012-04-05 11:31:36 AM  

WombatControl: The real question is whether Congress could pass a law that says "the Supreme Court does not have the power to review this law." Technically under the Constitution, they can:


If anyone really wanted to remove this power from the Judiciary, we could just amend the Constitution. Then it's not even a loophole.
 
2012-04-05 11:34:14 AM  
I am amazed whenever someone cites the impeachment of Chase as an example of dealing with judicial activism. The impeachment hearing never used "misinterpreting the Constitution" as a charge against him (although belief that he and the other Federalists on the court had done so was why Jefferson went after him) and did not even base his impeachment on his tenure as a Justice. The House basically reviewed his lower court rulings (the same thing the Senate had done when he was nominated and they approved him) and decided he was too biased and impeached him.

It was a political witchhunt and it shouldn't be done again. Plus, this dude needs to remember it is up to the House to impeach and that it is in Republican hands and looks more likely than not to stay in Republican hands unless Obama wins in a landslide. Chances are Kagan and Sotomayor would be put through a sham trial if liberals tried to ramp up pressure on potential hearings for conservative judges.
 
2012-04-05 11:41:28 AM  
The guy is an occasional contributor to Newsweek and wrote the article for the Daily Beast. I guess if you're going to fail on the headline, fail hard.
 
2012-04-05 11:42:25 AM  
I still say they are going to punt by saying that it's a tax and taxes can't be challenged until somebody has to pay them, which won't happen until 2014.
 
2012-04-05 11:46:45 AM  

QU!RK1019: I simply can't believe the insane things I imagine Liberals think!


That's the thing though. You don't need to imagine it they come right out and tell you!
 
2012-04-05 11:50:06 AM  
Wait, so after 20 years of "Activist judges!!" from the Right Wing, it's suddenly ok if they're activist?
 
2012-04-05 11:51:52 AM  

Geotpf: I still say they are going to punt by saying that it's a tax and taxes can't be challenged until somebody has to pay them, which won't happen until 2014.


You'll say that they'll ignore the precedent set by cases such as La Franca in which the court held that a regulatory penalty cannot be classified as a tax?

"A 'tax' is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a 'penalty,' as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act. The two words are not interchangeable one for the other. No mere exercise of the art of lexicography can alter the essential nature of an act or a thing; and if an exaction be clearly a penalty it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such."

You also think that the Supreme Court will ignore how Congress labeled the penalty? Surely, if Congress had kept their original intent, the penalty would have been an excise tax. They explicitly, and willfully, changed the nature of the exaction, removed it from the revenue raising provisions section of the bill, and removed the penalty from the standard tax collection procedures.

All signs point to the penalty being upheld as a penalty, not a tax, and therefore not subject to the AIA.
 
2012-04-05 11:52:53 AM  
Yep. Keep laughing and snickering about how "impossible" it is to remove a Justice and how dare anyone suggest it.

The article was a bit sensationalistic, but to the point:

The Roberts Court may indeed decide to ignore the obvious Constitutional muster HCR does in fact pass, and will overturn it because of their skewed politically-right leanings.
 
2012-04-05 11:53:01 AM  

enry: Wait, so after 20 years of "Activist judges!!" from the Right Wing, it's suddenly ok if they're activist?


That's so 2010.
 
2012-04-05 11:53:45 AM  

Geotpf: I still say they are going to punt by saying that it's a tax and taxes can't be challenged until somebody has to pay them, which won't happen until 2014.


That's always possible, but if you listen to the oral arguments it doesn't sound like any of the Justices on other side of the "liberal/conservative" divide seemed to be willing to buy that argument. Plus, the Court also seemed to lay the groundwork for an opinion that the government waived its argument under the Anti-Injunction Act. I'm guessing that it will be 9-0 that it's not a tax -- but that's just a guess.
 
2012-04-05 11:53:54 AM  

EWreckedSean: Marbury v. Madison is a funny one. It basically decided that even though it isn't laid out in the Constitution, that it had the right itself to decide Constitutionality.


No, it clarified the separation of power by asserting the centuries old legal philosophy that "no man should be a judge in his own case."

See: Edward Coke.
 
2012-04-05 11:55:11 AM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Geotpf: I still say they are going to punt by saying that it's a tax and taxes can't be challenged until somebody has to pay them, which won't happen until 2014.

You'll say that they'll ignore the precedent set by cases such as La Franca in which the court held that a regulatory penalty cannot be classified as a tax?

