Court rRuling on Obamacare

[flabbybody]

u wonder why we hate them? did you see Louisiana Gov Jindal on Meet the Press? 1) He's not going to set up state run insurance exchanges for Loisiana citizens. (Fed government will do it anyway as Dr Dean pointed out... oops) 2) He will not seek additional Medicaid money being made available to states via AHC expanded coverage thresholds. (says it expands federal deficit)

This coming from the leader of a state who's citizens are among the most destitute in America. There are adults in his state who have never been to a dentist. This pathetic pig will pander to his party idealogues instead of helping the people he was elected to serve. Just so he can come on national TV to debate Howard Dean and make like he's a pure conservative. Maybe he thinks it's a way to beat out Rubia for the VP spot which Jindal has a 24 hour- a- day boner for.
Human lives in exchange for political theatre. This is why we hate you cocksuckers.

[Prospero]

British press reported today that Mississippi was about to become first US state with no abortion clinics. The Govenor (Republican) determined to block abortion there by any means has introduced a medical requirement that the last of the clinics will operating cannot fulfill. So they were due to close. More of the Republican war on women! But a judge has blocked the closure at the 11th hour.

Come on our redoubtable Republicans here. Justify this policy?

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nati...icle-1.1106196

[Odelay]

I think Roe v Wade gets overturned very soon. Back in the day, Kennedy would side with O'Connor and Souter to prescribe constraints around how a state can limit abortions. These days, GOP legislatures have gone wild. One of these personhood bills is going to get appealed and Kennedy will get a chance for a do over. He's indicated lately that he's most comfortable siding with Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Roberts will join them because he's a staunch anti-abortion Catholic. Roberts won't have the pang of conscience he had with ACA which was law passed by US Congress & signed by the President. Roe v Wade was law formulated by the Supreme Ct in 1973. Roberts will shoot it down with no problem.

[flabbybody]

can't see the court overturning Roe v Wade if Prez wins reelection. Roberts is now an Obama guy

[buttslinger]

Roberts doesn't want to hang with Scalia and Clarence Thomas. Ruth Bader Ginsburg has George and Alec at her parties.

[robertlouis]

I think Roe v Wade gets overturned very soon. Back in the day, Kennedy would side with O'Connor and Souter to prescribe constraints around how a state can limit abortions. These days, GOP legislatures have gone wild. One of these personhood bills is going to get appealed and Kennedy will get a chance for a do over. He's indicated lately that he's most comfortable siding with Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Roberts will join them because he's a staunch anti-abortion Catholic. Roberts won't have the pang of conscience he had with ACA which was law passed by US Congress & signed by the President. Roe v Wade was law formulated by the Supreme Ct in 1973. Roberts will shoot it down with no problem.

Depending on one's politics, if this DID happen, it would return America to the Dark Ages or at least an era where women have no say over what happens to their bodies. Margaret Attwood's brilliant but bleak dystopia The Handmaid's Tale may not be that far away - a truly chilling prospect.

[BluegrassCat]

I think Roe v Wade gets overturned very soon. Back in the day, Kennedy would side with O'Connor and Souter to prescribe constraints around how a state can limit abortions. These days, GOP legislatures have gone wild. One of these personhood bills is going to get appealed and Kennedy will get a chance for a do over. He's indicated lately that he's most comfortable siding with Alito, Scalia and Thomas. Roberts will join them because he's a staunch anti-abortion Catholic. Roberts won't have the pang of conscience he had with ACA which was law passed by US Congress & signed by the President. Roe v Wade was law formulated by the Supreme Ct in 1973. Roberts will shoot it down with no problem.

I don't think Roe v Wade is overturned anytime soon. Sure Roberts will vote against it, but Kennedy, who voted to reaffirm the essential holding of Rove v Wade in 1992 will probably uphold it.

[Prospero]

I don't think you can say that Robert's is Obama's guy on the strength of the affordable health care ruling. Bit premature that!

[broncofan]

[quote=loren;1163413]

"We must remember it is a constitution we are expounding". It is not supposed to have the "prolixity of a legal code." These words were spoken by Chief Justice Marshall in McCullough v. Maryland. The Constitution gives the federal government enumerated powers. It does not specifically list activities the federal government is allowed to partake in.

When it comes to the issue of the constitutionality of federal law, ever since Marbury v. Madison, it only matters what the Supreme Court says. You can find five people, ten people, a billion people. But can you find five people on the Supreme Court? No. So you must pay the tax, or go where everyone else who makes frivolous tax evasion arguments go.QUOTE]
If you believe in a living Constitution, that can simply be changed by any judge or polition on a whim; then there is not a list of activities that the Federal government is prohibited from. In fact, there is absolutely no limit to the Federal government's authority. (Which begs the question, why even have State governments?) .

There is no list of activities the federal government is prohibited from because their powers are enumerated. But the enumerated powers are not listed as specific activities, but broad powers to act. The federal government is a government whose powers are limited in scope, but plenary within each power.

This is not a matter of a "living constitution" v. "dead constitution issue. It is just that the clauses granting power to the federal government must have meaning. For instance, the narrowest interpretation of interstate commerce would give the government the right to regulate commercial activity as goods were crossing a border and not before or after. If the states could pass laws that restrict commerce on either side of that border and those laws were inconsistent with one another, then the commerce clause grants a void and meaningless power.

Those powers that are not granted to the federal government reside in the states. The states still retain all the powers not expressly granted to the federal government. It's just that states do not have supremacy over the federal government where the federal government is authorized to act and most importantly cannot violate the bill of rights either (which by the way is usually what state's rights advocates mean when they want greater sovereignty for their individual state).

[broncofan]

(such as more clearly defining when a tax becomes a regulatory effort rather than a revenue raising measure).

Smart point, but as far as I remember in many cases the Court looks at the effect of a measure rather than the intent behind it. This could just be in Commerce Clause cases, but many laws the federal government passed were pretty transparently to regulate behavior that was not strictly commercial and where the intent was to also influence social behavior.

In a sense, taxes always regulate purchasing patterns and thus exert such regulatory effects. The fact that municipal bonds are tax exempt means they have lower interest rates and are a better bargain for those in the highest marginal tax bracket. The fact that certain types of education are deductible encourages people to participate in that education program. The capital gains tax is based on encouraging people to own certain types of assets for certain periods of time; otherwise they would be taxed at a higher rate. The tax here does raise revenue for the specific service provided, constrained only if it is a taking or violation of due process.