Unprecedented

[oscardeuce]

As I watch President Obama lean on the Supreme Court for the second day, I wonder why?
Does this former Professor of the Consitution know the definition of "unprecedented"? Is there any precedent for this kind of pressure since maybe FDR and his push to add a new justice for every "old" justice over 70?
There is plenty of history of the SCOTUS finding federal state and even local laws . This law barely passed if you remember. Despite holding both houses, they needed to pull out every political trick and dip deeply into the pork barrel to get it to pass. Unconstitutional. Makes me sick the way he abuses his office the press and the People.
Why is it I, a lowly Emergency Physician seem to know more about the way out gov't is supposed to work than a Constitutional Professor?

 

[darthtang aw]

If he isn't careful...someone might just accuse him of acting like a "bully".

 

[reefraff]

Calling 0bama a professor is like calling Chaz Bono sir. The title was bestowed on them but neither is equipped to truly deserve it.
0bama has never published any scholarly works or done the level of research expected of a true professor.

 

[darthtang aw]

The only constitutional law he ever taught about was the 14th amendment if I remember correctly.

 

[mantisman51]

Activist judges are a problem. But only when they are making up law to give the government more power. This president is so backwards, I bet he sees the back of his head when he looks in a mirror.

 

[bionicarm]

The SCOTUS needs to look at the merits and pitfalls of Obamacare based strictly on Constitutional law. The problem is, the media, the President, Congress, and even the Justices themselves have turned this into a political decision. Before the lawsuit even hit the table, the lines were drawn between the inividual Justices as to who would defintely vote against it, and who would leave some, if not all of the bill intact. That line was drawn based specifically on political affiliations and beliefs, not on Constitional legal precedence. The SCOTUS is supposed to take an unbiased approach at every single case that comes before them. Their political leanings shouldn't be considered regardless of how controversial the issue may be. If we let the SCOTUS make decisions based on political leanings, why let them decide at all? Just keep them out of the loop and let the political hacks in Congress figure it out. Oh wait, they already did. And if the Republicans gain control of the Senate in November, Obamacare will be dead anyways.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3468285
The SCOTUS needs to look at the merits and pitfalls of Obamacare based strictly on Constitutional law. The problem is, the media, the President, Congress, and even the Justices themselves have turned this into a political decision. Before the lawsuit even hit the table, the lines were drawn between the inividual Justices as to who would defintely vote against it, and who would leave some, if not all of the bill intact. That line was drawn based specifically on political affiliations and beliefs, not on Constitional legal precedence. The SCOTUS is supposed to take an unbiased approach at every single case that comes before them. Their political leanings shouldn't be considered regardless of how controversial the issue may be. If we let the SCOTUS make decisions based on political leanings, why let them decide at all? Just keep them out of the loop and let the political hacks in Congress figure it out. Oh wait, they already did. And if the Republicans gain control of the Senate in November, Obamacare will be dead anyways.
I think based on 0bama's comments Monday that he's already been tipped off as to what the vote was. 5-4 against the mandate.

 

[darthtang aw]

The SCOTUS needs to look at the merits and pitfalls of Obamacare based strictly on Constitutional law.  The problem is, the media, the President, Congress, and even the Justices themselves have turned this into a political decision.  Before the lawsuit even hit the table, the lines were drawn between the inividual Justices as to who would defintely vote against it, and who would leave some, if not all of the bill intact.  That line was drawn based specifically on political affiliations and beliefs, not on Constitional legal precedence.  The SCOTUS is supposed to take an unbiased approach at every single case that comes before them.  Their political leanings shouldn't be considered regardless of how controversial the issue may be.  If we let the SCOTUS make decisions based on political leanings, why let them decide at all?  Just keep them out of the loop and let the political hacks in Congress figure it out.  Oh wait, they already did.  And if the Republicans gain control of the Senate in November, Obamacare will be dead anyways.
explain how it is constitutional...this should be good.

