Oral Arguments

[HoustonRaven]

I heard him talk about that. What do you make of it?

I couldn't say for certain. If I had to guess from his tone and comments it doesn't look good for him. Accusing them of Judicial Activism.... no beuno

At a minimum, he's hedging bets. He knows the outcome, or has a pretty good idea, and is ginning up the rhetoric he will use on the campaign.

[Galen Sevinne]

Toobin who became a conservative sweetheart for a day when he reported Day 2 of the hearings as a "trainwreck" checks in with his view of the activist nature of this particular court and the problems it will incur if it goes down the legislative path.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/commen...co_talk_toobin

[HoustonRaven]

Liberals, it would seem, have taken the tactic of taking the words "judicial activism", and are trying to make them their own.

Desperate.

Just because Congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional. And if a law is thrown out on those very grounds, then SCOTUS did their job they manner in which it was intended in the very document they are trying to uphold.

But since when do liberals care about that pesky document that they see as a hindrance and not something to be respected.

[AirFlacco]

But the Supremes over-turned an election and now they're about to overturn the law, they say.

Pelosi says they wrote the law in a way that was constittutional. Fortunately, most of the
country thinks she's from California and not Baltimore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08uk99L8oqQ


OBY says they wouldn't dare over-turn it. The mandate has to stay in for it to work
he says. Here he takes a shot at the SC. He'd better watch it. He just might piss em
off like the Florida Supreme Court did during Bush v Gore. They gave them ample
time to go into all the counties, not just the ones with the most DEMs.


http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...8310WP20120402


TODAYS LIBERALS ARE THE COMMIES OF 1916.

[ActualSpamBot]

Scalia understands the importance of allowing the people, via their representatives and not via the judiciary, to determine the constitutionality of laws.

Just because Congress passes a law doesn't make it constitutional. And if a law is thrown out on those very grounds, then SCOTUS did their job they manner in which it was intended in the very document they are trying to uphold.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but these two posts seem to be saying the exact opposite of each other. In one you seem to say that is the job of people and their elected leaders go decide if something is constitutional. In the second you say Congress is not the arbiter of constitutionality, the courts are.

Which is your opinion?


---
I am here: http://tapatalk.com/map.php?x3sv4l

[HoustonRaven]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but these two posts seem to be saying the exact opposite of each other. In one you seem to say that is the job of people and their elected leaders go decide if something is constitutional. In the second you say Congress is not the arbiter of constitutionality, the courts are.

Which is your opinion?

Those two do seem to contradict one another. I can go on and on about the topic of judicial restraint, "activism" etc. But in order to keep with brevity, they are both correct.

When legislation is created, it may stand the muster of judicial review eventually. Ergo, it's job one of the people, via their legislature, to enact laws that are in fact Constitutional. There are disagreements and thus, laws sometimes must stand the test of judicial review.

The healthcare law, for those of us who believe in a dead constitution (one where the letter of the law is followed, if you desire to change the const. you must do so i the prescribed manner in the const., nothing ought to be found to be constitutional least there is language in the constitution, 10th Amendment rules when there is an absent of specific language, etc) is one that's unconstitutional, since there is no specific language written in the document pertaining to the Federal Government's power to compel you to purchase anything.

Those on your side of the fence would argue that the Commerce Clause makes it constitutional. However, my side would argue that the expansion of the clause past it's original intent is also unconstitutional.

It's the expansion of the Commerce Clause and lack of judicial restraint that have led to a apathetic society. Why be involved in what you believe in if all that hard work overturned by the whims of a court that do not follow the constitution. Now your side has been the beneficiary of legislation from the bench, Roe v. Wade being the most notoriuous example.

But no, there are cases, such has Kelo v. City of New London as an example, where the liberal side were burned by a creation they started all the way back to the Warren Court.

[wickedsolo]

Just for input's sake, but one of the biggest reasons why there is such an issue with health insurance as it has stood is because the folks who don't have it go to the ER for simple things, clog it up, waste doctor's time, and pick up free medication that they don't ever pay back because ethically, the ER has to treat them. That's why it's so hard to get in to see a private doctor these days and why they have waiting lists.


I would imagine that - eventually - by making everyone maintain some form of health insurance would cause insurance rates in general to drop because it would be alleviating the number of folks clogging up ER's and emergency-care facilities.

However, the big problem I see with all of this is most of those folks who didn't have health care to begin with aren't going to be able to afford anything anyway, so where is that money going to come from?


...speaking of which, I did some simple math and I paid out 31.34% of my income this past year to taxes and I STILL owed Maryland over $500.