"A 'tax' is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a 'penalty,' as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act. The two words are not interchangeable one for the other. No mere exercise of the art of lexicography can alter the essential nature of an act or a thing; and if an exaction be clearly a penalty it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such."

You also think that the Supreme Court will ignore how Congress labeled the penalty? Surely, if Congress had kept their original intent, the penalty would have been an excise tax. They explicitly, and willfully, changed the nature of the exaction, removed it from the revenue raising provisions section of the bill, and removed the penalty from the standard tax collection procedures.

All signs point to the penalty being upheld as a penalty, not a tax, and therefore not subject to the AIA.


I think we've all figured out that the Supreme Court is either going to overturn some precedent or pen another Bush v. Gore in the majority opinion.
 
2012-04-05 11:57:25 AM  

Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Geotpf: I still say they are going to punt by saying that it's a tax and taxes can't be challenged until somebody has to pay them, which won't happen until 2014.

You'll say that they'll ignore the precedent set by cases such as La Franca in which the court held that a regulatory penalty cannot be classified as a tax?

"A 'tax' is an enforced contribution to provide for the support of government; a 'penalty,' as the word is here used, is an exaction imposed by statute as punishment for an unlawful act. The two words are not interchangeable one for the other. No mere exercise of the art of lexicography can alter the essential nature of an act or a thing; and if an exaction be clearly a penalty it cannot be converted into a tax by the simple expedient of calling it such."

You also think that the Supreme Court will ignore how Congress labeled the penalty? Surely, if Congress had kept their original intent, the penalty would have been an excise tax. They explicitly, and willfully, changed the nature of the exaction, removed it from the revenue raising provisions section of the bill, and removed the penalty from the standard tax collection procedures.

All signs point to the penalty being upheld as a penalty, not a tax, and therefore not subject to the AIA.

I think we've all figured out that the Supreme Court is either going to overturn some precedent or pen another Bush v. Gore in the majority opinion.


It will definitely take some serious legal maneuvering on the part of Scalia given his Raich opinion. But I think he'll make the distinction about being in the market already and thus subject to regulation vs. being coerced into the market so that the government can regulate you.
 
2012-04-05 11:59:02 AM  

enry: Wait, so after 20 years of "Activist judges!!" from the Right Wing, it's suddenly ok if they're activist?


As a fairly libby lib, I'm forced to ask the following question:

Wait, so after 20 years of "That's the Court's job" from the left wing, it's suddenly a problem that they might decide against us?

If they strike it down, I would disagree with the ruling, but it would be time for congressional Democrats and Obama to put on their big boy pants and deal with it. Trying to use propaganda words like "unelected" to describe the Court will not help. Wishing the rules were different will not help. Whining about it will not help.
 
2012-04-05 12:02:00 PM  

Richard Saunders: EWreckedSean: Marbury v. Madison is a funny one. It basically decided that even though it isn't laid out in the Constitution, that it had the right itself to decide Constitutionality.

No, it clarified the separation of power by asserting the centuries old legal philosophy that "no man should be a judge in his own case."

See: Edward Coke.


And they did it by judging their own case...
 
2012-04-05 12:05:54 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Wait, so after 20 years of "That's the Court's job" from the left wing, it's suddenly a problem that they might decide against us?


No, it's always been the courts job. Any Liberal or Democrat trying to pull that card now is just being hypocritical and butthurt. That said...

If they strike it down, I would disagree with the ruling, but it would be time for congressional Democrats and Obama to put on their big boy pants and deal with it. Trying to use propaganda words like "unelected" to describe the Court will not help. Wishing the rules were different will not help. Whining about it will not help.

Being hypocritical and butthurt about this very issue has worked for the Republicans for over two decades, so why not give it a try?
 
2012-04-05 12:10:49 PM  

thurstonxhowell: If they strike it down, I would disagree with the ruling, but it would be time for congressional Democrats and Obama to put on their big boy pants and deal with it.


Exactly. Hopefully with a single-payer system.

/hey, I can dream can't I?
 
2012-04-05 12:12:37 PM  

thurstonxhowell: Wait, so after 20 years of "That's the Court's job" from the left wing, it's suddenly a problem that they might decide against us


It isn't "the Court's Job" to ignore a piece of legislation's obvious Constitutionality.

And who "from the left wing" ever said anything like that?
 
2012-04-05 12:13:05 PM  

The_Six_Fingered_Man: Serious Black: I think we've all figured out that the Supreme Court is either going to overturn some precedent or pen another Bush v. Gore in the majority opinion.

