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.

(American Thinker)   The mainstream media should not repeat the spurious factoid that Obamacare is constitutional since only one source (the Supreme Court) came forward to make that claim   (americanthinker.com) divider line 193
    More: Satire, obamacare, U.S. Supreme Court, majority opinion, Chief Justice John Roberts, Volokh Conspiracy, Commerce Clause, landmark case, Tax Day  
•       •       •

2543 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Nov 2012 at 1:15 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-23 02:05:10 PM
"OK, fellas. We're done telling the country America will be destroyed if they don't elect that Republican who invented Obamacare. Now we have to tell them Obamacare will destroy America. Recalibrate your derp phasers to 'stunned'."
 
2012-11-23 02:05:11 PM

John Dewey: Corvus: You not able to answer any of my questions and instead making false arguments up shows you really don't even understand your own position.

You said "Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says."

That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says. I think that's pretty plain. For someone who claims to understand what the supreme law of the land says (which is pretty complicated language) you sure don't have a good grasp of what you're saying in what appears to be a simple sentence.


And for somebody who has a pretty good grasp of what the Constitution says, you sure do seem to be evading my question of who gets to judge the constitutionality of laws pretty well.
 
2012-11-23 02:05:46 PM

John Dewey: Corvus: You not able to answer any of my questions and instead making false arguments up shows you really don't even understand your own position.

You said "Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says."

That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says. I think that's pretty plain. For someone who claims to understand what the supreme law of the land says (which is pretty complicated language) you sure don't have a good grasp of what you're saying in what appears to be a simple sentence.


No I said this:

Corvus: To them. Only right wingers who have no farking idea what the constitution says.


Which you deleted.

You are trying to change the subject because you can't support you own opinion. I don't give a shiat what people on the left think it has zero bearing to the comment you made, or the question I asked you about.


Now can you back up your statement or not?
 
2012-11-23 02:06:40 PM

John Dewey: That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says


That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.
 
2012-11-23 02:07:13 PM

elchip: Not throw out laws based on their interpretation of the constitution.

Jefferson and Madison didn't like the outcome of Marbury v. Madison.

Of course, the current setup is much better than trusting Congress to follow the constitution in all the laws that they write.


Really it "throws out a law" so when something is considered "unconstitutional" the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Want to double down on that?
 
2012-11-23 02:07:36 PM
Compliance with ObamaCare is going to be a problem in states like Oklahoma, "where a quarter of the population fails to comply with the requirement to purchase car insurance." It's doubtful they'll cotton to the RobertsTax, either.

Updated note to self: Never drive in/through/around Russia & Oklahoma.
 
2012-11-23 02:08:05 PM

cameroncrazy1984: John Dewey: That seems to imply you think only right wingers don't understand what the constitution says

That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.


You have not read many discussions regarding gun laws.
 
2012-11-23 02:08:30 PM
When I am Emperor of the World, I shall establish a series of Homes for the Terminally Stupid, wherein they will not be troubled with events of the world or the need to make decisions of any kind.

American Stinker staff and readers shall be welcomed with open arms.
 
2012-11-23 02:10:35 PM

elchip: Not throw out laws based on their interpretation of the constitution.

Jefferson and Madison didn't like the outcome of Marbury v. Madison.


So which happens:

A) the laws are considered unconsitutional remain on the books, and can be reinterpreted by higher courts or the supreme court in later cases

Or

B) They are "thrown out" permanently removed from law never to be able to be ruled on again.


Does A happen or B happen when a law is considered "unconsitutional" by courts?
 
2012-11-23 02:14:27 PM

cameroncrazy1984: That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.


"You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties ; but the Constitution, in keeping three departments distinct and independent, restrains the authority of the judges to judiciary organs, as it does the executive and legislative to executive and legislative organs. The judges certainly have more frequent occasion to act on constitutional questions, because the laws of meum and tuum and of criminal action, forming the great mass of the system of law, constitute their particular department. When the legislative or executive functionaries act unconstitutionally, they are responsible to the people in their elective capacity. The exemption of the judges from that is quite dangerous enough. I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but the people themselves ; and if we think them not enlightened enough to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them, but to inform their discretion by education. This is the true corrective of abuses of constitutional power."

-Thomas Jefferson on judicial review and Marbury v. Madison

Not that I agree with them.
 
2012-11-23 02:16:48 PM
I must give John Dewey credit for casting effective Rand Paul-flavored bait. Not even his pappy's fanboys think Rand Paul is anything other than a moron (who occasionally is useful to them).
 