[NCRAVEN]

Just for input's sake, but one of the biggest reasons why there is such an issue with health insurance as it has stood is because the folks who don't have it go to the ER for simple things, clog it up, waste doctor's time, and pick up free medication that they don't ever pay back because ethically, the ER has to treat them. That's why it's so hard to get in to see a private doctor these days and why they have waiting lists.

Help me out here. How does people going to the ER for free make doctors have waiting list?

I would imagine that - eventually - by making everyone maintain some form of health insurance would cause insurance rates in general to drop because it would be alleviating the number of folks clogging up ER's and emergency-care facilities.

If it were that simple than you may have a point. However there is so much more to it than that. For instance, Insurance companies will have to cover preventative things like, Colonoscopys, mammograms etc with no copay. The recent law that insurance companies have to provide contraception "free of charge". I think we can all agree companies (insurance or others) won't just give things for free -they raise their rates.

However, the big problem I see with all of this is most of those folks who didn't have health care to begin with aren't going to be able to afford anything anyway, so where is that money going to come from?

...speaking of which, I did some simple math and I paid out 31.34% of my income this past year to taxes and I STILL owed Maryland over $500.

You answered your own question.

[AirFlacco]

Glad to see you over here Solo.

It sounds like you didn't take enough taxes out despite the 31+%. Same thing happened to
me but I didn't take enough out of my soc sec checks and owed the same amount.

This health care doesn't save any money and as I pointed out before, the costs have already
exceeded the original estimates by $1.8T just like we said it would. The White HOuse also
said the middle class would have to be paying extra taxes for something.

As Greg always says - nothing is free. Somebody pays for it. If OBY is re-elected he will
ruin the insurance industry like he's doing the coal industry now and the gov't will be
the main insurer meaning more taxes.

We also pointed out that medicare and soc sec count for about 1/2 of our national debt.

[AirFlacco]

Does anyone think anyone tipped OBY off on the SC vote Friday? Unusual
comments from a Prez who sure seems worried. Kagan would be the usual
suspect in tipping him off.

Don't be surprised if a justice has an accident or his child goes missing-lol.


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-.../2867429/posts

[wickedsolo]

Help me out here. How does people going to the ER for free make doctors have waiting list?

Because private practices won't accept anyone without health insurance of some sort. It's a vicious circle. It's their way of making sure that they are getting their just dues and not having a bunch of folks in with common colds looking for meds. More and more folks would prefer to go to private doctors because the health care is better than what you'd get in ER's since those privatized doctors aren't as overworked and aren't forced to see patients regardless of them being insured or not.

When I was in the Navy I was stationed in a remote area and the closest hospital was about 45 min away. I had torn my shoulder pretty bad and I had to wait in the ER for some time because the ER doctors were bogged down with other patients. Two of which who were in front of me who didn't have insurance and were there with a sinus infection and a common flu. When I finally got in to get xrays, the xray tech told me it probably would have been faster for me to be flown to the Naval Hospital nearly 2 hours away.

[NCRAVEN]

Because private practices won't accept anyone without health insurance of some sort. It's a vicious circle. It's their way of making sure that they are getting their just dues and not having a bunch of folks in with common colds looking for meds. More and more folks would prefer to go to private doctors because the health care is better than what you'd get in ER's since those privatized doctors aren't as overworked and aren't forced to see patients regardless of them being insured or not.

That’s not entirely true. I’ve had times as has my wife where we’ve needed to go to the doctor and not had insurance. She broke her foot and all we had to do was pay for the visit and walking boot etc.

Matter of fact, recently, even though I had insurance I asked a tech who was doing some work how much things would cost if I paid cash, she said it was 40% less. Main reasons were less paperwork, bureaucracy, no need to pay someone to bill the insurance company fight with the insurance company and then come after the patient for the rest.

[HoustonRaven]

Each doctor is his own business so they can set their own terms as far as how a patient pays.

I know a doctor who is friends with my wife and she often gives free service if the person cannot pay. She also charged my wife straight cash homie when she was having issues with her gallbladder. And it was MUCH cheaper than going through our insurance.

[festivus]

Our national health care system is a mess that will get worse, not better, with time.

Legislation seems the obvious way to address it. And the Commerce Clause has been the tool of such legislation going back to the Civil Rights Act and the New Deal and beyond.

The decision could go either way. I'm inclined to think the ACA should be upheld because of the enormous power already given to Congress, by the courts, in its application of the Commerce Clause. It is possible that this version of the Supremes, as conservative as it is, will dial the Commerce Clause back some and gut the ACA.

