chassroc
Cave Dweller
Rocks are abundant when you have rocktumblinghobby pals
Member since January 2005
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by chassroc on Mar 28, 2012 9:43:26 GMT -5
The Supreme Court is in its third day of hearings about the Affordable Health Care Act. It kind of puts things into perspective when it comes to Governing the country and how things work. The President may want something, but only Congress can create the law. The President may approve or reject Congress's actions, but Congress can still overrule the President.
But in the end the courts, and in certain cases the penultimate arbitrator, the Supreme Court, gets the final say, for approval or rejection, and whether the law passed by Congress and approved by the President is within the legal framework of the Constitution and the Country.
Conservatives are always ranting and raving about Liberal Judges ... and Liberals are always ranting and raving about Conservative Judges. But in the end those are our judges and they interpret the law as they see fit and proper...and that is not always how we see it, but sometimes it is. The courts are very political, some judges lean left or right and some in the middle, but like us, they call it as they see it; they are just men and women doing the job they were hired to do.
This is a case that can go either way. The lynch pin seems to be the part that requires all Americans to have Health Insurance. One side sees that as an unfair burden and an intrusion on their rights; the other points out that everyone will eventually need health care and since most of us pay for it, we shouldn't have to pay for those who can afford it but don't want to pay for it. The court will decide. Both sides have compelling arguments and those who have attended the first two days of the hearings seem to say that the decision is on Judge Kennedy's shoulders; the other8 judges seeming to lie 4 for and 4 opposed.
charlie
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Mar 28, 2012 10:45:08 GMT -5
Yeah Charlie, it looks like it may come down to Kennedy. In their defense against the 26 states suing, they are justifying their legal standing under the Interstate Commerce Clause, which is ridiculous. This law has been abused many times over the years, the Feds roll it out whenever they want to remove some more rights from the states and the citizens. It is unconstitutional to force someone to buy a product or service. If this mandate is struck down, the remaining cards will fall as well. One of the most egregious cases of mis-use of the Interstate Commerce Clause was Wickard v. Filburn in 1942. A farmer, Roscoe Filburn, was growing wheat for on-farm consumption. The U.S. government had established limits on wheat production based on acreage owned by a farmer, in order to drive up wheat prices during the Great Depression, and Filburn was growing more than the limits permitted. Filburn was ordered to destroy his crops and pay a fine, even though he was producing the excess wheat for his own use and had no intention of selling it. The Supreme Court interpreted the United States Constitution's Commerce Clause under Article 1 Section 8, which permits the United States Congress "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes". The Court decided that Filburn's wheat growing activities reduced the amount of wheat he would buy for chicken feed on the open market, and because wheat was traded nationally, Filburn's production of more wheat than he was allotted was affecting interstate commerce. Thus, Filburn's production could be regulated by the federal government. Even Justice Sotomayor Skeptical About Claims that Individual Mandate isn't Justified by Limitless Interpretation of Commerce Clause . Justice Sotomayor, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of solicitor general Verrilli's claims that the individual mandate is not based upon the idea that the government can force people into commerce and that there is no limit on its power to do so. The justice and solicitor general were very much at odds on this point. mrctv.org/videos/justice-sotomayor-skeptical-about-claims-individual-mandate-isnt-justified-limitless-interpretation-commerce-clausePundits are split on whether or not a loss for the administration would hurt or help the Democrats. Democrats are going to say, "We tried, we did something, go see a 5-4 Supreme Court majority'." If they win, it will redouble the sense of urgency to get Obama out of office, and to gain control of congress so as to be able to kill it. *UPDATE* Justices poised to strike down entire healthcare law www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-justices-poised-to-strike-down-entire-healthcare-law-20120328,0,2058481.story
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 28, 2012 14:08:53 GMT -5
Charlie, while I read the synopsis of the Affordable Health Care bill when it first came out, it fell far short of what I was hoping for, which is a Postal Service style 'Option'. When that was taken off the table, I felt that the heart of the bill was gutted.