2012-11-23 02:17:24 PM

Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?


Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.
 
2012-11-23 02:18:17 PM
Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.
 
2012-11-23 02:20:01 PM

elchip: -Thomas Jefferson on judicial review and Marbury v. Madison

Not that I agree with them.


sure, but
in the end, the congress can impeach scotus if they think that scotus has gone of the deep end.
congress can also amend the constitution to define exactly the mandate of scotus if if wanted the mandate to be different.

so Jefferson might have disagreed, but in the end, the nation has been pretty happy with the current 3 party arrangement.
 
2012-11-23 02:20:08 PM

elchip: Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.


Wait how can it be reinterpeted again if it's been "thrown out"?

Is you interpretation of the term "thrown out" is that you can use it again at a later date now?

"Thrown out" means it is GONE, that you can't then again use it in the future. That's what you said.
 
2012-11-23 02:20:26 PM

elchip: cameroncrazy1984: That's not what "only right wingers who have no understanding of what the Constitution says" means in this context. I doubt there are any left-wingers who believe that the Constitution doesn't give supreme judicial power to the SCOTUS.

"You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is "boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem," and their power the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. If the legislature fails to pass laws for a census, for paying the judges and other officers of government, for establishing a militia, for naturalization as prescribed by the Constitution, or if they fail to meet in congress, the judges cannot issue their mandamus to them ; if the President fails to supply the place of a judge, to appoint other civil or military officers, to issue requisite commissions, the judges cannot force him. They can issue their mandamus or distringas to no executive or legislative officer to enforce the fulfilment of their official duties, any more than the President or legislature may issue orders to the judges or their officers. Betrayed by English example, and unaware, as it should seem, of the control of our Constitution in this particular, they have at times overstepped their limit by undertaking to command executive officers in the discharge of their executive duties ; bu ...


I would hope not. I mean, that would basically say that if SCOTUS had said the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the only way to completely get rid of it would be having Congress vote to repeal it. Obama could then say "Fark you guys, I want the mandate left in law," and force two-thirds of both houses to vote to overrule him. Or for a left-wing nightmare scenario, SCOTUS could say that state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional, but the state legislatures have to repeal those prohibitions to take them off the books. How is either of those situations reasonable?
 
2012-11-23 02:21:08 PM

mcwehrle: I've missed you soooooo much!!!!

good to see you again!


You probably thought upon this that I have run away. You should just open the third eye of you.

I would like to be the one who sees things from the two sides and is then the judge of the Constitutionality of the issues very much.
 
2012-11-23 02:21:23 PM
Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.
 
2012-11-23 02:21:30 PM

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


So your not capable of responding to our questions then are you? Your not smart enough to be able to back the comments you make. You say things without even understanding them.

Just trolling.
 
2012-11-23 02:21:51 PM

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


Seems to me like you don't want to tell us who the Constitution says has the power to judge the constitutionality of laws for some completely inexplicable reason.
 
2012-11-23 02:22:10 PM

John Dewey: Seems to me like the Supreme Court has a lot of unchecked power. Look at Bush v. Gore.


Congress not checking the power is not the same as unchecked power.
Congress completely agrees with the current power level of the court, or they would make some changes.

impeachment or amendments to the constitution.
since congress has done neither, congress is asserting that the power sharing is just about right
 
2012-11-23 02:23:54 PM

Corvus: Just trolling.


Wasn't even a really good troll, was it?
 
2012-11-23 02:24:49 PM

Serious Black: I would hope not. I mean, that would basically say that if SCOTUS had said the individual mandate was unconstitutional, the only way to completely get rid of it would be having Congress vote to repeal it. Obama could then say "Fark you guys, I want the mandate left in law," and force two-thirds of both houses to vote to overrule him. Or for a left-wing nightmare scenario, SCOTUS could say that state laws banning abortion are unconstitutional, but the state legislatures have to repeal those prohibitions to take them off the books. How is either of those situations reasonable?


can we go a step further?
If congress hated ACA, why didnt the new congress pass a bill repealing it??
All they would have needed to do is get the senate to agree, wait for President Obama to veto the bill and then override the veto.

HAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
 
2012-11-23 02:32:30 PM

meow said the dog: mcwehrle: I've missed you soooooo much!!!!

good to see you again!

You probably thought upon this that I have run away. You should just open the third eye of you.

I would like to be the one who sees things from the two sides and is then the judge of the Constitutionality of the issues very much.


My third eye looked upon the purple feral landscape, and wept.

or something something moar beer!
 
