I recall hearing an interview with the president where he discusses the possibility of a legal challenge to the ACA where he said he and his legal advisors were confident it would hold up to a challenge. That being said, stranger things have happened with the Supreme Court before.
If some part of the ACA is found unconstitutional, I never want to hear Republicans railing against "activist judges ruling from the bench" ever again.
Basically: Do you trust any of justices Kennedy (authored the Citizens United decision), Roberts (Bush appointee), and Scalia (lol) to sign off on a reasoned argument informed by legal precedent and not political pressure? Because that's entirely what it may come down to.
Basically: Do you trust any of justices Kennedy (authored the Citizens United decision), Roberts (Bush appointee), and Scalia (lol) to sign off on a reasoned argument informed by legal precedent and not political pressure? Because that's entirely what it may come down to.
Roberts and Scalia will vote no, sure, but if Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan, and Sotomayor okay it, we're fine.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
edited March 2012
Kennedy and Roberts might be worried about the political blowback of a 5-4 decision; Bush v. Gore and Citizens United were both 5-4 and hurt the image of the Court's "legitimacy" quite a bit. I can't imagine Alito, Scalia, or Thomas upholding it, but Roberts and Kennedy might in order to strengthen the Court's position with a 6-3. Not to mention the fact that the legal arguments for constitutionality are pretty straightforward and easily defensible.
Not to start it into a big thing, but how does the Individual Mandate aspect of the ACA hold up, constitutionally?
Depends of the Court accepts the argument that it is a tax or not.
But at that point doesn't it become damned if they do, damned if they don't? I mean, wasn't it presented, advertised, and pushed as not a tax?
I mean, if it is a tax, then yeah, I can see the constitutionality of it. Personally I still think an employer mandate would have worked better, but only assuming an employer-based system moving forward, which isn't something I want, so I don't really know where it stands.
Kennedy and Roberts might be worried about the political blowback of a 5-4 decision; Bush v. Gore and Citizens United were both 5-4 and hurt the image of the Court's "legitimacy" quite a bit. I can't imagine Alito, Scalia, or Thomas upholding it, but Roberts and Kennedy might in order to strengthen the Court's position with a 6-3. Not to mention the fact that the legal arguments for constitutionality are pretty straightforward and easily defensible.
Since when does Roberts give a shit about political blowback? And frankly, the Court shouldn't - this is about doing what's right, and that's not necessarily what people want.
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
Roberts came into the court talking about wanting unanimous decisions, which are politically strong for the court because it enhances the view of it as a unified constitutional authority, rather than just another government institution bickering along party lines like 5-4 decisions do. It's dumb to say that Roberts and some of the other justices don't think about the political ramifications of the American public losing faith in the Court.
Scalia and Thomas don't care about the Court's appearance, but Scalia will contradict himself at the drop of a hat so he doesn't really care about legitimacy either. Thomas is more consistent, but his views are so bizarre and archaic that being consistent with them isn't really a virtue.
If some part of the ACA is found unconstitutional, I never want to hear Republicans railing against "activist judges ruling from the bench" ever again.
They'll never stop. "Activist" means "a judge whose ruling I don't like". They have absolutely no problem with "activist" judges going their way.
Three lines of plaintext:
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If they give even a vague shit about precedent it's 9-0. If ACA is unconstitutional so is Social Security and Medicare, by my understanding. They don't, so it won't be.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
If they give even a vague shit about precedent it's 9-0. If ACA is unconstitutional so is Social Security and Medicare, by my understanding. They don't, so it won't be.
You'd think that the fact that the anti ACA has to resort to OMG ITS THE END OF FEDERALISM FOREVER WELCOME TO SLAVERY LAND would be a clue to that.
This Slate piece makes a pretty good argument for why the conservatives on the Roberts Court might not want to attack the ACA. Remember, a serious challenge to Citizens United will be on the docket, most likely.
People argue about the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare. The rest of us are just smart enough to realize their inherent benefits far outweigh their questionable legality.
Basically if SS and Medicare are unconstitutional, then fuck the Constitution.
People argue about the constitutionality of Social Security and Medicare. The rest of us are just smart enough to realize their inherent benefits far outweigh their questionable legality.
Basically if SS and Medicare are unconstitutional, then fuck the Constitution.
Or, you know...fucking change it. I don't know, it's not like it has a system by which it can be amended when the people realize the societal needs of a given thing.
Yes, that is a political impossibility in this day and age. It doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater and declare anarchy.
This Slate piece makes a pretty good argument for why the conservatives on the Roberts Court might not want to attack the ACA. Remember, a serious challenge to Citizens United will be on the docket, most likely.
the court doesn't have to accept any case they don't like. And honestly they don't usually revisit issues for a good while. i doubt citizens is going anywhere
0
Options
KalTorakOne way or another, they all end up inthe Undercity.Registered Userregular
This Slate piece makes a pretty good argument for why the conservatives on the Roberts Court might not want to attack the ACA. Remember, a serious challenge to Citizens United will be on the docket, most likely.
the court doesn't have to accept any case they don't like. And honestly they don't usually revisit issues for a good while. i doubt citizens is going anywhere
You only need the votes of four justices to grant cert. Obviously they won't do that unless they think they can win (or there's a circuit split), but if the court makeup shifts unexpectedly to give the liberals a solid 5-4 advantage, then CU could be overturned.
This Slate piece makes a pretty good argument for why the conservatives on the Roberts Court might not want to attack the ACA. Remember, a serious challenge to Citizens United will be on the docket, most likely.
the court doesn't have to accept any case they don't like. And honestly they don't usually revisit issues for a good while. i doubt citizens is going anywhere
Um, I take it that you forgot about the ruling that came out of my home state a few months back. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that our century old Corrupt Practices Act did not violate the Constitution. If the ruling stands, it leaves a gaping loophole in the Citizens United ruling.
