Barack Obama has said it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress.
The comments suggest the president may make an election issue of those described by Democrats as partisan judges if they throw out the Affordable Care Act following last week's dramatic hearings at which the aggressive tide of questioning from some of the justices suggested that the conservative majority is hostile to the legislation. Their decision is expected in June.
0
Options
MrMonroepassed outon the floor nowRegistered Userregular
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
Barack Obama has said it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress.
The comments suggest the president may make an election issue of those described by Democrats as partisan judges if they throw out the Affordable Care Act following last week's dramatic hearings at which the aggressive tide of questioning from some of the justices suggested that the conservative majority is hostile to the legislation. Their decision is expected in June.
"I am 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," Obama said.
i don't know what to tell you dude if you think that's never happened before
well, unprecedented and extraordinary in that they'd be winding back a huge pile of New Deal jurisprudence
it's just ugh another president has come down with a case of any-judge-I-disagree-with-is-an-activist-judge-itis
But opinion polls show that if the supreme court rules against the health care law then the president may be able to make political capital from attacking the justices as partisan as he attempts to win re-election and see the Democrats take control of the House of Representatives again in order to pass new health reforms that will stand the constitutional test.
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
well, unprecedented and extraordinary in that they'd be winding back a huge pile of New Deal jurisprudence
it's just ugh another president has come down with a case of any-judge-I-disagree-with-is-an-activist-judge-itis
this
"I'd just remind conservative commentators that, for years, what we have 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," Obama said. "Well, this is a good example, and I'm pretty confident that this court will recognise that and not take that step."
makes it seem like he's more saying "put your money where your mouth is, conservatives" but still it's a crappy view to have of the Court as an institution
(whether the Court is making itself look bad all the time on its own is another story)
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
i am like... 95 percent sure that Obama will be getting re-elected, and in his second term we'll see, as he said on mic in Russia, a president who is much less bound by the fetters of re-election.
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.
0
Options
Ubikoh pete, that's later. maybe we'll be dead by thenRegistered Userregular
there's that saying that if no one is happy with it, then it must be a proper compromise
so maybe it's a good thing that nobody is completely happy with the Court
Well you can definitely be unhappy with a decision, I often am. Trying to subvert their authority by saying that unelected officials shouldn't overturn legislation they find unconstitutional because that's a form of activism is silly.
If anything, he should be on the solicitor general's ass every day because that was possibly the most important court date of his life and he argued like a freshmen in model un. Jesus how was he the guy.
BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.
That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.
Uh the unelected courts strike down legislation all the time, how can you reasonably take that position.
Seriously that is the activist judges argument anti-gay groups use
There are rumors that he may have gotten a leak that the Court struck it down and that would explain him speaking the way he is.
But I still don't think they did.
did they put a bug on Kennedy?
I have no idea I've just seen sites discussing a rumored leak and it would sort of explain the words of what seems to be a very frustrated President. I still don't believe it was overturned but I have difficulty understanding why Obama would issue this statement unless he were very concerned about the outcome.
BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.
That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.
The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.
Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.
Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.
0
Options
LuvTheMonkeyHigh Sierra SerenadeRegistered Userregular
Barack Obama has said it would be wrong for the "unelected" supreme court to take the "unprecedented and extraordinary" decision to strike down his signature health care legislation when it was passed by an elected Congress.
The comments suggest the president may make an election issue of those described by Democrats as partisan judges if they throw out the Affordable Care Act following last week's dramatic hearings at which the aggressive tide of questioning from some of the justices suggested that the conservative majority is hostile to the legislation. Their decision is expected in June.
"I am 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," Obama said.
i don't know what to tell you dude if you think that's never happened before
Only Liberal activist judges have done that before.
BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.
That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.
The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.
Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.
Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.
I agree with Langly, but there is some merit to the car thing. That's our closest example, so it's kind of a good way to frame the discussion.
BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.
That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.
The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.
Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.
Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.
I agree with Langly, but there is some merit to the car thing. That's our closest example, so it's kind of a good way to frame the discussion.
