Hardball on 0bama0Care

Hardball on 0bama0Care (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

truckinslave -> Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/4/2011 10:00:04 PM)
A federal judge has declared 0bama0Care unconstitutional in toto. A compelling argument has been made that any further attempts to enforce the law- which no longer exists, remember- constitute felonies punishable by ten years in prison. Further, Va has petitioned SCOTUS to take the case directly, under Rule 11. Team 0bama0 is on record stating it wants to drag it through the appellate court first. One wonders why they are slowing the process down (unless they're desperately looking for blackmail-quality dirt on a Justice, perhaps). The law in question, and an analysis thereof: http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2011/02/memo-to-each-hhs-employee-working-on.html You'll have to look up the appeals stuff on your own.

mnottertail -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 6:29:51 AM)
This asswipe is going to go as far as the last one you posted on this. If there is any water to hold in these arguments (especially from Alaska) Palin will be imprisoned long before this Governor because of her taking money for the bridge to nowhere. I don't see any reason to skip courts on this, it should proceed thru the court system in orderly fashion.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 6:48:10 AM)
No, a federal judge did NOT declare HCRA unconstitutional. He declared the mandate unconstitutional. 1) There are hundreds of other provisions in HCRA (some good, some not so good) 2) The mandate was a stupid Republican idea in the first place. The Heritage Foundation and other Republican hacks like Chuck Grassley were trying to sell this loser idea for years

KenDckey -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 7:43:32 AM)
Jaguar Wasn't it the VA judge that declared the individual mandate unconstitutional and the FL judge that declared the whole thing unconstitutional or did I miss something here?

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 8:04:50 AM)
This blog misquotes Judge Vinson in the FL lawsuit, who opines SPECIFICALLY that the Federal mandate is unconstitutional. (Which it is) Chuck Grassley's (and the Heritage Foundation's) ignorant and ill-informed legal opinion that simply because the state's have legal authority under their own constitutions to mandate the purchase of Auto Insurance, that the Federal government somehow is constitutionally authorized to mandate the purchase of health insurance, is severely flawed. Then, of course, there is Nancy Pelosi's wonderful response, when asked about the constitutionality of the mandate. Which was: "Are you serious?" Well, Nancy, yes, we are. And so are the courts. Maybe our president can wake up and stop recycling bad Republican ideas, and start leading.

Hippiekinkster -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 8:17:35 AM)
As I understand it, the FL judge declared the Act unconstitutional because of the lack of a Severability clause. However, his decision is flawed. Here is at least one flaw that I found: Da Judge: "For example, everyone must participate in the food market. Instead of attempting to control wheat supply by regulating the acreage and amount of wheat a farmer could grow as in Wickard, under this logic, Congress could more directly raise too-low wheat prices merely by increasing demand through mandating that every adult purchase and consume wheat bread daily, rationalized on the grounds that because everyone must participate in the market for food, non-consumers of wheat bread adversely affect prices in the wheat market." This is moronic. There are people who produce their own food. I know of no one who is capable of providing their own heart surgery.

truckinslave -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 8:19:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 No, a federal judge did NOT declare HCRA unconstitutional. He declared the mandate unconstitutional. 1) There are hundreds of other provisions in HCRA (some good, some not so good) 2) The mandate was a stupid Republican idea in the first place. The Heritage Foundation and other Republican hacks like Chuck Grassley were trying to sell this loser idea for years You need to catch up. From Judge Vinsons ruling: ``I must reluctantly conclude that Congress exceeded the bounds of its authority in passing the Act with the individual mandate,'' Vinson wrote in his 78-page ruling. ``Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire Act must be declared void.'' Read more: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3WgwqMB9hjQJ:www.miamiherald.com/2011/01/31/2043628/florida-judge-voids-part-of-health.html+florida+unconstitutional&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com#ixzz1D6NO7fkj

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 8:45:06 AM)
My mistake, truckinslave. Yes, the non-severability reasoning is absurd. We'll see what happens in the courts. Jag

truckinslave -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 9:03:44 AM)
You may consider his reasoning absurd, but many Dims on Capitol Hill have agreed that the law is unsupportable without it. DOJ stated at least 14 times in oral arguments that the mandate was "essential" to the viability of the law. What do you make of DOJs failure to support direct appeal to SCOTUS?

