Activist Judge strikes down new Healthcare Law!

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Ok here is the point I think CK was trying to make. Whenever Right Wing legislatures pass a law and the court overturns it, they are activists, whenever a left wing legislature passes a law and it it gets overturned then the judge is NOT an activist. What up with that Righties?

the term activist judge refers to a judge creating law(s), not striking down something as unconstitutional

 

[Bonestorm]

the term activist judge refers to a judge creating law(s), not striking down something as unconstitutional

The term really has no consistent definition. Maybe it did at one point, but now it just means "a judge I disagree with."

Also, I'm not sure why you think striking down laws cannot be activist. If a judge, in striking down a law, adopts a view of the Constitution that is at odds with precedent the judge can be viewed as "activist." Adopting novel constructions of the Constitution unsupported by precedent is "creating law." Think Roe v. Wade, for example.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

apparently so...blacks law says:

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."[5]


btw...i'm still waiting for you to come up with something that is not legally sound in the ruling...

 

[Bonestorm]

apparently so...blacks law says:

Black's Law Dictionary defines judicial activism as a "philosophy of judicial decision-making whereby judges allow their personal views about public policy, among other factors, to guide their decisions."[5]


btw...i'm still waiting for you to come up with something that is not legally sound in the ruling...

I was just fucking with you. Absent clear precedent, and there is none, I can see it go either way. I doubt there is anything clearly erroneous in the opinion as I doubt there is anything clearly erroneous in the decisions upholding the law.

The trouble with the Black's dictionary definition is that there is no real way to determine whether a judge's personal views guide their decisions. I mean, using the definition from Black's we could say that all of the decisions on the healthcare law are activist, as Democratic appointees upheld the law while Republican appointees did not. Or we could say that this judge's ownership interest in a Republican political outfit and his Republican views guided his decision. That's pretty useless in my view.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

I was just fucking with you. Absent clear precedent, and there is none, I can see it go either way. I doubt there is anything clearly erroneous in the opinion as I doubt there is anything clearly erroneous in the decisions upholding the law.

The trouble with the Black's dictionary definition is that there is no real way to determine whether a judge's personal views guide their decisions. I mean, using the definition from Black's we could say that all of the decisions on the healthcare law are activist, as Democratic appointees upheld the law while Republican appointees did not. Or we could say that this judge's ownership interest in a Republican political outfit and his Republican views guided his decision. That's pretty useless in my view.

don't fuck with blacks law, you will be destroyed

and like i said, you don't like the opinion because it doesn't comport with your world view

 

[Bonestorm]

don't fuck with blacks law, you will be destroyed

and like i said, you don't like the opinion because it doesn't comport with your world view

Like I said, I was fucking with you. I don't think the opinion is flawed in any respect, though I doubt very seriously that if the legislature called a poll tax a "poll penalty" a court would have trouble cutting through the bullshit.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

And what about the other two judges who upheld it?

lets take this slowly Chrissie, since I know you have difficulty understanding things......an activist judge is one who makes law.......in this case we are dealing with a judge examining a law passed by the legislative branch of government.....this is actually what judges are supposed to do....it's called the balance of power.....whether the judges accept or reject the ability of the legislature to pass this particular law it would not be a matter of judicial activism.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Ok here is the point I think CK was trying to make. Whenever Right Wing legislatures pass a law and the court overturns it, they are activists, whenever a left wing legislature passes a law and it it gets overturned then the judge is NOT an activist. What up with that Righties?

actually, this post characterizes the error perfectly....it seems you cant tell the difference between a judge who creates law and a judge who examines one......that's why liberals shouldn't be allowed to pick judges, they can't tell them apart.....

 

[Bonestorm]

lets take this slowly Chrissie, since I know you have difficulty understanding things......an activist judge is one who makes law.......in this case we are dealing with a judge examining a law passed by the legislative branch of government.....this is actually what judges are supposed to do....it's called the balance of power.....whether the judges accept or reject the ability of the legislature to pass this particular law it would not be a matter of judicial activism.....