 

[reefraff]

What would be more controversial, the court striking down a law that grants a new authority to the government or the government assuming a power they have never had.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3468448
explain how it is constitutional...this should be good.
That's what the SCOTUS needs to determine, the constitutionality of the law. That's not what they're doing. They're basing their opinions on their political beliefs. This pretty much sums it up:
Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s", according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School.[sup][99][sup][100] "As law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts", former federal court of appeals judge J. Michael Luttig said.[sup][99][/sup] David J. Garrow, professor of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had thus begun to mirror the political branches of government. "We are getting a composition of the clerk workforce that is getting to be like the House of Representatives", Professor Garrow said. "Each side is putting forward only ideological purists."[99][/sup]
According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is "a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law."[99][/sup]

 

[darthtang aw]

That's what the SCOTUS needs to determine, the constitutionality of the law.  That's not what they're doing.  They're basing their opinions on their political beliefs.  This pretty much sums it up:
Clerks hired by each of the justices of the Supreme Court are often given considerable leeway in the opinions they draft. "Supreme Court clerkship appeared to be a nonpartisan institution from the 1940s into the 1980s", according to a study published in 2009 by the law review of Vanderbilt University Law School.[sup][99][sup][100] "As law has moved closer to mere politics, political affiliations have naturally and predictably become proxies for the different political agendas that have been pressed in and through the courts", former federal court of appeals judge J. Michael Luttig said.[sup][99][/sup]David J. Garrow, professor of history at the University of Cambridge, stated that the Court had thus begun to mirror the political branches of government. "We are getting a composition of the clerk workforce that is getting to be like the House of Representatives", Professor Garrow said. "Each side is putting forward only ideological purists."[99][/sup]
According to the Vanderbilt Law Review study, this politicized hiring trend reinforces the impression that the Supreme Court is "a superlegislature responding to ideological arguments rather than a legal institution responding to concerns grounded in the rule of law."[99][/sup]
wikipedia? really?
if the scotus is basing decisions off political leanings (rather than constitutionality) you should have no problem defending its constitutionality. Since it is clear to you that they are ignoring this.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469061
wikipedia? really?
if the scotus is basing decisions off political leanings (rather than constitutionality) you should have no problem defending its constitutionality. Since it is clear to you that they are ignoring this.
Ignore where the quote came from. Go look it up and follow the sources (click on the little blue numbers when you go there).
I'm not a constitutional lawyer so it would be pretty difficult to argue the merits of the law. And yes, it's quite apparent the SCOTUS is ignoring the basic tenets of their position.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469066
Ignore where the quote came from. Go look it up and follow the sources (click on the little blue numbers when you go there).
I'm not a constitutional lawyer so it would be pretty difficult to argue the merits of the law. And yes, it's quite apparent the SCOTUS is ignoring the basic tenets of their position.
How the hell would you know what they are basing it on? Have you been in the room with them?
And non political into the 80's? Roe V Wade was one of the most blatantly political decisions in the history of the court and that was early 70's.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469091
How the hell would you know what they are basing it on? Have you been in the room with them?
And non political into the 80's? Roe V Wade was one of the most blatantly political decisions in the history of the court and that was early 70's.
The media reported how each of the justices were going to vote a week before they received the case. It became blatently apparent during the 3 days of deliberations what they were basing their decision on. Roe v Wade was based on the right to privacy of the 14th Amendment.

 

[darthtang aw]

The media reported how each of the justices were going to vote a week before they received the case.  It became blatently apparent during the 3 days of deliberations what they were basing their decision on.  Roe v Wade was based on the right to privacy of the 14th Amendment.
And this speculation couldn't come from past votes and issues previously ruled on?
This is how I know you truly do not understand how the whole system works.
The justices are chosen and appointed based off how they believe and interpret the constitution. This is their job. If the mass public can interpret an amendment in many different ways, why would the Justices be any different? Have you even read the questions the justices have asked, and seen the fumbled responses given to those justices?
The government forcing the public to buy a product from a private institution is unconstitutional....Can you name one other item we are FORCED to purchase or be taxed if we don't? Why not force people to purchase burial plots? After all, we are all going to die.

 

[oscardeuce]

Quote: Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469061


wikipedia? really?
if the scotus is basing decisions off political leanings (rather than constitutionality) you should have no problem defending its constitutionality. Since it is clear to you that they are ignoring this.
Ignore where the quote came from. Go look it up and follow the sources (click on the little blue numbers when you go there).

