How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[Conan71]

Useful commentary by Jeffrey Toobin on what, exactly, Obama was saying.  Turns out there's a strong precedent (more than 75 years) for the SC to allow things like Obamacare to stand:

"Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government."

Without that precedent, the SC becomes a sort of super-legislature, and can subvert the elected authority of Congress.  And that's an important point to be made, too . . . while this is popularly known as Obamacare, and it has become a handy political cudgel against the President, it is not solely his bill.  And arguably, by the time it was passed, it was more Congress's bill than anyone's.

Wow, that's some spin.

President Obama is starting to act like a petulant little child who isn't getting his way.  SCOTUS has been and always will be the final arbiter on what is and is not Constitutional, like it or not.  That is unless the evil libruls re-write the Constitution and remove SCOTUS. 

[we vs us]

Wow, that's some spin.

President Obama is starting to act like a petulant little child who isn't getting his way.  SCOTUS has been and always will be the final arbiter on what is and is not Constitutional, like it or not.  That is unless the evil libruls re-write the Constitution and remove SCOTUS. 

Pfft.  He's pointing out that the current SC is about to break almost a century of precedent.  That's being petulant? 

[Conan71]

"Borrowing a line from conservative critics of the judiciary, President Obama declared that the Supreme Court would be engaging in "judicial activism" if it threw out the 2010 healthcare reform law. Responding to a question at a news conference Monday, Obama said it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the court overturned "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." He added that such a move would be a good example of the lack of judicial restraint that conservative commentators have bemoaned for years."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-judicial-activism-obamacare-20120404,0,3356069.story

It probably wouldn't sound like a child not getting his way to you if you were an Obama supporter.  He's finally having his "Oh smile" moment on the one piece of work he staked his entire legacy on.  He would have done well to attack the economy and cohesive energy policies first thing.  Instead, he insisted on backing legislation for which the uncertainty of it, may have prevented the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

[swake]

"Borrowing a line from conservative critics of the judiciary, President Obama declared that the Supreme Court would be engaging in "judicial activism" if it threw out the 2010 healthcare reform law. Responding to a question at a news conference Monday, Obama said it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the court overturned "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." He added that such a move would be a good example of the lack of judicial restraint that conservative commentators have bemoaned for years."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinionla/la-ed-judicial-activism-obamacare-20120404,0,3356069.story

It probably wouldn't sound like a child not getting his way to you if you were an Obama supporter.  He's finally having his "Oh smile" moment on the one piece of work he staked his entire legacy on.  He would have done well to attack the economy and cohesive energy policies first thing.  Instead, he insisted on backing legislation for which the uncertainty of it, may have prevented the creation of hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Healthcare is a time bomb for our economy. We spend way too much money on it as a percentage of GDP and that percentage is growing. Addressing the issue is addressing the economy.

[Conan71]

Healthcare is a time bomb for our economy. We spend way too much money on it as a percentage of GDP and that percentage is growing. Addressing the issue is addressing the economy.

That would have been a noble reason if it could actually contain cost.  It cannot.  There is absolutely nothing in the mechanism of the Patient Protection & Affordable Healthcare Act which even purports to lower NHE as a percent of GDP.  It actually increases by 3% from 17.9% to 20.9%.

https://www.cms.gov/ActuarialStudies/Downloads/S_PPACA_2009-12-10.pdf

Money which is spent on healthcare still circulates within the economy and creates jobs. 

Nice spin though.

[nathanm]

It probably wouldn't sound like a child not getting his way to you if you were an Obama supporter.

You know, I generally respect your views, but on this one, you're completely off base. The Roberts court has been anything but conservative in the traditional sense as it applies to judges. They have, however, seemingly found a way to decide nearly every case in a way that comports with their ideological preference, even when there has been mountains of precedent to overturn along the way. That's understandable, though, it's hard for anyone to see judicial activism when it ends up in their favor.

It will be stunningly hilarious if this court overturns ACA because they think it can't fit within the commerce clause after they've repeatedly found ways for things that fit within their ideology but that have a much greater impact on personal liberty to pass right through. Funny, that.

[Conan71]

You know, I generally respect your views, but on this one, you're completely off base. The Roberts court has been anything but conservative in the traditional sense as it applies to judges. They have, however, seemingly found a way to decide nearly every case in a way that comports with their ideological preference, even when there has been mountains of precedent to overturn along the way. That's understandable, though, it's hard for anyone to see judicial activism when it ends up in their favor.

It will be stunningly hilarious if this court overturns ACA because they think it can't fit within the commerce clause after they've repeatedly found ways for things that fit within their ideology but that have a much greater impact on personal liberty to pass right through. Funny, that.

Show me a sitting court which hasn't ruled along the lines of their ideological preference, you make this sound as if this is something new with the current make up of SCOTUS.  How many 5-4 or 6-3 decisions have we had for decades coming out of SCOTUS depending on the liberal or conservative make-up of the court?  Why do you think it is considered such a coveted political privilege to get to pick SCOTUS justices?

That said, Citizen's United was likely the most bone-headed ruling I've ever seen come from SCROTUS.

Obama's comments on Monday made it sound as if he was throwing a temper tantrum if things didn't go his way.

[we vs us]

Show me a sitting court which hasn't ruled along the lines of their ideological preference, you make this sound as if this is something new with the current make up of SCOTUS.  How many 5-4 or 6-3 decisions have we had for decades coming out of SCOTUS depending on the liberal or conservative make-up of the court?  Why do you think it is considered such a coveted political privilege to get to pick SCOTUS justices?

