quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


That is a Diversion. You have been watching MsNBC too long.

I am taxed for common defense spending if I work. I don't pay for defense spending if I don't work. The Founding Fathers provided taxation to finance the military for "the Common Defense" of us all. But not Obamacare. Not even mentioned. Nor are Contraceptives btw.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Truthiness

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Because it's not one of the "talking points."

If sinking in were working, it would bother people a LOT that a Supreme Court Justice is repeating Republican talking points verbatim during oral arguments.

Only if you think those talking points are wrong. I disagree with the majority of talking points of both sides for most things, but this is one issue where I think the Republican "talking points" are pretty much on the nose.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Jeeze, are you kidding. Why would the Founding Fathers allow free men to be forced to buy something even if they did not want it? Think about it for a second and ignore BS about "commerce clauses".

quote:

President Obama:

With respect to health care, I’m actually -- continue to be confident that the Supreme Court will uphold the law. And the reason is because, in accordance with precedent out there, it’s constitutional. That's not just my opinion, by the way; that's the opinion of legal experts across the ideological spectrum, including two very conservative appellate court justices that said this wasn’t even a close case.

I think it’s important -- because I watched some of the commentary last week -- to remind people that this is not an abstract argument. People’s lives are affected by the lack of availability of health care, the inaffordability of health care, their inability to get health care because of preexisting conditions.

The law that's already in place has already given 2.5 million young people health care that wouldn’t otherwise have it. There are tens of thousands of adults with preexisting conditions who have health care right now because of this law. Parents don't have to worry about their children not being able to get health care because they can't be prevented from getting health care as a consequence of a preexisting condition. That's part of this law.

Millions of seniors are paying less for prescription drugs because of this law. Americans all across the country have greater rights and protections with respect to their insurance companies and are getting preventive care because of this law.

So that’s just the part that's already been implemented. That doesn’t even speak to the 30 million people who stand to gain coverage once it’s fully implemented in 2014.

And I think it’s important, and I think the American people understand, and the I think the justices should understand, that in the absence of an individual mandate, you cannot have a mechanism to ensure that people with preexisting conditions can actually get health care. So there’s not only a economic element to this, and a legal element to this, but there’s a human element to this. And I hope that’s not forgotten in this political debate.

Ultimately, I’m confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we’ve heard is, the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint -- that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example. And I’m pretty confident that this Court will recognize that and not take that step.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR

Historically, conservative Republican judges were not in favor of "judicial activism".

I think Obama was just appealing to those on the court who have written ad nauseum against judicial activism (e.g. Scalia) to say, if you really don't believe in judicial activism then you really, constitutionally, legally, should not overturn this legislation.

I don't think he meant this as any kind of "threat" agains the Supreme Court. I really think it was meant as a personal appeal to those on the court who are anti-judicial activism.

(But, of course, we know that the conservative justices on the court who are against judicial activism will have no difficulty simply hypocritically ignoring their own writings on the topic, and happily judicially activate away. Again, the hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze....)

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR

Historically, conservative Republican judges were not in favor of "judicial activism".

I think Obama was just appealing to those on the court who have written ad nauseum against judicial activism (e.g. Scalia) to say, if you really don't believe in judicial activism then you really, constitutionally, legally, should not overturn this legislation.

I don't think he meant this as any kind of "threat" agains the Supreme Court. I really think it was meant as a personal appeal to those on the court who are anti-judicial activism.

(But, of course, we know that the conservative justices on the court who are against judicial activism will have no difficulty simply hypocritically ignoring their own writings on the topic, and happily judicially activate away. Again, the hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze....)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas


That is a Diversion. You have been watching MsNBC too long.

I am taxed for common defense spending if I work. I don't pay for defense spending if I don't work. The Founding Fathers provided taxation to finance the military for "the Common Defense" of us all. But not Obamacare. Not even mentioned. Nor are Contraceptives btw.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Look what's mentioned right after "Provide for the common defense"

That's the preamble to the US constitution in case you weren't familiar with it.

quote:

promote the general Welfare

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Jeeze, are you kidding. Why would the Founding Fathers allow free men to be forced to buy something even if they did not want it? Think about it for a second and ignore BS about "commerce clauses".

quote:

ORIGINAL: outhere69

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Jeeze, are you kidding. Why would the Founding Fathers allow free men to be forced to buy something even if they did not want it? Think about it for a second and ignore BS about "commerce clauses".

Medicare.
Social Security
Medicaid
Interstate Highway Maintenance

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR

Historically, conservative Republican judges were not in favor of "judicial activism".

I think Obama was just appealing to those on the court who have written ad nauseum against judicial activism (e.g. Scalia) to say, if you really don't believe in judicial activism then you really, constitutionally, legally, should not overturn this legislation.

I don't think he meant this as any kind of "threat" agains the Supreme Court. I really think it was meant as a personal appeal to those on the court who are anti-judicial activism.

(But, of course, we know that the conservative justices on the court who are against judicial activism will have no difficulty simply hypocritically ignoring their own writings on the topic, and happily judicially activate away. Again, the hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze....)

