Author Topic: Health Care Reform In The Supreme Court (Read 28780 times)

meshugener · « **on:** March 26, 2012, 06:42:58 PM »

As today was the first of 3 days of arguments regarding president Obama's Health Care Reform Act, there is a basic question weather the individual mandate is a tax or a penalty. It could make a difference on today's topic weather the court can rule on the law before the law is fully in effect, so if its a tax they'll have to wait till '14 or '15, and on tomorrow's topic weather the mandate fell under Congress's authority to imposs taxes. What do you think? My first thought is that the purpose of the individual mandate is that everyone should have health insurance so there'll be more ppl in the pool, and not that ppl should pay the fine for not being covered. Thus, it is a penalty for not fulfilling your obligation, not a tax which is made for the purpose of revenue for the govt.

HelpMe · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2012, 08:24:42 AM »

Smoke screen!

meshugener · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2012, 12:01:00 PM »

Today's arguments: The constitutionality of the individual mandate. There are 2 arguments in favor: 1 congress has a power to regulate commerce, so as of today, the were in a crisis in terms of covering our health costs, so congress may regulate it. 2 congress jurisdiction to imposs taxes. The opponents side: #1 congress can only regulate commerce on someone in the commerce line but not fine someone for being "inactive" in commerce; #2 the law is not a tax, its a requirement to buy insurance, and if you don't have you should pay a penalty. But the supporters say its a tax and you can avoid the tax by buying insurance. Your thoughts? On #1 I can't decide, but on #2 I believe its not a tax since its not created for revenue (although, the language in the law is "tax" and it will be claimed by the IRS along with the annual taxes).

meshugener · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2012, 02:10:51 PM »

Situation looks very bad for Obama. Most believe the mandate will be struck down. #LuckyIHaveMedicaid

HelpMe · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2012, 02:24:32 PM »

News flash: Obama has health care!

meshugener · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2012, 02:35:34 PM »

good sam · « **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2012, 04:45:22 PM »

This whole thing is a gelechter. Our "impartial" and "independent" justices are all going to decide this case on party lines like they always do. Scary how Justice Kennedy is running this country.

HelpMe · « **Reply #7 on:** March 27, 2012, 04:54:56 PM »

Quote from: good sam on March 27, 2012, 04:45:22 PM

This whole thing is a gelechter. Our "impartial" and "independent" justices are all going to decide this case on party lines like they always do. Scary how Justice Kennedy is running this country.

AJK · « **Reply #8 on:** March 27, 2012, 04:57:11 PM »

Quote from: good sam on March 27, 2012, 04:45:22 PM

This whole thing is a gelechter. Our "impartial" and "independent" justices are all going to decide this case on party lines like they always do. Scary how Justice Kennedy is running this country.

Being unbiased, contrary to your implicit assertion, does not mean Judges and Justices are to make their rulings devoid of experience, background, and perspective.

Just because said experience, background, and perspective happen to align with a particular party does not mean a Judge or Justice decide the cases in accordance with that party.

good sam · « **Reply #9 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:08:49 PM »

Quote from: AJK on March 27, 2012, 04:57:11 PM

Being unbiased, contrary to your implicit assertion, does not mean Judges and Justices are to make their rulings devoid of experience, background, and perspective.

Just because said experience, background, and perspective happen to align with a particular party does not mean a Judge or Justice decide the cases in accordance with that party.

You are wrong.

That said, they consistently do so in high profile cases. They make the law fit into their politics. Remember Bush v. Gore? It is a fact that no matter what the legal question is, Sotomayor will never, ever, vote to invalidate Obamacare, just as sure as Alito will vote against it. It's an uncomfortable fact we have to live with.

AJK · « **Reply #10 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:18:08 PM »

Quote from: good sam on March 27, 2012, 05:08:49 PM

You are wrong.

Well, now that we got that out of the way

Quote

That said, they consistently do so in high profile cases. They make the law fit into their politics. Remember Bush v. Gore? It is a fact that no matter what the legal question is, Sotomayor will never, ever, vote to invalidate Obamacare, just as sure as Alito will vote against it. It's an uncomfortable fact we have to live with.

So what you're saying is that if you were a Supreme Court Justice, you'd make your decisions completely devoid of any Jewish influence, conscious or unconscious, right?

Please.

good sam · « **Reply #11 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:23:35 PM »

Quote from: AJK on March 27, 2012, 05:18:08 PM

Well, now that we got that out of the way

So what you're saying is that if you were a Supreme Court Justice, you'd make your decisions completely devoid of any Jewish influence, conscious or unconscious, right?

