Obama threatens 'unelected' Supreme Court over health care reform

[Mott the Hoople]

Are they wrong?

Yes. That's why most of the bipartisan judicial experts I've read have stated that there is so much precedent, under the commerce clause of the US Constitution, that they have predicted an 80% probability that the universal mandate will stand. Not that I'd bet any money on what this courty may decide. They are right of course Wacko. If you want to take the time to do the research you'll find a ton of precedence.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Wasn't the vote in the House 219-212???... do you really think that is a strong majority?

In the Senate it passed 60-39... on a pure partisan vote.

The House most certainly was not a strong majority. The Senate was.

Wouldn't that then be a majority of congress at 279 to 251?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So if the SC overturned it by one vote, would that be a strong majority?

Yes! LOL Same if they uphold it. It's as strong as a majority as you need! LOL The whole discussion is dumb. Who cares how much of a majority there was? The only thing that counts is that a majority of congress voted for this law. Now it's just a matter of "is it constitutional'? If so, then it's the law of the land.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

This is pretty ironic coming from the guy who spews more ad homs than any other poster. Fucking moron.

The Journal editorial board is the go to source for right-wing red meat. Let's not pretend otherwise. It's completely uninteresting. It's like posting stuff from the DNC or RNC. Why bother? You all can carry on as you wish and discuss what the Republican establishment has to say about Obama's comments. I'm personally not interested.

Apparently, the answer to my question is that right-wingers care what the WSJ editorial board thinks. I guess you need your marching orders. Enjoy!

I agree with you but you could also say the same of the editorial board of the NYT.

 

[cawacko]

Yes. That's why most of the bipartisan judicial experts I've read have stated that there is so much precedent, under the commerce clause of the US Constitution, that they have predicted an 80% probability that the universal mandate will stand. Not that I'd bet any money on what this courty may decide. They are right of course Wacko. If you want to take the time to do the research you'll find a ton of precedence.

That's not addressing his comment that it would be unprecedented to overturn a law passed by Congress.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

one could consider a strong majority defined as a party losing it's own majority based on the vote of a single act, like obamacare. how many dems retired or lost their seat in 2010?

I think it's an irrelevent question. It only requires a majority of congress.....at that time.....to vote for the law and the POTUS to sign it into law and the SCOTUS to rule in favor of it's constitutionality and then IT IS THE LAW!

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes. That's why most of the bipartisan judicial experts I've read have stated that there is so much precedent, under the commerce clause of the US Constitution, that they have predicted an 80% probability that the universal mandate will stand. Not that I'd bet any money on what this courty may decide. They are right of course Wacko. If you want to take the time to do the research you'll find a ton of precedence.

the interpretation of the commerce clause in this way literally gives the federal government total control and power over people and the states. With wickard allowing the feds to determine how much of anything that a person can grow or sell, to gonzales allowing the feds control over what a person can and cannot possess, and if this is upheld, allowing congress to control what a person can or cannot choose to purchase. Now, i'm sure that most everyone here thinks i'm a radial nutcase, but i'm pretty damned sure that the framers that wrote the constitution (along with all of the documenation and commentaries) and we the people that ratified it, did not give the federal government that much power. someone prove me wrong.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

That's not addressing his comment that it would be unprecedented to overturn a law passed by Congress.

That's not what he was refering to. He was refering to the fact that it would be unprecedented for SCOTUS to over turn a law which has so much legal precedent existing in its favor under the commerce clause of the US Constitution. Courts are not normally in the business in ruling against constitutional precedent where it exist. That's why most of the objective judicial experts believe that there is a high probability the court will rule in favor of the universal mandate. Which, of course, does not mean SCOTUS will, its just objective professionals in constitutional believe that it will.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

So if the SC overturned it by one vote, would that be a strong majority?

No. It would be a majority decision... as slim/narrow/weak as the majority could be. The fact that four of the 'liberal' Court members and three of the 'conservative' members already had their minds made up is kind of pathetic.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I think it's an irrelevent question. It only requires a majority of congress.....at that time.....to vote for the law and the POTUS to sign it into law and the SCOTUS to rule in favor of it's constitutionality and then IT IS THE LAW!

the law is the law. another age old cry of the tyrants. would it be THE LAW then, if a majority of congress then prohibited possession of any firearm, POTUS signed it, and SCOTUS upheld it???? would we all then be obliged to surrender our personally owned firearms because IT IS THE LAW?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

the interpretation of the commerce clause in this way literally gives the federal government total control and power over people and the states. With wickard allowing the feds to determine how much of anything that a person can grow or sell, to gonzales allowing the feds control over what a person can and cannot possess, and if this is upheld, allowing congress to control what a person can or cannot choose to purchase. Now, i'm sure that most everyone here thinks i'm a radial nutcase, but i'm pretty damned sure that the framers that wrote the constitution (along with all of the documenation and commentaries) and we the people that ratified it, did not give the federal government that much power. someone prove me wrong.