It will definitely take some serious legal maneuvering on the part of Scalia given his Raich opinion. But I think he'll make the distinction about being in the market already and thus subject to regulation vs. being coerced into the market so that the government can regulate you.


That's the problem. Scalia has always said that he is, first and foremost, a textualist. He looks at what the Constitution said based on what the words meant back when it was written. Judge Silberman destroyed that potential argument in his decision. He noted that the Interstate Commerce Clause literally says Congress has the power "[t]o regulate commerce [...] among the several states," and when he pulled out his trusty copy of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language that was printed in 1773, he found that the definition of to regulate was "[t]o adjust by rule or method" and "[t]o direct;" in turn, he found that the definition of to direct was "[t]o prescribe certain measure[s]; to mark out a certain course," and "[t]o order; to command." (emphasis mine). If Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written, then regulating interstate commerce may indeed involve commanding people to do something, and there is absolutely nothing written in the Constitution that indicates that the Interstate Commerce Clause only applies to people already active in an interstate market or engaging in interstate commerce.

Turning back on his Raich decision when even his textualist underpinnings say he should support the law would be nakedly political. I just don't think he cares all that much about being viewed that way.
 
2012-04-05 12:17:11 PM  

Serious Black: f Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written, then regulating interstate commerce may indeed involve commanding people to do something,


The fact is that 40 million or so uninsured Americans is ultimately a health risk to the rest of the country.

Recognizing that we have a crisis is more than enough justification to "command" that everyone be insured.

If anything, the Court should be admonishing that the law doesn't go far enough, and that it should be more like a version of Medicare extended to the general population.
 
2012-04-05 12:23:26 PM  
It would be one thing if the healthcare law was clearly constitutional and they were being purely political, but there are plenty of valid arguments that could go either way, so this OMG IMPEACHMENT! thing is pretty stupid.
 
2012-04-05 12:28:16 PM  

rynthetyn: It would be one thing if the healthcare law was clearly constitutional and they were being purely political, but there are plenty of valid arguments that could go either way,


Like what?

Give an example of why this legislation would be Unconstitutional.
 
2012-04-05 12:32:27 PM  

thurstonxhowell: enry: Wait, so after 20 years of "Activist judges!!" from the Right Wing, it's suddenly ok if they're activist?

As a fairly libby lib, I'm forced to ask the following question:

Wait, so after 20 years of "That's the Court's job" from the left wing, it's suddenly a problem that they might decide against us?

If they strike it down, I would disagree with the ruling, but it would be time for congressional Democrats and Obama to put on their big boy pants and deal with it. Trying to use propaganda words like "unelected" to describe the Court will not help. Wishing the rules were different will not help. Whining about it will not help.


Oh I agree. I'm wondering if Obama is forcing the issue enough cause the SCOTUS to drop the individual mandate. With that gone, the only way to replace it is single payer. If the SCOTUS keeps the mandate, there's absolutely no way the GOP can turn this into an activist judge thing since Obama did it first. Either way, he wins.
 
2012-04-05 12:34:33 PM  

Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Serious Black: I think we've all figured out that the Supreme Court is either going to overturn some precedent or pen another Bush v. Gore in the majority opinion.

It will definitely take some serious legal maneuvering on the part of Scalia given his Raich opinion. But I think he'll make the distinction about being in the market already and thus subject to regulation vs. being coerced into the market so that the government can regulate you.

That's the problem. Scalia has always said that he is, first and foremost, a textualist. He looks at what the Constitution said based on what the words meant back when it was written. Judge Silberman destroyed that potential argument in his decision. He noted that the Interstate Commerce Clause literally says Congress has the power "[t]o regulate commerce [...] among the several states," and when he pulled out his trusty copy of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language that was printed in 1773, he found that the definition of to regulate was "[t]o adjust by rule or method" and "[t]o direct;" in turn, he found that the definition of to direct was "[t]o prescribe certain measure[s]; to mark out a certain course," and "[t]o order; to command." (emphasis mine). If Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written, then regulating interstate commerce may indeed involve commanding people to do something, and there is absolutely nothing written in the Constitution that indicates that the Interstate Commerce Clause only applies to people already active in an interstate market or engaging in interstate commerce.

Turning back on his Raich decision when even his textualist underpinnings say he should support the law would be nakedly political. I just don't think he cares all that much about being viewed that way.


Well said. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll have a problem being "nakedly political".

I wish that Vegas would put out a gambling line on this. 100-1 odds against Scalia voting to uphold the law on constituitional merit. No matter which side wins, he'll be on the "unconstituitional" side. Maybe his wife will help him write his opinion.
 