Oh how I wish that Citizens United would get overturned, that decision just bothers me on so many levels.
I know exactly how it plays out: Kennedy, pissed at how the original ruling turned out, flips over. Roberts, wanting to preserve as much of the Citizens United ruling, also flips so he can abuse his position to protect it. End result is 6-3 in favor of the State of Montana, but with a narrow ruling written by Roberts that preserves a good portion of what makes CU so noxious.
I find it weird that Presidents get to appoint the Chief Justice. It's weird that we just don't advance one of the other eight already on the bench, so the new guy gets some practice swings in the big time first.
I find it weird that Presidents get to appoint the Chief Justice. It's weird that we just don't advance one of the other eight already on the bench, so the new guy gets some practice swings in the big time first.
An interesting read about this whole "fuck women" from the GOP, kind of gives insight into some of it.
All I got from that article is that conservatives cannot be reasoned with, and will use whatever rationale they can conjure to defend their indoctrinated idioms, and will oppress the rest of enlightened society out of their fear of change.
Clearly, this is an Enemy that cannot be suffered, and the Greatest Threat to America.
So Batman is liberal propaganda? More specifically, Alfred in the Dark Knight was speaking about this very threat, which apparently Joker is symbolic of? I should pay attention to pop culture more often.
The quote,
Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.
Please take this as tongue in cheek. The article, and book, actually sounds much more informative.
Lilnoobs on
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I would need to read the book, but the idea that we should modify our political system to better attune it to our underlying irrational intuitions is one that would need to be supported by a considerable amount of argument.
I would need to read the book, but the idea that we should modify our political system to better attune it to our underlying irrational intuitions is one that would need to be supported by a considerable amount of argument.
Posts
If some part of the ACA is found unconstitutional, I never want to hear Republicans railing against "activist judges ruling from the bench" ever again.
http://www.latimes.com/health/la-na-court-mandate.eps-20120324,0,6155766.graphic
Basically: Do you trust any of justices Kennedy (authored the Citizens United decision), Roberts (Bush appointee), and Scalia (lol) to sign off on a reasoned argument informed by legal precedent and not political pressure? Because that's entirely what it may come down to.
Depends of the Court accepts the argument that it is a tax or not.
But at that point doesn't it become damned if they do, damned if they don't? I mean, wasn't it presented, advertised, and pushed as not a tax?
I mean, if it is a tax, then yeah, I can see the constitutionality of it. Personally I still think an employer mandate would have worked better, but only assuming an employer-based system moving forward, which isn't something I want, so I don't really know where it stands.
Edit: An article that just jumped out at me:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/03/25/1077416/-One-perspective-regarding-the-Supreme-Court-and-the-Affordable-Care-Act
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
Scalia and Thomas don't care about the Court's appearance, but Scalia will contradict himself at the drop of a hat so he doesn't really care about legitimacy either. Thomas is more consistent, but his views are so bizarre and archaic that being consistent with them isn't really a virtue.
They'll never stop. "Activist" means "a judge whose ruling I don't like". They have absolutely no problem with "activist" judges going their way.
obsolete signature form
replaced by JPEGs.
If it's upheld it will be 6-3 so Roberts picks who writes the decision.
You'd think that the fact that the anti ACA has to resort to OMG ITS THE END OF FEDERALISM FOREVER WELCOME TO SLAVERY LAND would be a clue to that.
Basically if SS and Medicare are unconstitutional, then fuck the Constitution.
Or, you know...fucking change it. I don't know, it's not like it has a system by which it can be amended when the people realize the societal needs of a given thing.
Yes, that is a political impossibility in this day and age. It doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater and declare anarchy.
Stick it in our Constitutional gimme clause.
Punishment for not being bootstrappy enough.
Didn't the elderly in Florida turn blue in 2008 because they don't like it when their benefits are fucked with?
Heh. In the game Sine Mora, the empire makes their elderly commit suicide at age 60 to make room.
Yeah, the constitution isn't a suicide pact.
Repealing SS and Medicare in a fit of rules lawyering is insane.
the court doesn't have to accept any case they don't like. And honestly they don't usually revisit issues for a good while. i doubt citizens is going anywhere
You only need the votes of four justices to grant cert. Obviously they won't do that unless they think they can win (or there's a circuit split), but if the court makeup shifts unexpectedly to give the liberals a solid 5-4 advantage, then CU could be overturned.
Um, I take it that you forgot about the ruling that came out of my home state a few months back. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that our century old Corrupt Practices Act did not violate the Constitution. If the ruling stands, it leaves a gaping loophole in the Citizens United ruling.
You bet that it will get cert.
I know exactly how it plays out: Kennedy, pissed at how the original ruling turned out, flips over. Roberts, wanting to preserve as much of the Citizens United ruling, also flips so he can abuse his position to protect it. End result is 6-3 in favor of the State of Montana, but with a narrow ruling written by Roberts that preserves a good portion of what makes CU so noxious.
The President can if he wants to
An interesting read about this whole "fuck women" from the GOP, kind of gives insight into some of it.
All I got from that article is that conservatives cannot be reasoned with, and will use whatever rationale they can conjure to defend their indoctrinated idioms, and will oppress the rest of enlightened society out of their fear of change.
Clearly, this is an Enemy that cannot be suffered, and the Greatest Threat to America.
The quote,
How ironic.
Steam: pazython
http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/03/catholic-bishops-lose-another-contraception-fight