After reading the questions from the Justices, I'm fine with letting them make the determination if it's Constitutional or not.
It may affect Obama's re-election, but I tend to doubt it, since the bottom line is that few want Romney, and unless a miracle occurs, he will be running for President. A shady shady Candidate, who made his fortune on Leveraged Buyouts, which Michael Milken is still serving his 10 years in a federal penitentiary for - among other things -leveraged-buyouts.
Romney's such a threat to the economy, stocks have been down the last 2 days. If you track it, every time Romney gains something, or Obama appears to lose something, the entire stock market dumps.
If corporations, flush with cash from the last 3 years of unprecedented profits, will not hire, they sure aren't going to be hiring when their stocks drop low enough to make them prey to Baines. If Baines gets them, their employees will be fired, just like the other corporations he's taken over and destroyed. That won't help the economy, we'll be right back in recession next year, heading to the depression we just missed 3 years ago.
It will be interesting to see what the Justices decide... but that's a Democracy at work.
|
|
grayfingers
Cave Dweller
Member since November 2007
Posts: 4,575
|
Post by grayfingers on Mar 28, 2012 14:18:40 GMT -5
Yes, we shall see. . . if I were to make a prediction concerning how a decision against part or all of Obamacare would influence the election, I would say it is a bit of a wash. The dems will be able to say that the bad repugs took away health care, without having to prove it would work, (which it wouldn't) The economy might have a surge of new jobs if it is set aside, as fear of Obamacare is a large part of the reason small businesses are afraid to hire.
I favor scrapping it entirely, and forcing both sides to work together to come up with a plan that addresses the problem without mandating what should be personal choice. We do desperately need reform, but to do the wrong thing is a lot worse than setting it aside and working out the problems.
|
|
|
Post by helens on Mar 28, 2012 15:27:53 GMT -5
Frankly, if they put the public option back on the table, I'd be thrilled for them to scrap it as is... reason for this is, if they pass a public option, EVERY SINGLE PERSON could potentially save 40% on their current insurance premiums... because no one is stupid enough to pay today's Insurance Companies for their lobbying, advertising, and middlemen for healthcare. Of course, that's the end of the insurance companies as we know it:). Sux to be them. The big fight with Obamacare to begin with was that Public Option, with the Republicans fighting tooth and nail because of their campaign contributions from Insurance Companies, whom would be out of profit if there were NON PROFIT insurance available from the Gov't. Unlike UPS or Fed Ex, they have nothing to offer anyone to choose them, except for perhaps supplemental insurance, like Canada has, or AARP provides for Seniors here. THIS statement from Ruth Ginsberg is what makes me OK with them scrubbing Obamacare: finance.yahoo.com/news/justices-seem-open-saving-parts-150318212.htmlGinsburg said she found the debate over health care similar to an earlier era's argument about the Social Security retirement system. How could Congress be able to compel younger workers to contribute to Social Security but be limited in its ability to address health care? she wondered. "There's something very odd about that, that the government can take over the whole thing and we all say, Oh, yes, that's fine, but if the government wants to preserve private insurers, it can't do that," she said. Really? Obamacare is to preserve private insurers? Hell with that, take it away.
|
|
|
Post by Rockoonz on Mar 28, 2012 21:26:22 GMT -5
I loved Justice Kennedys question to Don Verrilli, "Can you create commerce to regulate it?"
And Roberts comment that if this were allowed, would Citizens be compelled to buy broccoli next?
Lee
|
|
Sabre52
Cave Dweller
Me and my gal, Rosie
Member since August 2005
Posts: 20,466
|
Post by Sabre52 on Mar 28, 2012 21:57:29 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I think even the judges have become so politicized, that they cannot be relied upon to make a decision solely on the facts presented. Hopefully there is always a wild card as with many of them, we always know what direction they will go. Invariably though, to me, it always seems the judges are more an extension of the will of the POTUS that puts them up for appointment. I find this very sad as they are supposed to be a non activist and independent branch of our government that is part of the checks and balances that protects us from government excess and abuse....Mel
|
|