2012-04-05 12:39:48 PM  

21-37-42: Serious Black: The_Six_Fingered_Man: Serious Black: I think we've all figured out that the Supreme Court is either going to overturn some precedent or pen another Bush v. Gore in the majority opinion.

It will definitely take some serious legal maneuvering on the part of Scalia given his Raich opinion. But I think he'll make the distinction about being in the market already and thus subject to regulation vs. being coerced into the market so that the government can regulate you.

That's the problem. Scalia has always said that he is, first and foremost, a textualist. He looks at what the Constitution said based on what the words meant back when it was written. Judge Silberman destroyed that potential argument in his decision. He noted that the Interstate Commerce Clause literally says Congress has the power "[t]o regulate commerce [...] among the several states," and when he pulled out his trusty copy of Samuel Johnson's Dictionary of the English Language that was printed in 1773, he found that the definition of to regulate was "[t]o adjust by rule or method" and "[t]o direct;" in turn, he found that the definition of to direct was "[t]o prescribe certain measure[s]; to mark out a certain course," and "[t]o order; to command." (emphasis mine). If Scalia interprets the Constitution based on what the words meant when they were written, then regulating interstate commerce may indeed involve commanding people to do something, and there is absolutely nothing written in the Constitution that indicates that the Interstate Commerce Clause only applies to people already active in an interstate market or engaging in interstate commerce.

Turning back on his Raich decision when even his textualist underpinnings say he should support the law would be nakedly political. I just don't think he cares all that much about being viewed that way.

Well said. Unfortunately, I don't think he'll have a problem being "nakedly political".

I wish that Vegas would put out a gambling line on ...


There isn't an InTrade line on that?
 
2012-04-05 12:40:28 PM  

whidbey: thurstonxhowell: Wait, so after 20 years of "That's the Court's job" from the left wing, it's suddenly a problem that they might decide against us

It isn't "the Court's Job" to ignore a piece of legislation's obvious Constitutionality.

And who "from the left wing" ever said anything like that?


Anything like it's the court's job to decide on the constitutionality of laws? I'm gonna go with "nearly every liberal who has ever spoken on the subject since Marbury v Madison".
 
2012-04-05 12:41:39 PM  

thurstonxhowell: whidbey: thurstonxhowell: Wait, so after 20 years of "That's the Court's job" from the left wing, it's suddenly a problem that they might decide against us

It isn't "the Court's Job" to ignore a piece of legislation's obvious Constitutionality.

And who "from the left wing" ever said anything like that?

Anything like it's the court's job to decide on the constitutionality of laws? I'm gonna go with "nearly every liberal who has ever spoken on the subject since Marbury v Madison".


Not sure what your point is.

You make it sound like liberals are being hypocrites or something. I think.
 
2012-04-05 12:41:48 PM  

enry: thurstonxhowell: enry: Wait, so after 20 years of "Activist judges!!" from the Right Wing, it's suddenly ok if they're activist?

As a fairly libby lib, I'm forced to ask the following question:

Wait, so after 20 years of "That's the Court's job" from the left wing, it's suddenly a problem that they might decide against us?

If they strike it down, I would disagree with the ruling, but it would be time for congressional Democrats and Obama to put on their big boy pants and deal with it. Trying to use propaganda words like "unelected" to describe the Court will not help. Wishing the rules were different will not help. Whining about it will not help.

Oh I agree. I'm wondering if Obama is forcing the issue enough cause the SCOTUS to drop the individual mandate. With that gone, the only way to replace it is single payer. If the SCOTUS keeps the mandate, there's absolutely no way the GOP can turn this into an activist judge thing since Obama did it first. Either way, he wins.


But that isn't what is going to happen. There is NO plan on what to do if SCOTUS rules that the ACA is unconstituitonal. Single payer would be fine, but it'll never make it through the legislature unless some REALLY drastic stuff happens in Nov. What's likely is we go back to where we were pre-ACA and continue to dick around with one side putting forth their plan and the other side rejecting that effort and making no attempt to compromise.

And meanwhile back on the ranch, pre-existing conditions are no longer covered, the lifetime caps are back and people die and go broke unnecessarily.
 
2012-04-05 12:42:16 PM  

whidbey: Recognizing that we have a crisis is more than enough justification to "command" that everyone be insured.


That logic is so ridiculously close to how we wound up with DHS/TSA and the PATRIOT Act that you should be ashamed to have said it.
 
Displayed 50 of 111 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report