Obamacare unconstitutional Follow

Two for Four.

I think everyone is just whiling away time waiting for an eventual SCotUS case & decision.

It was the "big one" due to the number of plaintiffs that signed onto it rather than making their own cases. That doesn't make the case more valid or means that it won't be overturned in appeals or anything else. Eventually the SCotUS will pick a case and rule on the Constitutionality of it. Until then, it's just filling up broadsheet.

Sure. Lots and lots of people. Last I read, the safe money was still on it being ruled constitutional but that doesn't mean I'll run out to bet on it. We've had two Democratic appointed judges rule that it is and two Republican appointed judges ruling that it isn't. If this case was ruled in the CA branch of the courts, you'd be saying how it doesn't matter until it hits the SCotUS because it's all liberal activist judges anyway (I'm not just putting words in your mouth, this is your argument for every gay marriage ruling you don't agree with). Hell, this last guy even threw out a tea party reference in his ruling.

Party Politics being played on in the courts gotta love that.

Im just curious who pays for emergency hospital costs if someone doesn't have health insurance? I am sure that person gets billed, but should they refuse to pay who ponies up the money?

Last I checked (about a month ago) the US gov. spends more money on healthcare per capita than canada and it doesn't have a universal system like we do here. How are they paying so much more if they don't have to provide, and isn't Obama's mandatory insurance requirement going to eventually lower that number?

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 5:57pm by rdmcandie

I think you're confusing what people want with what is an almost certain reality. Lots and lots of people want the healthcare act to stand, so they want the ruling to come out in a way that allows it to do so.

But if you were to step this outside the context of the health care law itself, the mandate is pretty obviously unconstitutional. You can *only* view it otherwise if you start with wanting the law to remain and work backwards. Which, unfortunately, some judges still do. Unlikely to happen at the SCOTUS level though and most honest people know it.



Where'd you hear this? Seriously? You actually think that a law which mandates that every single person in the entire country must purchase a specific product will be held to be constitutional? I hope you're just saying that as a show of support for "your side" and don't honestly believe it. Because otherwise, that's a scary absolute lack of even a basic understanding of the concept of liberty you're showing.



Which does not discount the possibility that one side is represented by judges who understand the constitution, and the other side is represented by judges who rule based on how well the case supports their side's political agenda. I mean, we could call that a 50/50 split and conclude that this means that there's a 50% chance the law is constitutional, but can't you actually engage your own brain and see that it's not?

I mean, if 2 people said that shooting yourself in the head was perfectly safe and 2 people said it was dangerously stupid, would you ignore your own common sense and reason and assume you had a 50% chance of being just fine if you pulled that trigger?




Yes. And I'd be right. What part of "Democrats appoint judges who rule based on their political agenda and not on the constitution" have you failed to get all these years?




Huh? Haven't read the ruling myself, but I'm curious what the reference was.

With Republican Attorney Generals who coincidentally made sure to file in a district (Pensacola) with only Republican appointed judges.

But this ruling proves everything. Right. Got it.

Sure. I'm not interested in convincing you because, frankly, there's nothing in it for me but I do believe so.

Now the only person whose opinion actually matters is that of Justice Anthony Kennedy so until we hear what he thinks, the rest of this is just a way to spend time.

I honestly don't believe that's true. We've debated this for years and the only thing you have ever shown any interest in doing is jumping up and down and demanding that you're right. Even your request began with an insulting "Can you do that? You know. Actually think for yourself?"


Oh, not at all. I'm just expressing my disinterest in Health Care Debate #477 with this thread (or lawsuit) serving as the catalyst.

Edited, Jan 31st 2011 9:29pm by Jophiel

No, we've debated health care for years. You knew that.


Yeah, work on your approach. I'm not so easily goaded by someone who is just hostile to the ideas and looking for an argument under the thin guise of being "honestly curious".


I'm much more interested in process than you are and you are, frankly, much more interested in rhetoric than me. I have little problem setting aside what I think I'd like to see and instead absorbing the opinions of those more qualified than I to say what is likely to happen and learn why that is. You're a lot more emotionally vested in these debates than me and I say this is all sincerity.


Sure. Sometimes I feel like debating for the kicks of it, sometimes I don't. I'm sure at some point between now and whenever this winds its way to the SCotUS, I'll debate it but this thread/lawsuit just didn't spark anything for me. Amusing that you pick this example though since the gay marriage debates always involve me pointing out Supreme Court cases stating that marriage is a right and you saying that you don't care what the Supreme Court says because you disagree with it. Again, the actual process and reality of it matter more to me than the rhetoric.

But I'm not asking you about what you think about health care. I'm asking a single very specific question about the constitutionality of the mandate within the existing health care act just signed into law last year. Those aren't even remotely the same thing. Unless somehow you're admitting that your desire for a government provided health care solution is coloring your view of the constitutionality issue? That would at least be a start.




That's unfair. And IMO, it's flat out wrong. You don't really care about the process. You care only that the process results in something you do care about. I care about whether the process causes a violation of principles I care about. You examine where the process takes us, and if it takes us where you want to go, are perfectly ok with sitting back and enjoying the ride without looking too close at the "how".

But it's the "how" that our constitution is all about, isn't it? Our founding fathers didn't write the constitution to tell us what the government should do with its power. There isn't a single word in their about policy or direction. They wrote it entirely to tell us "how" it should use power. Specifically, it tells us how the government should not use that power.


So forgive me if I think this issue is a bit more important than mere rhetoric.



I read that as more willing to ignore the moral implications of what we're doing as long as a group of experts tell me that the end result will be good. Am I wrong?



That may possibly be true, but I don't think it's about emotion at all. And if it is, then that's kinda strange, given that the positions you hold are overwhelmingly argued on pure emotional appeal. So I feel strongly about positions which are rational, and you apathetically argue for positions which are emotional? I still like my approach a bit better, I think.

It's neither but I figured you'd disagree. No real skin off my nose; I assume most people here can reach their own conclusions from years of threads.


You completely misunderstood me but that's okay. I'm more interested in the mechanics of politics. Obviously I have things I'd like to see happen or not happen. But ultimately, it's the machine that fascinates me more than insisting that if you don't interpret the constitution the same way I do, you've failed in upholding the ideals of the nation or whatever claptrap.


As I said, you're more interested in rhetoric. It was polite of you to illustrate it so clearly.


Oh, it absolutely is with you.


Really? I'm not the one insinuating that if you don't see things the same way I do, you're failing our poor Founding Fathers.

Edited, Feb 1st 2011 12:03am by Jophiel

Unlike you, I'm not pretending to "debate" you. I only ridicule you. That's what one does to a ridiculous person.