Yes, yes we all know that to an ideological purist like you that our Government should provide no services not expressly approved for it's constitutionality by STY since obviously you are more knowledgable in Constitutional Law than SCOTUS is.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Wouldn't that then be a majority of congress at 279 to 251?

Yes. Anything above half is a majority.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

the law is the law. another age old cry of the tyrants. would it be THE LAW then, if a majority of congress then prohibited possession of any firearm, POTUS signed it, and SCOTUS upheld it???? would we all then be obliged to surrender our personally owned firearms because IT IS THE LAW?

LOL It took exactly 50 posts for you to link this to guns. Well done STY! LOL

 

[cawacko]

That's not what he was refering to. He was refering to the fact that it would be unprecedented for SCOTUS to over turn a law which has so much legal precedent existing in its favor under the commerce clause of the US Constitution. Courts are not normally in the business in ruling against constitutional precedent where it exist. That's why most of the objective judicial experts believe that there is a high probability the court will rule in favor of the universal mandate. Which, of course, does not mean SCOTUS will, its just objective professionals in constitutional believe that it will.

So Obama is talking about legal precedent when making this statement?

"Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress," he told reporters in the Rose Garden

Now I know I'm an idiot but it's clear to everyone else that he is talking about legal precedent in that comment though he makes no reference of it?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Yes. Anything above half is a majority.

Cool....but just for arguments sake, you have to admit that a simple majority works just fine, doesn't it?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So Obama is talking about legal precedent when making this statement?

"Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically-elected Congress," he told reporters in the Rose Garden

Now I know I'm an idiot but it's clear to everyone else that he is talking about legal precedent in that comment though he makes no reference of it?

It's not your fault. You went to USC.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

This is pretty ironic coming from the guy who spews more ad homs than any other poster. Fucking moron.

The Journal editorial board is the go to source for right-wing red meat. Let's not pretend otherwise. It's completely uninteresting. It's like posting stuff from the DNC or RNC. Why bother? You all can carry on as you wish and discuss what the Republican establishment has to say about Obama's comments. I'm personally not interested.

Apparently, the answer to my question is that right-wingers care what the WSJ editorial board thinks. I guess you need your marching orders. Enjoy!

LMAO... so from now on you wish to relegate debate to what sources? If we abandon discussion based on source bias, then we should no longer discuss anything from huffpo, the NYT, the Wash Post, Moveon.moron, The Journal, Fox, MSNBC, etc...

It is quite amusing how your are 'personally not interested' yet you always have to comment. If you are not interested, why are you posting?

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

Cool....but just for arguments sake, you have to admit that a simple majority works just fine, doesn't it?

Yes. The point that was made regarding the majority is that Obama referred to it as a 'strong' majority... even though it barely passed the House.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Yes, yes we all know that to an ideological purist like you that our Government should provide no services not expressly approved for it's constitutionality by STY since obviously you are more knowledgable in Constitutional Law than SCOTUS is.

and another whining cry common with statists, that since i'm not a lawyer, how could I possibly know anything about law or the constitution.

the constitution is easy to read and interpret. It takes judges, lawyers, and politicians to really fuck it up for the rest of us.

and yeah, I think in most cases I am more knowledgable in the constitution than SCOTUS is. others are as well. for instance, do you really think that Kelo falls in line with the constitution? Or dred scott? you say citizens united is one of the worst decisions of your time, but is it in line with the constitution?

the above are easy questions and do not require some long winded explanation.

 

[Bonestorm]

Actually I readily admit I am not a constitutional scholar. I wish I knew and understood more but I don't. So therefore I am not afraid to ask others their opinion. If that makes me an idiot then so be it. As I stated when I posted this I am open to hearing where they are mistaken here if they are.

If you want to know and understand more about it, the first thing you should do is stop reading the Wall Street Journal editorial page. There are plenty of sources available that, even if biased, are substantially more informative than that drivel.

The last major piece of legislation like the Affordable Care Act, regulating 1/6th of the US economy, was struck down was back in the 1930s before the New Deal. It would exceptional if not "unprecedented." And the ACA passed the Senate on a 60-39 vote. That's a strong majority. The House wasn't. They really got him there. Not that the strength of the vote matters from a constitutional perspective.