Unelected

#101
#101
Hospital do not have to treat for non-emergency cases, many hospitals turn people away all the time, we do not currently have universal health care, we have emergency care for all

RBG tried to argue that the SCOTUS could pick and choose which parts of the bill that they wanted to keep and she was shot down by the other Justices, The administration has admited their mistake in leaving severability out
 
Last edited:
#102
#102
milohimself said:
Look up the 80/20 rule.


I was under the impression that the SCOTUS could practice severability as they saw fit, but I was in Mexico all of last week.
Click to expand...

the people pushing the law didn't bother to read it all but you expect the SC to go thru it line by line with a red pen? Come on, there's only one part that matters and if it's gone then it should all disappear
 
#103
#103
T-TownVol said:
Hospital do not have to treat for non-emergency cases, many hospitals turn people away all the time, we do not currently have universal health care, we have emergency care for all

RBG tried to argue that the SCOTUS could pick and choose which parts of the bill that they wanted to keep and she was shot down by the other Justices, The administration has admited their mistake in leaving severability out
Click to expand...

EMTALA was an act written and passed with good intentions, but in practice creates a major distortion when providers with emergency facilities are required to expend resources to at least triage every single person that walks through the door. add to that, the liability expense and the administrative costs in turning patients away and the costs become larger and larger.
 
#104
#104
#106
#106
T-TownVol said:
Hospital do not have to treat for non-emergency cases, many hospitals turn people away all the time, we do not currently have universal health care, we have emergency care for all

RBG tried to argue that the SCOTUS could pick and choose which parts of the bill that they wanted to keep and she was shot down by the other Justices, The administration has admited their mistake in leaving severability out
Click to expand...
But they do have to treat emergency cases, and that applies to all, so it is a form of universal healthcare by definition. Drevol explained it well.

Re: Severability, thanks for clearing that up

utvolpj said:
the people pushing the law didn't bother to read it all but you expect the SC to go thru it line by line with a red pen? Come on, there's only one part that matters and if it's gone then it should all disappear
Click to expand...
Probably, but there are some parts of the law that have proven incredibly popular and could stand on their own without the individual mandate. I've been able to receive treatment a couple times in the last year alone because of it, and I would have otherwise been SOL even though I have a job.
 
#107
#107
#108
#108
Newsweek Calls For Impeaching Supreme Court Justices If Obamacare Overturned « Pat Dollard

NewsWeek/DailyBeast – The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.
Click to expand...

godofallthings.jpg


IMHO, only a moron would pay good money to buy a Newsweak Mag.

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

We might amend the Constitution to establish judicial term limits. Or we might increase the number of justices to dilute the influence of its current members (though FDR could tell you how that turned out). In the end, however, it is the duty of the people to protect the Constitution from the court. Social progress cannot be held hostage by five unelected men.
Click to expand...

What they mean is the court shouldn't impede the march toward socialism in America.

Obama’s Lies And Hypocrisy In Demanding Supreme Court Uphold Obamacare « The Conservative Review

The man is either totally ignorant of history or deliberately lying to the American public as usual.

Judicial Activism? What About Executive Activism? Obama knows very much about activism, just not judicial activism. First, it’s not activism to overturn an unconstitutional law. That’s the court’s job. Second, if overturning a law that is “a duly constituted and passed law” is judicial activism, what is it called when the Chief Executive unilaterally decides not to enforce one of those laws because he has decided it’s not constitutional?

President Obama has decided that the Defense of Marriage Act is unconstitutional and has asked his Justice Department to stop defending it in court, the administration announced today.

The president is not given the power under the Constitution to determine the constitutionality of laws, yet Obama took that power for himself. Sounds like the worst sort of activism….dictatorship. And it’s not the only time he’s done it.

Bowing to pressure from immigrant rights activists, the Obama administration said Thursday that it will halt deportation proceedings on a case-by-case basis against illegal immigrants who meet certain criteria, such as attending school, having family in the military or having primary responsible for other family members’ care.
Click to expand...


When it comes to being ignorant of history or lying, I think it safe to say that in Obama's case most of the time, it is BOTH.
 
#109
#109
dreVol said:
EMTALA was an act written and passed with good intentions, but in practice creates a major distortion when providers with emergency facilities are required to expend resources to at least triage every single person that walks through the door. add to that, the liability expense and the administrative costs in turning patients away and the costs become larger and larger.
Click to expand...


Exactly. And as a result minor problems which could have been dealt with for $300 end up in the ER and cost $30,000, which gets shifted to us paying patients ( insurance or otherwise).

It's lunacy.

If we mandate care be given, we ought to mandate the most efficient means for it. A lot if money is made on the system by a lot of interests, but they are killing the consumers and small businesses.
 
#110
#110
lawgator1 said:
It was a political stunt, not a legitimate request for purposes of evaluating a valid legal issue. Judge is way out of line here.

Way out of line.
Click to expand...

Calling out the supreme court in your state of the union with them sitting in front of you was pretty pathetic lg.

then telling them what is allowable is just icing on the cake.

he has pissed off a bunch oif judges now who have egos too.

this is going to get ugly.
 