Not really though, because car insurance isn't mandated on the federal level.
a nice person would have to not understand Ryan's proposal in order to see it another way
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
Killing the poor?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
BY THE WAY; how is having to have health insurance any different from being forced to buy car insurance if you have a vehicle? i mean, granted, you can choose NOT to have a car, healthcare is a little different, but i see them as being fairly similar. maybe i'm missing the mark here, though.
That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.
The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.
Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.
Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.
I agree with Langly, but there is some merit to the car thing. That's our closest example, so it's kind of a good way to frame the discussion.
Not really though, because car insurance isn't mandated on the federal level.
Unless Barrack Hussein Gecko gets elected and forces communist car insurance and English accents on all of us.
Posts
Hahaha
How is her first name actually orly that is amazing
in meantime, you can just listen to the things they say in their sleep
http://sleeptalkinman.blogspot.com/
i don't know what to tell you dude if you think that's never happened before
Seriously that is the activist judges argument anti-gay groups use
would you be interested in sharing with the class exactly how Paul Ryan will destroy america?
it's just ugh another president has come down with a case of any-judge-I-disagree-with-is-an-activist-judge-itis
There are rumors that he may have gotten a leak that the Court struck it down and that would explain him speaking the way he is.
But I still don't think they did.
this
makes it seem like he's more saying "put your money where your mouth is, conservatives" but still it's a crappy view to have of the Court as an institution
(whether the Court is making itself look bad all the time on its own is another story)
constitutionality isnt decided by popular vote! thats kind of the whole point!
did they put a bug on Kennedy?
so maybe it's a good thing that nobody is completely happy with the Court
i'm gonna say low but i don't really follow SCOTUS gossip about who's thinking of stepping down
although i guess death is always an option, they old
Killing the poor?
Well you can definitely be unhappy with a decision, I often am. Trying to subvert their authority by saying that unelected officials shouldn't overturn legislation they find unconstitutional because that's a form of activism is silly.
If anything, he should be on the solicitor general's ass every day because that was possibly the most important court date of his life and he argued like a freshmen in model un. Jesus how was he the guy.
That's the difference. The health insurance mandate would apply to everyone, full stop. (I think there are exceptions, but not many). Auto insurance is a obligation on you for choosing to use public roads. Also I believe auto insurance is a state law. States could mandate health insurance by themselves.
I have no idea I've just seen sites discussing a rumored leak and it would sort of explain the words of what seems to be a very frustrated President. I still don't believe it was overturned but I have difficulty understanding why Obama would issue this statement unless he were very concerned about the outcome.
but then who will work the factories?
Yeah but he's not really doing that.
poorer people
The thing is, you can choose to buy a car, or not, and if you don't you have no impact on the market and no risk to other people on the road.
Everyone adds risk to the health insurance market, by virtue of being alive. Not having people in the market hurts everyone, and causes undue strain because people who don't will eventually need it, but not actually be paying. Also, by not buying in when you don't think you're going to be sick, and getting in later, you have a smaller pool of heavy users, which throws the thing off balance.
Younger people need to buy in because it makes the system work, and because they will need it. That's why the car thing doesn't work.
Destroying SNAP, Pell, Medicaid and giving ye old Trickle Down Economics another try should qualify as voluntary manslaughter.
Only Liberal activist judges have done that before.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist
I agree with Langly, but there is some merit to the car thing. That's our closest example, so it's kind of a good way to frame the discussion.
http://paul.senate.gov/?p=blog&id=332
seriously
would like to see a defense of Paul Ryan's budget. it seems like such a fundamentally awful thing
Not really though, because car insurance isn't mandated on the federal level.
You are okay with cutting funds to social safety nets to further cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans?
Bush was able to collect record-high tax revenue after his cuts. It's not really about "Trickle Down Economics" its about trying to bolster economic growth which leads to more taxable income.
So theoretically even if the rich is getting richer from tax cuts the fact that they get richer leads to them paying more in taxes.
Unless Barrack Hussein Gecko gets elected and forces communist car insurance and English accents on all of us.
Secret Satan 2013 Wishlist