Well. Of course "we" know no such thing.

The Supreme Court will only overturn this law if it is NOT Constitutional. So, if this is a Supreme Court acting improperly in your view then this law is indeed Constitutional.

Therefore, since you feel qualified to critique the Supreme Court and indeed suggest some members of that most High Court are hypocrites, then clearly you should be able to answer why is this law constitutional or conversely, why is the Court being "activist" rather than doing it's job of deciding on what is Constitutional? For your benefit, here are the articles that pertain to Congress and its power to obtain money from U.S. Citizens.

Which one supports the Obamacare mandate that requires each citizen to buy an insurance policy or pay a fine or go to jail and why?

Section 8, Article 1.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 8, Article 3.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

quote:

ORIGINAL: PatrickG38

The Supreme Court is not immune from sharp criticism and this Court well deserves it. Lincoln (before becoming President) excoriated the Supreme Court for Dred Scot. TO strike down this mandate would be fairly naked political act in the footsteps of other such acts, Bush v. Gore, Citizen’s United. I still expect a 5-4 or 6-3 decision upholding the law. Nevertheless, to throw out a democratically enacted piece of legislation meant to address a national problem that is fundamentally an exercise of the taxing power would be most activist. Conservatives used to believe elections have consequences. By the way criticism of this Court is bipartisan. Just listen to John McCain on Citizens United.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

Therefore, since you feel qualified to critique the Supreme Court and indeed suggest some members of that most High Court are hypocrites, then clearly you should be able to answer why is this law constitutional or conversely, why is the Court being "activist" rather than doing it's job of deciding on what is Constitutional? For your benefit, here are the articles that pertain to Congress and its power to obtain money from U.S. Citizens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR

Historically, conservative Republican judges were not in favor of "judicial activism".

I think Obama was just appealing to those on the court who have written ad nauseum against judicial activism (e.g. Scalia) to say, if you really don't believe in judicial activism then you really, constitutionally, legally, should not overturn this legislation.

I don't think he meant this as any kind of "threat" agains the Supreme Court. I really think it was meant as a personal appeal to those on the court who are anti-judicial activism.

(But, of course, we know that the conservative justices on the court who are against judicial activism will have no difficulty simply hypocritically ignoring their own writings on the topic, and happily judicially activate away. Again, the hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze....)

Well. Of course "we" know no such thing.

The Supreme Court will only overturn this law if it is NOT Constitutional. So, if this is a Supreme Court acting improperly in your view then this law is indeed Constitutional.

Therefore, since you feel qualified to critique the Supreme Court and indeed suggest some members of that most High Court are hypocrites, then clearly you should be able to answer why is this law constitutional or conversely, why is the Court being "activist" rather than doing it's job of deciding on what is Constitutional? For your benefit, here are the articles that pertain to Congress and its power to obtain money from U.S. Citizens.

Which one supports the Obamacare mandate that requires each citizen to buy an insurance policy or pay a fine or go to jail and why?

Section 8, Article 1.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 8, Article 3.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I do not "feel" anything. Scalia has done it before, and he will do it again. He is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to writing about one thing and then acting on the court in a completely opposite way when it suits him. This isn't about how I "feel". This is about reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas

quote:

ORIGINAL: fucktoyprincess

FR

Historically, conservative Republican judges were not in favor of "judicial activism".

I think Obama was just appealing to those on the court who have written ad nauseum against judicial activism (e.g. Scalia) to say, if you really don't believe in judicial activism then you really, constitutionally, legally, should not overturn this legislation.

I don't think he meant this as any kind of "threat" agains the Supreme Court. I really think it was meant as a personal appeal to those on the court who are anti-judicial activism.

(But, of course, we know that the conservative justices on the court who are against judicial activism will have no difficulty simply hypocritically ignoring their own writings on the topic, and happily judicially activate away. Again, the hypocrisy of the right never ceases to amaze....)

Well. Of course "we" know no such thing.

The Supreme Court will only overturn this law if it is NOT Constitutional. So, if this is a Supreme Court acting improperly in your view then this law is indeed Constitutional.

Therefore, since you feel qualified to critique the Supreme Court and indeed suggest some members of that most High Court are hypocrites, then clearly you should be able to answer why is this law constitutional or conversely, why is the Court being "activist" rather than doing it's job of deciding on what is Constitutional? For your benefit, here are the articles that pertain to Congress and its power to obtain money from U.S. Citizens.

Which one supports the Obamacare mandate that requires each citizen to buy an insurance policy or pay a fine or go to jail and why?

Section 8, Article 1.
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Section 8, Article 3.
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

I do not "feel" anything. Scalia has done it before, and he will do it again. He is the ultimate hypocrite when it comes to writing about one thing and then acting on the court in a completely opposite way when it suits him. This isn't about how I "feel". This is about reality.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Arturas
I see. So, it does not matter if Scalia is right this time it is simply that he was a "judical activist" before in your opinion an so he is doing it now even though he is right. Or, you actually think he is an activist and can actually point to the Consitutional Artical that he is missusing and how. Or you cannot and are just blowing smoke.