1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Two Years On: Obamacare

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Zeke12, Mar 23, 2012.

Page 53 of 69
  1. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    The GOP argument is that there is already universal health care. It is called bankruptcy. You also can't be turned away from an emergency room.
     
    Dick Whitman, Mar 29, 2012
    #625
  2. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Anything can pass anywhere.

    I didn't think somebody would drag Ayn Rand out of the dark. But someone did. And the Tea Party reads her.
     
    Alma, Mar 29, 2012
    #626
  3. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

    You forgot comprehensive drug plan for seniors
     
    Boom_70, Mar 29, 2012
    #627
  4. Mizzougrad96

    Mizzougrad96 Active Member

    When I was in college from 1992-96, it seemed like everyone was reading Rand's work.
     
    Mizzougrad96, Mar 29, 2012
    #628
  5. YGBFKM

    YGBFKM Guest

    Brilliant analysis.
     
    YGBFKM, Mar 29, 2012
    #629
  6. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Some good stuff from Dahlia Lithwick this week. Sorry if it has already been discussed on the thread. I'm not reading 2,700 pages.

    http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/03/the_supreme_court_is_more_concerned_with_the_politics_of_the_health_care_debate_than_the_law_.html?wpisrc=obinsite

    Part of this goes back to the administration’s abject failure in defending the constitutionality of the law over the past two years. Of course the public thinks the law is unconstitutional. They never heard a single word defending it.

    ...

    [A]s it happens, the current court is almost fanatically worried about its legitimacy and declining public confidence in the institution. For over a decade now, the justices have been united in signaling that they are moderate, temperate, and minimalist in their duties. From Chief Justice Robert’s description of himself as just an “umpire” and his speeches about humility and the need for unanimity, to Stephen Breyer’s latest book Making Our Democracy Work—a meditation on all the ways the courts depend on public confidence. ... (A) Bloomberg News national poll show(s) that 75 percent of Americans expect the decision to be influenced by the justices’ personal politics. ... To hand down a 5-4, ideologically divided opinion just before the Republican and Democratic Party conventions, would—simply put—prove that 75 percent correct, and erode further the public esteem for the court. Justice Clarence Thomas doesn’t worry much about things like that. I suspect Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Kennedy worry quite a lot.
     
    Dick Whitman, Mar 29, 2012
    #630
  7. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Civics teachers all over the United States weep. Our freedom of religion or our freedom of assembly or the enumerated powers of the Federal government were not given to us by the grace of the Supreme Court.

    I believe you are trying to summarize the doctrine of judicial review, and you just murdered it.

    The Constitution is pretty specific. Judicial review is a doctrine under which Federal legislation and executive actions are subject to review by the judiciary, if someone challenges that legislation or executive action as being incompatible with the Constitution.

    The Supreme Court doesn't the rewrite the Constitution on the fly; at least it is not what is empowered to do. The document is what it is. The Supreme Court tells us if any particular specific matter before the court -- a Federal law that is being challenged -- is Constitutional or unConstitutional.

    That is a long way from "the Constitution is what the Supreme Court says."
     
    The Big Ragu, Mar 29, 2012
    #631
  8. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    Where does the Constitution say this?
     
    Dick Whitman, Mar 29, 2012
    #632
  9. da man

    da man Well-Known Member

    Well, that surely makes it true.
     
    da man, Mar 29, 2012
    #633
  10. RickStain

    RickStain Well-Known Member

    I think that's exactly what will happen.

    Kennedy will be deeply uncomfortable with the law but decide to be deferential to Congress, and Roberts will jump on board to keep it from being 5-4.
     
    RickStain, Mar 29, 2012
    #634
  11. Dick Whitman

    Dick Whitman Well-Known Member

    So 6-3?

    I think 7-2. I think majority gets Scalia, as well.
     
    Dick Whitman, Mar 29, 2012
    #635
  12. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    Judicial review is not written explicitly into the Constitution.

    The closest it comes to the Constitution is its inclusion in the Federalist Papers by Hamilton.

    I wasn't suggesting that it is enumerated in the Constitution, for what it is worth. I was suggesting that the take away from Marbury v. Madison was not John Marshall saying, "The Constitution says what the Supreme Court says."

    The Supreme Court -- since Marbury v. Madison -- hasn't adopted the power to change what the document says. It merely has adopted the power to settle cases before it that challenge laws as being incompatible with what the document says.
     
    The Big Ragu, Mar 29, 2012
    #636
Page 53 of 69
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page