I'm not a constitutional lawyer so it would be pretty difficult to argue the merits of the law. And yes, it's quite apparent the SCOTUS is ignoring the basic tenets of their position.
The SCOUS does not determine the merits of the law. You can have the world's best law, but if it comes before the SC the only issue they determine is whether or not it is in line with the limits on the federal goverment set by the Constitution. No matter how lofty the intent of a law is is still must meet the Constitution. The only thing to argue is basically how far does the interstate commerce clause go, and how restrictive is the 10th Amendment.
The only political leanings I see are big gov't ( liberal) vs limited gov't ( conservative). The left also tends to look at the document as bending with the times while the right look at it as written and in the context of when and why it was written.
Given the above a more liberal judge will see a weak 10th and more powerful commerce clause, and the opposite for a conservative or originalist judge.
Again these decisions are insulated from the merits of the law.

 

[bionicarm]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469220
And this speculation couldn't come from past votes and issues previously ruled on?
This is how I know you truly do not understand how the whole system works.
The justices are chosen and appointed based off how they believe and interpret the constitution. This is their job. If the mass public can interpret an amendment in many different ways, why would the Justices be any different? Have you even read the questions the justices have asked, and seen the fumbled responses given to those justices?
The government forcing the public to buy a product from a private institution is unconstitutional....Can you name one other item we are FORCED to purchase or be taxed if we don't? Why not force people to purchase burial plots? After all, we are all going to die.
Medicare and SS comes to mind.
I'm forced to purchase auto insurance if I want to drive a car. If I don't, I get fined (a form of taxation). I could rely totally on public transportation, but the owners of that transportation face the same form of insurance requirement, so they raise their fares to compensate for the cost, which I pay. You can say walk, ride a bike or horse, but anyone with a sense of reality knows that's a virtual impossibility in today's hectic world.

 

[darthtang aw]

Medicare and SS comes to mind.
I'm forced to purchase auto insurance if I want to drive a car.  If I don't, I get fined (a form of taxation).  I could rely totally on public transportation, but the owners of that transportation face the same form of insurance requirement, so they raise their fares to compensate for the cost, which I pay.  You can say walk, ride a bike or horse, but anyone with a sense of reality knows that's a virtual impossibility in today's hectic world.
 
ss and medicare are not a privately owned and sold product. and if you dont work...you dont pay in. that is not an option for the health insurance bill. job or no job, you must comply.
car insurance is only needed if you choose to drive. it is not required by law due to your actual ability to draw breath. you could car pool. my ex wife never got her drivers license till she was thirty, she was not taxed for not having car insurance the entire time. you public transportation argumwnt does not work as this is STATEoperated and thus does notfall under federal jurisdiction.

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469218
The media reported how each of the justices were going to vote a week before they received the case. It became blatently apparent during the 3 days of deliberations what they were basing their decision on. Roe v Wade was based on the right to privacy of the 14th Amendment.
"Roe" didn't even have standing to sue. She was not pregnant at the time the suit was filed. But forget that "minor" technicality. PLEASE, list the part of the 14th amendment that mentions privacy. Further explain how that super right to privacy only applies to a woman seeking an abortion.
The media predicted how each member will vote. They might be right but I have heard some people suggest this vote could go 6 to 3. I've heard others say it could go the other way 6 to 3. That would blow the political motivation argument out of the water. In any case to claim it's political is baseless at this point. Without having the opinion issued you have no idea what the decision will be based on. This isn't a slam dunk either way..

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by bionicarm http:///t/391206/unprecedented#post_3469258
Medicare and SS comes to mind.
I'm forced to purchase auto insurance if I want to drive a car. If I don't, I get fined (a form of taxation). I could rely totally on public transportation, but the owners of that transportation face the same form of insurance requirement, so they raise their fares to compensate for the cost, which I pay. You can say walk, ride a bike or horse, but anyone with a sense of reality knows that's a virtual impossibility in today's hectic world.
Social security and medicare taxes pay for a defined benefit to the payer. The mandate fine is just that, a fine. Had they crafted the bill where people would have the money taken by the IRS and provided with insurance we could be looking at a whole different can of worms.