As a practical matter I think that's a shame, because the health care system is a joke and will only get worse with the passage of time, but the reality is this decision could *legitimately* go either way. Just because a person doesn't like the ACA does not mean (a) anyone who supports it is a liberal or whatever label you want to give him, or (b) the Supreme Court is cosmically right, assuming for a moment it strikes down the law. It could honestly go either way, like many cases the Supreme Court takes.

For what it's worth, I think anybody who both decries an "activist" judiciary (or wants "judicial restraint") and wants to see the Supreme Court take down the ACA is acting like a hypocrite.

[NCRAVEN]

Our national health care system is a mess that will get worse, not better, with time.
Legislation seems the obvious way to address it. And the Commerce Clause has been the tool of such legislation going back to the Civil Rights Act and the New Deal and beyond.

A few things. What is wrong (in your opinion) with the health care system and what could fix it or why is legislation the way to go? And lastly, how does the commerce clause make it okay for the government to tell you to buy something? And if they can tell you to buy health insurance, what’s to stop them from saying, you need to buy an electric car because it’s making cars others are buying too expensive (just a hypothetical example)

For what it's worth, I think anybody who both decries an "activist" judiciary (or wants "judicial restraint") and wants to see the Supreme Court take down the ACA is acting like a hypocrite.

Well… that’s like... your opinion, man.
If it’s unconstitutional how is wanting the justices to not be an activist and put their ideology aside and rule it so, be acting like a hypocrite?

[The Fanatic]

Our national health care system is a mess that will get worse, not better, with time.

You'll get no argument from me on this as this has been the trend for quite some time which is why the government has been trying to address the issue for quite some time as well.
Doesn't mean that the ways they try and address it and changes they seem to want to incorporate from one administration to the next are the appropriate way to do it either.
There's stuff in there that I and many others are in favor of, and stuff that many are not.

Seems we've been given a choice with this thing which is all or nothing which many are opposed to.

Just because something's broke doesn't mean you scrap the whole thing or a good deal of the existing methods and replace it with stuff that will cause it's own set of problems which is what a lot of people think or see happening.

It is possible that this version of the Supremes, as conservative as it is, will dial the Commerce Clause back some and gut the ACA.

Doing that would require the Supreme Court to read the entire bill (2700 pages) and pick and choose what they feel is appropriate and legal, and what is not.
They've basically already said they aren't doing that and it's not their job to do it.

According to the side of the aisle that is in favor of the healthcare act, gutting it (primarily the mandate part) pretty much renders the rest unobtainable and can't survive without the mandate.

[festivus]

A few things. What is wrong (in your opinion) with the health care system and what could fix it or why is legislation the way to go? And lastly, how does the commerce clause make it okay for the government to tell you to buy something? And if they can tell you to buy health insurance, what’s to stop them from saying, you need to buy an electric car because it’s making cars others are buying too expensive (just a hypothetical example)


Well… that’s like... your opinion, man.
If it’s unconstitutional how is wanting the justices to not be an activist and put their ideology aside and rule it so, be acting like a hypocrite?

What makes the health system in this country tick is insurance. Which means you often get the following relationship:
Employee provides services to the employer.
Employer, as part of employee's compensation, pays for insurance coverage for employee.
Insurance company, paid (in part) by employer, provides insurance coverage to employee. Which means...
Insurance company pays doctor's office for health care provided by doctor but...
Health care is received by employee.

It's not obvious that it *should* be that complicated, and it may be that that way is not ideal. But in the real world this is often how it works. And that, to my mind, is why it's less like broccoli and more like civil rights or the Great Depression or other systemic problems: It's just too complicated for a simple solution.

I don't have to like broccoli but I also don't have to eat it. But eventually I *will* need medical care, and somebody will have to pick up the tab.

As to whether it's really a problem, well, I didn't know people weren't aware of this, but the cost of medical care has been rising disproportionately for some time:
Health_costs_USA_GDP.jpg

You'll get no argument from me on this as this has been the trend for quite some time which is why the government has been trying to address the issue for quite some time as well.
Doesn't mean that the ways they try and address it and changes they seem to want to incorporate from one administration to the next are the appropriate way to do it either.
There's stuff in there that I and many others are in favor of, and stuff that many are not.

Seems we've been given a choice with this thing which is all or nothing which many are opposed to.

Just because something's broke doesn't mean you scrap the whole thing or a good deal of the existing methods and replace it with stuff that will cause it's own set of problems which is what a lot of people think or see happening.



Doing that would require the Supreme Court to read the entire bill (2700 pages) and pick and choose what they feel is appropriate and legal, and what is not.
They've basically already said they aren't doing that and it's not their job to do it.

According to the side of the aisle that is in favor of the healthcare act, gutting it (primarily the mandate part) pretty much renders the rest unobtainable and can't survive without the mandate.