2012-11-23 02:33:02 PM

John Dewey: Corvus: Just trolling.

Wasn't even a really good troll, was it?


Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.
 
2012-11-23 02:33:56 PM

Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.


It takes two to tango.
 
2012-11-23 02:37:53 PM

Kibbler: DOC: Listen, you think you got problems?


You sir, are brilliant.

/Great book.
 
2012-11-23 02:38:47 PM

John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.


I am not doing the same thing idiot. I am trying to have actual discussions with people. But now I am just pointing out to others you are a troll and making fun of you. I am doing a completely different dance. I know you don't understand because your not very bright.

And yep I got better things to do and am about to go do them.
 
2012-11-23 02:39:56 PM
Someone was wrong on the internet.
 
2012-11-23 02:39:58 PM

slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.


Close but not exactly. The Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) forbids judicial review of taxes before they go into effect. The opinion of the court was that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress did not intend for it to be a tax. Therefore, the AIA did not prevent judicial review of the individual mandate. When they looked at the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they started by looking to see if it could be upheld as a regulation, rather than as a tax, because that was the intent of the law. The opinion of the court (5 out of the 9 justices) was that the individual mandate could not be upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. They then went to see if there was any other congressional power that the law could be sustained under. The court found that had Congress passed this as a tax, it would clearly be constitutional (just like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are all enacted under Congress' power to tax and spend). So the court said that the law could be upheld as a tax, but not as a regulation.

So in short, the AIA didn't prevent judicial review of the mandate because the AIA only applies to things that congress intends to be a tax. But when the Court looked to the constitutionality of the act, they upheld it because Congress could have enacted it as a tax, even though they didn't intend to.

/Of course, the Court ignored the fact that Congress likely would not have had the votes to pass the (or to get the president to sign it) if the mandate had been clearly labeled a tax from the beginning.)
//The court also completely struck down the portions of the law that tied existing state medicaid and medicare funding to enacting the ACA, but no one ever talks about that).
 
2012-11-23 02:41:33 PM

vpb: It's not like it's the job of the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution or anything.


It's just a bunch of judges.
 
2012-11-23 02:43:31 PM

John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.


So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?
 
2012-11-23 02:47:28 PM

Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?


The Supreme Court.
 
2012-11-23 02:49:36 PM

Talondel: slayer199: Not trying to troll here (and I didn't read TFA), but I thought the tax portion of the law (individual mandate) could not be further challenged until the tax has actually been assessed. As I understood it, SCOTUS found HCRA legal as the individual mandate was called a tax and within Congress' ability to assess taxes.

Close but not exactly. The Anti-Injunction Act (AIA) forbids judicial review of taxes before they go into effect. The opinion of the court was that the individual mandate was not a tax for purposes of the Anti-Injunction Act because Congress did not intend for it to be a tax. Therefore, the AIA did not prevent judicial review of the individual mandate. When they looked at the constitutionality of the individual mandate, they started by looking to see if it could be upheld as a regulation, rather than as a tax, because that was the intent of the law. The opinion of the court (5 out of the 9 justices) was that the individual mandate could not be upheld as a regulation of interstate commerce. They then went to see if there was any other congressional power that the law could be sustained under. The court found that had Congress passed this as a tax, it would clearly be constitutional (just like medicare, medicaid, social security, etc. are all enacted under Congress' power to tax and spend). So the court said that the law could be upheld as a tax, but not as a regulation.

So in short, the AIA didn't prevent judicial review of the mandate because the AIA only applies to things that congress intends to be a tax. But when the Court looked to the constitutionality of the act, they upheld it because Congress could have enacted it as a tax, even though they didn't intend to.

/Of course, the Court ignored the fact that Congress likely would not have had the votes to pass the (or to get the president to sign it) if the mandate had been clearly labeled a tax from the beginning.)
//The court also completely struck down the portions of the law that tied ...


The seventh of the Ashwander rules concerning judicial restraint says that even if there is a serious concern raised about the constitutionality of a law, SCOTUS must figure out if any fairly possible construction of the law avoids those concerns. Whether Congress could have passed it is ultimately irrelevant.
 
2012-11-23 02:53:23 PM

Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?


He's admitted he was trolling and hooked us all. It's unfortunate that Poe's Law is so powerful nowadays.
 
2012-11-23 02:54:46 PM
Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction. So here:

www.pagelines.com

Now thank you for having the property of the English language. You are welcome for the advisement of me to you.
 