That silly. Roe v. Wade is decried on the right as the height of judicial activism and all the justices did was examine a law passed by the legislative branch of government.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

any law that mandates a free person has to purchase some good or service is clearly unconstitutional, however, since you've failed to provide a link to the ruling or even summarized what the judge said is unconstitutional, i'll just assume you're throwing a tantrum.

It's a regulation of interstate trade. It is obviously constitutional.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

I skimmed it and it appears poorly drafted and way off base.

LOL

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

how is it considered constitutional to tax people for NOT participating in inter or intra state commerce?

Whether or not every American has healthcare or is left to die with the wolves affects interstate commerce.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

SSI and Medicare are a couple of government programs that I think are good. Most people that I know have gotten more back from each one than they have ever paid in....and most of them needed it. I'll guarantee you that the folks in my community who are drawing it now are glad thier checks were garnished (taxed) back in the 60's and 70's when they were catching chickens to support thier families. If it weren's for SSI, they'd have no retirement at all...then what are we going to do with them? Let them starve? Let them sleep in a cardboard box? SSI is one tax that I do not mind paying. I might like a little more freedom to invest that money but if I don't get that freedom I am still not going to oppose SSI....because many are trying to survive and wouldn't ever invest in retirement for themselves.

If we didn't have SSI, we'd either have to take those elderly who didn't invest properly, or happened to have their savings wiped out in a crash, on welfare, or let them die in the street. Hardcore libertarians may be willing to watch the elderly die in the street, but I doubt they're going to win the next election after the American people see the consequences of their decisions. The current system works well, and obviously reduces aggregate suffering beyond what we could expect with the "leave them to the wolves" philosophy.

SSI is still every important in the modern world, especially after we've seen that the DOW isn't going to reach 30,000:

Getting rid of SSI would knock of 80%* of the income for the average elderly person. The elderly was by far the poorest segment of society before SSI, and I see no reason to believe that pattern wouldn't eventually repeat itself after repeal.

*I'm guesstimating the median. The mean is obviously thrown off by the fact that the rich simply make so much more than the poor. As you can see from the graph, even the top 80% don't get the 60% of their income from non-SSI sources seen in the mean to the left.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

The judge is only one of three who ruled on it, and the others upheld the law.

Hudson's not a partisan, oh, no.</sarcasm>

"Judge Hudson is the third district court judge to reach a determination on the merits in one of the two dozen lawsuits filed against the health care law. The others — in Detroit and Lynchburg, Va. — have upheld the law. Lawyers on both sides said the appellate process could last another two years before the Supreme Court settles the dispute.

The opinion by Judge Hudson, who has a long history in Republican politics in northern Virginia, continued a partisan pattern in the health care cases. Thus far, judges appointed by Republican presidents have ruled consistently against the Obama administration while Democratic appointees have found for it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/14/health/policy/14health.html?_r=1&hp

Well that's awesome, considering that Kennedy was appointed by Reagan.

Souter was also appointed by a Republican, but he's obviously so in line with the liberals that I seriously doubt any rejection would come down to this (if Souter rejects it, the rejection is probably going to be unanimous).

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

i dare them to try that. how much would tax rates have to go up to pay for the health monstrosity?

About 10%. The only real cost is the subsidies for lower-income and middle-class Americans. You can continue letting people die on the streets if that makes you happier.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

the term activist judge refers to a judge creating law(s), not striking down something as unconstitutional

I've never really seen it applied to a judge "creating" a law. When the supremes find a law passed by a right-wing legislature unconstitutional, right-wingers claim that they passed a law repealing the law passed by the right-wing legislature. When the supremes strike down a law passed by a centrist legislature, right-wingers say that the law was struck down. This is the only real meaning of the term.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

That silly. Roe v. Wade is decried on the right as the height of judicial activism and all the justices did was examine a law passed by the legislative branch of government.

and proceeded to say that all abortion was legal, which was not the subject of any legislation......

 

[Bonestorm]

and proceeded to say that all abortion was legal, which was not the subject of any legislation......

The Court struck down legislation that outlawed abortion. Under your formulation, where the Court is merely passing on the ability of a legislature to pass laws, Roe v. Wade could not be considered an activist decision.