yo mama Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 And yet, when most go to the polls, they vote for the 'lesser of two evils' and then complain when nothing changes. We all know that's the problem. But what is The Cure: to burn like a fire, burn life a fire in Cairo? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Am I? I did take the trouble to ask a real Republican Congressional candidate about his and his party's positions on some of the most important issues of the day. Given the non-response, what else am I to think other than the conclusion I came to i.e. there is no plan, no ideas and no thought beyond destruction? I will concede that the Republican Ryan has published a thoughtful and far-reaching plan, most of which I could support but his party has completely cold-shouldered it. Â Â Ursa and others have claimed that the GOP offered nothing, but didn't Paul Ryan offer up a proposal? Of course this and the other 5 or so proposals are largely ignored by liberals like Ursa. It's just like the spending cuts the GOP proposed. They didn't like the proposals or who they came from so they will ignore them or try to marginalize them. Â See bolded part above. Who exactly is doing the ignoring? See also my mostly supportive comments on the spending cut proposals. Â Yes, you are. Â I don't know what more I can do than directly ask a Republican Congressional candidate who lives opposite me on the same street and with whom I am on first name, even friendly, terms. Seems clear to me there is no plan and it is that that I am complaining about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 Most modern legal scholars disagree with you. But that begs the question of whether modern jurisprudence has strayed too far from its origins. Read and learn. Regardless of what you believe, you'll find some support for your opinion, plus an overall greater understanding of the nuanced contours of this issue.  You know that I feel that modern jurisprudence has strayed way too far from it's origins. I think most of the founders have been rolling over in their graves since FDR stacked the court and The Constitution started being used as toilet paper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 2, 2011 Share Posted February 2, 2011 You know that I feel that modern jurisprudence has strayed way too far from it's origins. I think most of the founders have been rolling over in their graves since FDR stacked the court and The Constitution started being used as toilet paper. Just appreciate that in order to invalid this law the USSC must essentially invalidate some of its own prior rulings. Courts don't typically like having to overrule themselves, but it's certainly not unprecedented. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I agree. But I am curious... what happens in the meantime? Are all of the provisions in the law immediately null (benefits, costs, etc.)? Â Doesn't sound like it. Â Â Â "It's still the law of the land," said William Hoagland, vice president for public policy at health insurer Cigna. "We'll continue to proceed with its requirements, and (the ruling) will not slow that down. We have no other choice until this thing is resolved one way or the other." Insurers spent millions to block passage of the law. Â http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...reoverhaul.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Most modern legal scholars disagree with you. But that begs the question of whether modern jurisprudence has strayed too far from its origins. Read and learn. Regardless of what you believe, you'll find some support for your opinion, plus an overall greater understanding of the nuanced contours of this issue.   Thanks for the informative link.  The majority of legal scholars disagree with Perch? Edited February 3, 2011 by bushwacked Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
borge007 Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Thanks for the informative link. The majority of legal scholars disagree with Perch? How could that be? Perch knows everything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yo mama Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) Thanks for the informative link. The majority of legal scholars disagree with Perch? Let's be fair. Just because legal scholars recognize the current state of the law doesn't mean: (1) that they agree with the law; or (2) that the law should stand. We've had a number of watershed moments in legal history when the USSC court decided that the current state of the law no longer applied.  It would not surprise me if the USSC decides to use Obamacare as a vehicle to redefine the more general issue of Congress' current, virtually limitless powers to regulate commerce. If they write the decision the right way, invalidating the law would be little more than collateral damage from deciding a much more fundamental issue. Edited February 3, 2011 by yo mama Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cre8tiff Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Let's be fair. Just because legal scholars recognize the current state of the law doesn't mean: (1) that they agree with the law; or (2) that the law should stand. We've had a number of watershed moments in legal history when the USSC court decided that the current state of the law no longer applied. Â It would not surprise me if the USSC decides to use Obamacare as a vehicle to redefine the more general issue of Congress' current, virtually limitless powers to regulate commerce. If they write the decision the right way, invalidating the law would be little more than collateral damage from deciding a much more fundamental issue. Â It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I have to believe that Obama, as a scholar of Constitutional law, saw this coming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 (edited) It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out. I have to believe that Obama, as a scholar of Constitutional law, saw this coming. If the SC upholds the law, at least there can be no complaints from the right since it's got a conservative majority. Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote it down without even bothering to listen to any of it. The liberals will most likely uphold it, so that's 4-3. Kennedy and Roberts are the ones who will hold the balance, IMO. Edited February 3, 2011 by Ursa Majoris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Savage Beatings Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote it down without even bothering to listen to any of it. Â Oh come on! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 If the SC upholds the law, at least there can be no complaints from the right since it's got a conservative majority. Alito, Scalia and Thomas will vote it down without even bothering to listen to any of it. The liberals will most likely uphold it, so that's 4-3. Kennedy and Roberts are the ones who will hold the balance, IMO. Â I don't know that you can say that. If the law is upheld I'll still disagree. The problem is we have gotten so far from the founders intent it is ridiculous. The founders would be rolling over in their graves if they saw the amount of power the federal government has over our everyday lives. Just because a justice is appointed by a conservative does not mean that the justice is a true conservative, it may just mean they were the most conservative person the President at the time though they could get senate approval on. Additionally you act like conservatives are monolithic, and they are not. I would imagine if you lined up 10 "conservatives" I could probably find two or three issues that I disagree with each on, and possibly a whole lot more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Duchess Jack Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 We all know that's the problem. But what is The Cure: to burn like a fire, burn life a fire in Cairo? I'll see your Fire in Cairo and raise you a Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaP'N GRuNGe Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 First off, I didn't like the individual mandate going way back to when Obama spoke against it and I still don't. I do understand however that was the only way to get the insurance industry on board. I agree that the penalty size is assinine and won't work. At this point I'm on board with scrapping it all and starting over. Â Regarding the constitutional issue, how is Medicare and Medicaid constitutional if a private insurance mandate is not? One is called being forced to engage in commerce and purchase insurance protection while the other is a mandated TAX that also gives you insurance protection,granted only in certain situations, but everyone is required to pay it. Well, not everyone but everyone who takes home a paycheck. Hell, ALL taxes are used for something that could be construed as commerce and we are obligated to engage in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caveman_Nick Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 First off, I didn't like the individual mandate going way back to when Obama spoke against it and I still don't. I do understand however that was the only way to get the insurance industry on board. I agree that the penalty size is assinine and won't work. At this point I'm on board with scrapping it all and starting over. Regarding the constitutional issue, how is Medicare and Medicaid constitutional if a private insurance mandate is not? One is called being forced to engage in commerce and purchase insurance protection while the other is a mandated TAX that also gives you insurance protection,granted only in certain situations, but everyone is required to pay it. Well, not everyone but everyone who takes home a paycheck. Hell, ALL taxes are used for something that could be construed as commerce and we are obligated to engage in it.  Not being a constitutional scholar...  My observation is that Congress has, sadly almost without limit, the power to enact taxes. I would guess that if they wanted to establish health insurance as a government entity ala medicaid and medicare that they could, and perhaps it was a knowledge of the lack of public support that kept the from walking that path.  Requiring someone to do business with a private entity is not a tax, and it's a really important distinction that needs to stay in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimC Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I do understand however that was the only way to get the insurance industry on board. Â I agree with what you wrote, but can anyone explain why it was important to have the insurance industry on board? Â I knew we were in trouble and it was a bad piece of legislation when that insurance lady stood up and said it looked good to them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I don't know that you can say that. If the law is upheld I'll still disagree. Sure you will and that's fair enough. The point I was making was that it isn't like the court is overflowing with foaming liberals so if it IS upheld, it won't be because of the traditional conservative definition of judicial activism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 Oh come on! I'm not convinced Thomas has a clue what's going on at any time, I'm just certain he will vote conservative whatever happens. The other two are certainties too IMO but they will definitely ask penetrating questions first. That said, their votes are surely in the bag. Would you disagree? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted February 3, 2011 Share Posted February 3, 2011 I'm not convinced Thomas has a clue what's going on at any time, I'm just certain he will vote conservative whatever happens. The other two are certainties too IMO but they will definitely ask penetrating questions first. That said, their votes are surely in the bag. Would you disagree? Â I think Alito will just because of the inappropriate way Obama called out the court in last year's SOTU address. Well that and he thinks like our founding fathers thought, that the constitution was set in place to specifically limit the powers of the federal government. I think Scalia will because he seems to be one of the few judges that still have a very literal and strict view of what the constitution says, and does not like deviating or expanding the powers of government over that which is clearly stated in the constitution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.