mnottertail -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 9:10:30 AM)
what fucking tv are you listening to. I suppose you can come up with actual cites of both the 14 essential vitamins and the capitol hill many agreements? or is this typical nutsucker misinformation like joe the plumber.

truckinslave -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 9:14:08 AM)
Without the individual mandate, costs skyrocket even under the insane assumptions given to CBO. A slew of people have said this, many of them Ds. The 14 cititations? read the oral arguments.

mnottertail -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 9:16:09 AM)
I have, not there. So your opinion is turned over on your first assertion now, and nothing on the second.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 9:31:51 AM)
ok... There are a lot of issues here. Why are there a lot of issues? Because this bill tried to solve too many problems at once. 1) First of all, financial viability of the bill from either the insurance companies point-of-view, or the taxpayers point-of-view is NOT an issue for the courts to decide. It is not for the courts to decide that: A) The mandate is unconstitutional. therefore... B) The bill is not financially viable. therefore... C) There is no severability. therefore... D) The WHOLE bill is unconstitutional They have to get to C without going through B. If B is the premise, then they are outside of their jurisdiction. 2) As I said above, the bill tries to tackle too many things: a) Exclusions for Pre-Existing Conditions b) Rising premiums c) Insuring the un-insured The mandate was a Republican-style giveaway to the insurance companies in return for eliminating A and paying lip service to keeping B in check. They could have mandated A and introduced competition more quickly to keep B in check. A public option (as a public/private partnership could have worked). Also Direct Primary Care is my favorite. It eliminates insurance companies entirely and keeps costs down. It works quite well here in Seattle in the Private sector (http://www.qliance.com). It also works very well as a public/private partnership in San Francisco (see Healthy San Francisco). To solve C above, they should have introduced a separate bill. Figure out how much it costs, and allocate the funds. Period. It gets voted up or down in Congress. (Believe it or not, that was Rush Limbaugh's suggestion. He and I rarely agree. Maybe once or twice a year)

truckinslave -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 9:53:45 AM)
This is exactly how, absent a severability clause, the severability doctrine works. When the court cannot, for any number of reasons, sever one particular provision from the reat of a law, it kills the entire thing. Admittedly there is no real organizing principle at work; Stern wrote in 1937: “the Court avails itself of one [severability] formula or another in order to justify results which seem to it to be desirable for other reasons.” This is evidently a very murky area of law, and I will grant you that Vinson seems hostile to the legislation generally. Yet his reasoning is entirely consistent with many other opinions from the '30s and earlier. Simply buying insurance for the uninsured probably would have been cheaper... Why do you think DOJ failed to support immediate appeal to SCOTUS? It's not like there is a bunch of research to be done. Change the cover sheets, ship it north.....

mnottertail -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 10:01:06 AM)
except that it ain't. the severability doctrine and its longstanding application and usage is this: 'preserve as much of the law as possible.' it is one of the primary reasons that the bulk of SCOTUS rulings are very, very, very narrow.

truckinslave -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 10:18:03 AM)
The government argued the mandate was essential to the law. The government failed to include a severability clause. BTW, if the doctrine really was as you created, why would severability clauses even exist, much less be standard equipment? That really was pretty simpleminded, even for you, mn.

mnottertail -> RE: Hardball on 0bama0Care (2/5/2011 11:43:34 AM)
Same reason that laws against killing exist....jesus! you would think people would know better, wouldn't ya? Now you have boosted it to 'the government argued the mandate was essential to the law'. All bold and shit. I remember as if it was yesterday, Palin, Bachmann, McCain, Boener, McConnell, all linking arms on the Capital steps and singing, if I only was a democrat, I would have an essential mandate instead of my simpleton song, 'No'. It wasn't that long ago you were frothing at the mouth with your colleagues about we have to pass the bill to see whats in it..... Seems to me, you should see a doctor about your memory problems and your both sides of the mouth speeches. And what requires a severability clause? I imagine they found the Constitution illegal when they did the reverses to policy and enacted the 14th, or when they did Roe v. Wade, or the ....... Jesus, they must of had fishsticks in school that day and I missed the announcements.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875