2012-11-23 03:02:36 PM

mcwehrle: aug3: remember when Roberts was the shining bacon of light to conservatives... good times man, good times

I wanna be a shining bacon of light!


th03.deviantart.net

As close as we can get, sorry.
 
2012-11-23 03:18:16 PM
[marks John Dewey as a troll]

Best part....forever.
 
2012-11-23 03:18:17 PM

vygramul: Forever Relevant: 

[www.bitlogic.com image 500x175]


i48.tinypic.com
 
2012-11-23 03:18:21 PM
Know why libtards need health care for free? Because they don't work!! If only theyd work two jobs they wouldnt get sick!
 
2012-11-23 03:22:44 PM

Serious Black: Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?

He's admitted he was trolling and hooked us all. It's unfortunate that Poe's Law is so powerful nowadays.


There's trolling, there's Poe's Law, and there's plain idiocy. This seems to me to fall into the last category.
 
2012-11-23 03:32:09 PM

Gyrfalcon: Serious Black: Gyrfalcon: John Dewey: Corvus: Either your trolling or you are complete idiot. But probably both. I can't imagine someone that has such no life that spend time on places like here making stupid statements just to try to piss others off.

It takes two to tango.

So who should have the power to judge whether something is constitutional or not?

He's admitted he was trolling and hooked us all. It's unfortunate that Poe's Law is so powerful nowadays.

There's trolling, there's Poe's Law, and there's plain idiocy. This seems to me to fall into the last category.


And boredom. You forgot boredom. Some idiocy. But mostly boredom.

/was honestly going to leave it at the Weeners but couldn't resist the bold text.
 
2012-11-23 03:40:52 PM

El Pachuco: mcwehrle: aug3: remember when Roberts was the shining bacon of light to conservatives... good times man, good times

I wanna be a shining bacon of light!

[th03.deviantart.net image 150x150]

As close as we can get, sorry.


It's....it's......beautiful!!!!

*sniffle*
 
2012-11-23 03:50:29 PM

meow said the dog: Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction


A) I know the difference between you and you're. Just don't really care.
B) What? is that sentence even close to English? If you are going to be a grammar nazi shouldn't you form a sentence that at least is not a complete train wreck?
 
2012-11-23 04:01:58 PM

Corvus: meow said the dog: Damn this Corvus but I must add this as the thoughtful responses of you are hard to read when I am having the distraction

A) I know the difference between you and you're. Just don't really care.
B) What? is that sentence even close to English? If you are going to be a grammar nazi shouldn't you form a sentence that at least is not a complete train wreck?


Oh no you did not be the individual upon which did the doing of this! *snapping of the fingers*
 
2012-11-23 04:05:34 PM
Boy oh boy, Corvus and meow mixing it up

/better get Maaco and popcorn cuz that's not gonna buff out :D
 
2012-11-23 04:07:32 PM

Corvus: elchip: Corvus: the law gets removed and can never be reinterpreted again?

Of course it can be reinterpreted again, but justices, and the ideological makeup of the court, don't change that often. Look how long Roe v. Wade has stood despite the right's 35-year attempt at reinterpreting it by appointing like-minded justices.

Wait how can it be reinterpeted again if it's been "thrown out"?

Is you interpretation of the term "thrown out" is that you can use it again at a later date now?

"Thrown out" means it is GONE, that you can't then again use it in the future. That's what you said.


Oh FFS, so I used poor phrasing.
 
2012-11-23 04:09:45 PM
So I'm curious, do you believe the SCOTUS is the final authority and that once they decide everyone just has to shut up... or not?

You may reverse the words in parentheses ( )

SCOTUS is the final authority on this issue and everyone should just shut up and accept (ObamaCare). I don't care what the SCOTUS says, and its not the final authority on anything so what they say about (Citizens United) doesn't matter, its still wrong.

Though I should still like to point out that I get a big old chuckle out of ObamaCare even now.

Liberals: "It's not a tax! It's covered under the Commerce Clause!"

SCOTUS: "It's a tax and not covered under the Commerce Clause. Taxes are Constitutional."

Liberals: "See! We were right!"

Except for the part where you weren't.
 
2012-11-23 04:11:09 PM
www.ourrescuer.com
 
2012-11-23 04:11:37 PM

Princess Ryans Knickers: stupid repetitive boring Fox Fluffy News cap & bells jangling


Login: Princess Ryans Knickers
Account created: 2012-11-10 14:45:25



GTFO alt troll and F Off
 
Displayed 50 of 193 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report