Please.

I can't control the unconscious, but I definitely would not do so consciously. If my religion required this of me, I would not become a Justice of the Supreme Court.

AJK · « **Reply #12 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:28:11 PM »

Quote from: good sam on March 27, 2012, 05:23:35 PM

I can't control the unconscious, but I definitely would not do so consciously. If my religion required this of me, I would not become a Justice of the Supreme Court.

Great, so according to you, anyone with any exposure to religion, indeed anyone with any exposure to pretty much anything cannot become a Supreme Court Justice because... they'd be biased. I wonder what color the grass is in your utopian village.

good sam · « **Reply #13 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:34:48 PM »

Quote from: AJK on March 27, 2012, 05:28:11 PM

Great, so according to you, anyone with any exposure to religion, indeed anyone with any exposure to pretty much anything cannot become a Supreme Court Justice because... they'd be biased. I wonder what color the grass is in your utopian village.

Huh?

Maybe this example will help: If you are Catholic, you are likely anti-gay marriage, and you would likely support a ban on gay marriage. If you are a Supreme Court Justice, however, you are required to put these feelings aside and decide based on the law as best you can (as I said, you can't control the subconscious). You can uphold a ban on gay marriage because you don't believe in substantive due process, but you should not be against substantive due process be you are against gay marriage.

Edit: that should read substantive. Fixed it.

meshugener · « **Reply #14 on:** March 27, 2012, 05:48:47 PM »

The whole case was in first place a question only on what Justices Kennedy will decide, we all knew from the beginning what the other 8 justices will rule. Now, after todays hearing it seems clear that Kennedy is leaning towards the conservative side.

AsherO · « **Reply #15 on:** March 27, 2012, 06:43:54 PM »

The real problem with "healthcare reform"/PPACA/Obamacare is that healthcare costs will continue rising for everyone (insured and uninsured Americans and the Federal Government), there will still be millions and possibly tens of millions of uninsured people in the USA and with everything related to heathcare (from tort to malpractice insurance, to pharmecuticals to hospitals) run as a business that's so regulated and convoluted that the barriers-of-entry are too high for there to be any reasonable competition, we're in huge trouble with or without this law.

AJK · « **Reply #16 on:** March 27, 2012, 07:14:48 PM »

Quote from: good sam on March 27, 2012, 05:34:48 PM

Huh?

Maybe this example will help: If you are Catholic, you are likely anti-gay marriage, and you would likely support a ban on gay marriage. If you are a Supreme Court Justice, however, you are required to put these feelings aside and decide based on the law as best you can (as I said, you can't control the subconscious). You can uphold a ban on gay marriage because you don't believe in substantive due process, but you should not be against substantive due process be you are against gay marriage.

Edit: that should read substantive. Fixed it.

Well, that solves my question. The grass in your little utopian village is... black and white.

No room for color, no room for experience, no room for upbringing, no room for perspective. Awesome.

good sam · « **Reply #17 on:** March 27, 2012, 07:17:12 PM »

Quote from: AJK on March 27, 2012, 07:14:48 PM

Well, that solves my question. The grass in your little utopian village is... black and white.

No room for color, no room for experience, no room for upbringing, no room for perspective. Awesome.

Quote from: good sam on March 27, 2012, 05:34:48 PM

Huh?

AJK · « **Reply #18 on:** March 27, 2012, 07:36:05 PM »

K, I'll play.

Black and white was a (pretty apparent) allusion to your inflexible and warped view of reality.

Laws, like most things, have, and can be duly given, color. Whether you admit it or not, it would be utterly impossible for to you to even marginally set aside your upbringing, background, and perspective if you were the one in the high-backed chair presiding in judgment. What's more, it isn't required. No judge is required to "check his experience" at the door of the courthouse.

MarkS · « **Reply #19 on:** March 27, 2012, 08:09:15 PM »

Quote from: AJK on March 27, 2012, 07:36:05 PM

K, I'll play.

Black and white was a (pretty apparent) allusion to your inflexible and warped view of reality.

Laws, like most things, have, and can be duly given, color. Whether you admit it or not, it would be utterly impossible for to you to even marginally set aside your upbringing, background, and perspective if you were the one in the high-backed chair presiding in judgment. What's more, it isn't required. No judge is required to "check his experience" at the door of the courthouse.

The same way that you point out that a Jew would probably side with the Jewish viewpoint over his Democratic affiliation, in a matter like this, a Democrat will side with his Democratic viewpoint over any other view that he might otherwise consider.(since this is such a polarized Democrat/Republican issue - it's like their religion).