I'm not going to debate about whether this was the ideal formulation for addressing the health care crisis in this country. Like almost every bit of legislation involving something controversial, compromises were made along the way and I doubt you would find a single person who would call it ideal.

We're in crisis. If the Supreme Court throws out the law, no matter how artfully the opinion is worded, no matter how ironclad the legal reasoning, I fear it will be twenty or more years before we can take another swing at this issue.

One of the dumbest things about contemporary health care in this country is that people will end up not being insured and then needing health care anyway, which leads to money coming out of my pocket to pay for them. And it leads to people not getting preventative care, and it leads to long lines at the ER, as others have recently pointed out in this thread.

Frustrating, too, because some of those people are too proud or too foolish to realize that's inevitable, and here I am taking care of myself and my family as best I can with proper insurance.

I don't care about the moron riding around on a motorcycle with no helmet, but we all pay for the ambulance and hospital stay when it turns out he's uninsured. If that moron was required to have health insurance then it would mean he was paying into the system, and the burden would not be on me to, metaphorically, drive him to the hospital and perform the surgery on his smooth brain.

I also don't care much to hang out in this subforum; these debates often get sour quickly. Thank you to you guys for responding positively to my post but as soon as possible I'm going to forget (again) that this forum is here.

I'm all about the .

[festivus]

Double posting because this is not really related:

If it’s unconstitutional how is wanting the justices to not be an activist and put their ideology aside and rule it so, be acting like a hypocrite?

Congress specifically found health care affected interstate commerce. And, broadly speaking, I don't think you can credibly argue that it's wrong.

What critics would have the Supreme Court do here is look under the hood of the law at one of the bits inside and evaluate whether that one bit is, in fact, part of interstate commerce, after Congress has already found that the whole issue is part of interstate commerce. Right or wrong, that is not judicial "restraint." That's judicial meddling. Root for it all you want, and I would agree with you sometimes it's appropriate for a court to go under the hood of a law, but it's not resraint.

[NCRAVEN]

What makes the health system in this country tick is insurance. Which means you often get the following relationship:
Employee provides services to the employer.
Employer, as part of employee's compensation, pays for insurance coverage for employee.
Insurance company, paid (in part) by employer, provides insurance coverage to employee. Which means...
Insurance company pays doctor's office for health care provided by doctor but...
Health care is received by employee.

It's not obvious that it *should* be that complicated, and it may be that that way is not ideal. But in the real world this is often how it works. And that, to my mind, is why it's less like broccoli and more like civil rights or the Great Depression or other systemic problems: It's just too complicated for a simple solution.
:

I am aware costs are rising, thanks for assuming I didn't. I am also aware of how most insurance is obtained through the employer.

My questioning was to get your perspective not because I don't know how it works.

I am not saying there isn’t a problem with cost, things need to be done to lower cost and to stop people from walking into the ER and passing the cost on to others. Two things that could have been done would have been to allow insurance companies to sell across states lines to create more competition and tort reform so doctors don’t have to charge an arm and a leg to protect from frivolous lawsuits (not every lawsuit is frivolous). Both of those don’t force anybody to buy anything. We could also enforce illegal immigration laws and stop paying for illegals to get free ER visits. AS for the other people who get free ER care I haven't thought about a solution for that.

But making everybody buy health insurance won't fix the issue of having cost passed on to everyone else. Plenty of people that have insurance, visit the doctor, get a bill for what the insurance doesn't cover and don't pay that bill. How do you solve that, mandate everyone pays their bill or pay a fine?

We're in crisis. If the Supreme Court throws out the law, no matter how artfully the opinion is worded, no matter how ironclad the legal reasoning, I fear it will be twenty or more years before we can take another swing at this issue

Question, are you for this because you believe it’s the best thing or just because something is better than nothing? Cause I gotta tell you if you’ve read up on this bill you’d probably see it would do away with the private insurance market.

[NCRAVEN]

Congress specifically found health care affected interstate commerce. And, broadly speaking, I don't think you can credibly argue that it's wrong

But the courts job is to determine if what congress does is constitutional or not. So that's not practicing activism.

What critics would have the Supreme Court do here is look under the hood of the law at one of the bits inside and evaluate whether that one bit is, in fact, part of interstate commerce, after Congress has already found that the whole issue is part of interstate commerce. Right or wrong, that is not judicial "restraint." That's judicial meddling. Root for it all you want, and I would agree with you sometimes it's appropriate for a court to go under the hood of a law, but it's not resraint.

The court is not going under the hood of this law at all, or at least it doesn't seem that way by their questioning. If they good under the hood and say what parts stand or fall (if they strike down the mandate) that would be going under the hood.