#111
#111
The SCOTUS has voted party line for some time now, with a few exceptions.
 
#113
#113
dreVol said:
I don't think it's party line, it's based on theories of constitutional interpretation
Click to expand...

And the four justices appointed by democratic presidents will interpret it as constitutional while the justices appointed by republicans will interpret it as unconstitutional.
 
#114
#114
milohimself said:
And the four justices appointed by democratic presidents will interpret it as constitutional while the justices appointed by republicans will interpret it as unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

I can see why one would make that argument, but I'm not convinced that that will necessarily be the case in the ACA decision
 
#115
#115
I'm just pointing out that even the SCOTUS isn't apolitical. It was a party line vote that just occurred giving the police permission to strip search anyone for even the most minor of offenses. People like to say politicization of the court goes back to FDR when he started loading the SCOTUS with progressive justices, but it goes back to the founding. Thomas Jefferson had a fairly notorious beef with the court, as did Lincoln and a number of other sitting presidents, and most cases including criticizing the court during deliberation.

What Obama said the other day was tactless, but technically he was correct; you have to go back to the new deal to find a case of the SCOTUS overturning major domestic legislation of the president, and that's one of the only instances in our country's history. So yes, in that sense, the ACA being overturned would be unprecedented. His comments were far from unprecedented, but he should have taken to Eric Holder's line of comments, something along the lines of "We'll accept whatever decision the court hands down and work from there."
 
#116
#116
milohimself said:
I'm just pointing out that even the SCOTUS isn't apolitical. It was a party line vote that just occurred giving the police permission to strip search anyone for even the most minor of offenses. People like to say politicization of the court goes back to FDR when he started loading the SCOTUS with progressive justices, but it goes back to the founding. Thomas Jefferson had a fairly notorious beef with the court, as did Lincoln and a number of other sitting presidents, and most cases including criticizing the court during deliberation.

What Obama said the other day was tactless, but technically he was correct; you have to go back to the new deal to find a case of the SCOTUS overturning major domestic legislation of the president, and that's one of the only instances in our country's history. So yes, in that sense, the ACA being overturned would be unprecedented. His comments were far from unprecedented, but he should have taken to Eric Holder's line of comments, something along the lines of "We'll accept whatever decision the court hands down and work from there."
Click to expand...

i don't recall his comments noting the bold. his comments said that overturning a law passed by a strong majority of democratically elected congress would be unprecedented.

I don't see what's unprecedented about finding a law unconstitutional that was passed by 7 voted in the House and a barely filibuster proof Senate majority. I also dot think that's a "strong majority"
 
#117
#117
It was a dumb comment, and he can and probably will pay for it politically. Just pointing out that he's far from the first president to make that sort of comment, and won't be the last.

When I heard it live, that's the context in which I was listening to it.
 
#118
#118
dreVol said:
i don't recall his comments noting the bold. his comments said that overturning a law passed by a strong majority of democratically elected congress would be unprecedented.

I don't see what's unprecedented about finding a law unconstitutional that was passed by 7 voted in the House and a barely filibuster proof Senate majority. I also dot think that's a "strong majority"
Click to expand...


It hasn't happened in awhile, is what I think he was really saying, but at any rate the notion that he is actually saying they can't do that is of course nonsense. He knows they can. Its just politics preparing for the worst if they overturn it.

The Fifth Circuit judges, all appointed by Republicans, were making their own political tit for tat response, which is really not their function.

Hope the DOJ doesn't answer but if they do just say "Are you kidding me?"
 
#119
#119
Holder has been the one person in the administration I've seen actually make a sensible response to all of this.
 
#123
#123
bamawriter said:
As a lawyer, how much to you care about being held in contempt? I would think you'd care quite a bit, but your advice to the DOJ would suggest otherwise.
Click to expand...


I know, I know. They had to answer it.

A shame. Such a ridiculous order. Well, at least we know three federal judges who will never be considered, by any POTUS, for promotion.
 
#124
#124
milohimself said:
It was a dumb comment, and he can and probably will pay for it politically. Just pointing out that he's far from the first president to make that sort of comment, and won't be the last.

When I heard it live, that's the context in which I was listening to it.
Click to expand...

Here's the thing - I don't recall a POTUS ever making this type comment; particularly as said in the Rose Garden while a case was under review by the court.

After a ruling comes down perhaps but not during the deliberations - it definitely came across as telling the courts how they are supposed to decide this case and attempting de-legitimize the outcome if they don't rule the way he says they should. That is why many court watchers saw this as an attempt to intimidate the court.

For a guy that loves the word "unprecendented" he certainly showed an example here.

The same is true for the Citizen's United case. The POTUS simply does not call out the court during the SOTU speech. It was unprecedented. Didn't help that his interpretation of what the ruling meant was wrong as well.
 
#125
#125
There was a debate over it on news hour the other night and a georgetown law professor rattled offa list of instances where presidents have called out the court during deliberation
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top