That said, Citizen's United was likely the most bone-headed ruling I've ever seen come from SCROTUS.

Obama's comments on Monday made it sound as if he was throwing a temper tantrum if things didn't go his way.

It's not the decision make-up, it's the completely new interpretations of standing doctrine, and it's the taking of things far past their logical conclusion (cf. Citizens United, Kelo vs. New London -- the crazy eminent domain case -- and just recently Florence v. County of Burlington -- which allows strip searches for virtually no reason whatsoever). 

And Obama's "tantrum" is honestly more about what want to see than what he's doing.  If articulating why the SC tossing a certain precedent is construed as a tantrum, I don't know what else you expect him to do.  Sit there, shut up, not point out the problem? 

[nathanm]

Obama's comments on Monday made it sound as if he was throwing a temper tantrum if things didn't go his way.

If you only heard the sound bites.

I just find it funny how the conservatives, who have been bleating about judicial activism pretty much constantly for over a decade now are now suddenly up at arms because the President said he doesn't think there's a basis for overturning ACA that comports with the last century of precedent or even many of the Court's more recent decisions.

[Conan71]

If you only heard the sound bites.

Yeah, I was listening to those in between severely edited and redacted 911 tapes from various crimes around the country. 

I just find it funny how the conservatives, who have been bleating about judicial activism pretty much constantly for over a decade now are now suddenly up at arms because the President said he doesn't think there's a basis for overturning ACA that comports with the last century of precedent or even many of the Court's more recent decisions.

Two things which played into the reaction from the right:

One- I don't think it's very common for the sitting POTUS to be openly critical of SCOTUS' work or even what may be the outcome of their potential decisions.  Remember, this will not be decided (publicly at least) until June.

Two- The president spun a whopper when he said this was unprecedented, since SCOTUS has always had the power to rule on the Constitutionality of Congressional laws and has struck down laws in the past.  Just because they have not ruled in such a manner in 100 years doesn't mean they are breaking precedence.  Beyond that, I'm not well-schooled in interstate commerce laws, and really don't care to be if the "unprecedented" part is referring to the commerce clause or any other previously accepted tenets of commerce. 

My idea of free commerce is being able to buy Fat Tire beer in Oklahoma.  Oh, and don't force me to buy something I don't personally want. 

[nathanm]

Two- The president spun a whopper when he said this was unprecedented, since SCOTUS has always had the power to rule on the Constitutionality of Congressional laws and has struck down laws in the past.

At no point did he say the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review, or that they even lack the power to strike down the particular law in question.

[Teatownclown]

Yeah, I was listening to those in between severely edited and redacted 911 tapes from various crimes around the country. 

Two things which played into the reaction from the right:

One- I don't think it's very common for the sitting POTUS to be openly critical of SCOTUS' work or even what may be the outcome of their potential decisions.  Remember, this will not be decided (publicly at least) until June.

Two- The president spun a whopper when he said this was unprecedented, since SCOTUS has always had the power to rule on the Constitutionality of Congressional laws and has struck down laws in the past.  Just because they have not ruled in such a manner in 100 years doesn't mean they are breaking precedence.  Beyond that, I'm not well-schooled in interstate commerce laws, and really don't care to be if the "unprecedented" part is referring to the commerce clause or any other previously accepted tenets of commerce. 

My idea of free commerce is being able to buy Fat Tire beer in Oklahoma.  Oh, and don't force me to buy something I don't personally want. 

Did you ever have a problem with a POTUS lying us to war? That's far worse than belittling Judges who use the court for their own political agendas.

[Conan71]

Did you ever have a problem with a POTUS lying us to war? That's far worse than belittling Judges who use the court for their own political agendas.

Like 300 million other Americans at the time, I believed there was a compelling case to take the war to the terrorists.  Not like there wasn't many years of precedent prior to 2002 to help reinforce this.  Democrats didn't duck and run until they decided to use the war they helped trump up against Bush in their quest for the White House in 2004.  Bush relied on the same intelligence that his predecessor did.

This is history:

And for those of you who don't follow my posts, here's Clinton on the record in 2003 defending the foundation for Bush's decision to invade Iraq:

He has said unequivocally there were unaccounted for WMD in Iraq the day he left office in 2001.

So which president was that you were referring to about lying anyhow?  

[Teatownclown]

Like 300 million other Americans at the time, I believed there was a compelling case to take the war to the terrorists.  Not like there wasn't many years of precedent prior to 2002 to help reinforce this.  Democrats didn't duck and run until they decided to use the war they helped trump up against Bush in their quest for the White House in 2004.  Bush relied on the same intelligence that his predecessor did.

This is history:

And for those of you who don't follow my posts, here's Clinton on the record in 2003 defending the foundation for Bush's decision to invade Iraq:

He has said unequivocally there were unaccounted for WMD in Iraq the day he left office in 2001.

So which president was that you were referring to about lying anyhow?  

You know, you're right. It wasn't Bush's fault. Hell, he wasn't really POTUS.

Colin Powell...you need to throw some blame in his direction too....

[erfalf]

At no point did he say the Supreme Court does not have the power of judicial review, or that they even lack the power to strike down the particular law in question.

Depending on how you interpret it, he seemed to imply it by saying there was no precedent regarding economic laws passed by congress. Of course his very next sentence was to say that not since the Lochner case has it happened (so either their is or is not precedent).

However, the Lochner did not involve a federal law being overturned.

Obama should stay on the teleprompter.