Obama warns 'unelected' Supreme Court against striking down health law

as I posted in the other thread

DID ANYONE READ THE QUOTE ?????



just for the record;



"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law"


he was more or less echoing what he believed to be their POV

so if you are killing him for this POV

well, I hope you can see the irony

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
as I posted in the other thread

DID ANYONE READ THE QUOTE ?????



just for the record;



"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law"


he was more or less echoing what he believed to be their POV

so if you are killing him for this POV

well, I hope you can see the irony

edit on 3-4-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

Yeah. The pathetic irony is the part where he uses "duly constituted" in a speech as he seeks to undermine that very document with every breath he takes.

The Supreme Court.... is becoming politisized to a point of non-function. You can tell, by some of the knee-jerk Tea party questions, that some of the judges ask too the defender's of President Obama's health care plan.

reply to post by Indigo5


I have no quarrel with that assessment, nor do I have a quarrel with allowing the entire law to collapse in light of the lack of a severability clause. It's 2700 pages that were not read before a vote, so I have no problem at all letting it fall into oblivion.

The entire kit-n-kaboodle.

Thumb down the mandate, strike down the entire law, let them start back from scratch and try to get it right this time.- maybe with some degree of that good old promised "transparency", and with the understanding this time around that their jobs are on the line if they try to stomp on us again.

It seems a win-win!

Originally posted by Blaine91555

Now this is this years rates. I'm guessing your sister is then a child, correct?

No She is in Illinois...you are in Alaska..

Here is the rate sheet for IPXP 2K Deductable in Illinois..(Standard) The plans are High Deductable 5k, Standard 2k, Extended 1k Deducatable and Low at 500 deductable...even at the lowest deductable ($500) the most you would pay is $693 if you were over 60 and lived in the worst neighborhood and smoked.

insurance.illinois.gov...

Originally posted by Blaine91555

You add to my rate the deductible and it's more than many people earn. How does this help me?

again...you literally live in the state that charges the most for thier pre-existing condition program, in 2014 it will be lowered and capped, until then put your foot up your local politicians Butt.

Originally posted by Blaine91555

I've dealt with it by working directly with the MD's involved. Without exception they give me at least a 50% discount as I pay most up front and have an established history of paying them faster than promised. Of course their rates have gone up a lot to since Obama Care. Before Obama Care an office visit cost me $149. Now it's $224.

Costs were rocketing before Obamacare...that is just fact. The cost controls are slowly rolling out over years, it is what the Dems had to trade to get it passed.

Originally posted by Blaine91555
I keep my prescription costs down through a program from Sam's Club for business owners that reduced my prescription costs by over 60%.

Good, also think canadian pharma by mail....or in Alaska, by border?

In both cases I do far better by relying on my good credit and dealing directly with the people providing the services. The Sam's Club Program surfaced to help people who fall through the cracks like me. Bless them for that. I'm sure they are loosing money on it.

I have one prescription that is $169 at Safeways (Carrs in Alaska), $264 in Walgreens and $61 in Sams Club.

This article explains how Sams Club, Costco etc. do it. It's about store margins.

abcnews.go.com...

Sorry for blowing you off before, I was not sure how to post what you wanted without the private info.

What happens to me if I'm mandated to pay that? Homeless I suppose.

edit on 4/3/2012 by Blaine91555 because: (no reason given)

No worries and by the time the mandate kicks in two things happen...(1) Prices are lowered and capped...your rates in Alaska are silly painful, again see my link for IL rates...and (2) If you can't afford it, the gov. picks up a percentage. People in poverty will pay little or nothing.

Originally posted by tangonine

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
as I posted in the other thread

DID ANYONE READ THE QUOTE ?????



just for the record;



"I just remind conservative commentators that for years we have heard the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint. That an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law"


he was more or less echoing what he believed to be their POV

so if you are killing him for this POV

well, I hope you can see the irony

edit on 3-4-2012 by syrinx high priest because: (no reason given)

Yeah. The pathetic irony is the part where he uses "duly constituted" in a speech as he seeks to undermine that very document with every breath he takes.

I'm felling more the irony of your misunderstanding of the term, which of course has nothing at all to do with the US constitution. He was referring to the process of the bill passing congress

I hate the health care bill, I hope the SCOTUS strikes it down

but

you guys need to read before you rant

lol

Originally posted by nenothtu
reply to post by Indigo5

 

I have no quarrel with that assessment, nor do I have a quarrel with allowing the entire law to collapse in light of the lack of a severability clause. It's 2700 pages that were not read before a vote, so I have no problem at all letting it fall into oblivion.

The entire kit-n-kaboodle.

Thumb down the mandate, strike down the entire law, let them start back from scratch and try to get it right this time.- maybe with some degree of that good old promised "transparency", and with the understanding this time around that their jobs are on the line if they try to stomp on us again.

It seems a win-win!

It's actually a lose-lose from someone with your hopes...

If just the mandate is dropped, which I doubt they will do for reasons discussed, then the insurance industry is still on the hook to cover everyone and can't do it without the mandate...enter expanded medicare and medicaid...this time at the urging of the GOPs former sugar daddies, the insurance industry...and the public might not be fond of the mandate, but they are overwhelmingly fond of the idea of covering everyone.

If the whole bill is over-turned...yes, it will be tossed back to Congress for a second shot...but a congress that will be likely a Democrat majority after a liberal base, which has thus far been wishy-washy...mobilizes with ferocity, kids dropped from thier parents plans, cancer patients dropped from coverage, skyrocketing rates it will be mayhem with the GOP holding the idealogical bag heading into elections.

If the law is overturned, Congress will go Dem and the bill will be reconstructed with a Dem Majority and a Dem President, a wiser, more mobilized left...

Not just my opinion, strategists on the right are thinking the same thing...many GOP strategists are starting to think the best thing would be for them to uphold the law...me? The law is better than nothing, but I would be good with a do over, there was too much kow-towing to the fanatical GOP the first time around and if the law falls, the Dems will win more elections, take Congress and be in a position to write a less compromised bill. Maybe even a public option this time.

See...it's a lose-lose for those that hate Obamacare.

Of course I know you will disagree...but I have been pretty spot on in the past...I predicted this would land in Kennedy's lap a month after the bill passed. I predicted the GOP comeback in the house last election...otherwise, my logic centers and political bias reside in different parts of my mind.

reply to post by syrinx high priest


No there's no feeling the irony of me missing your point. The supreme court exists as a (that whole checks and balances thing... remember that? maybe...) body to allow the individual to present a grievance that they feel violates their rights.

And that is exactly what is happening here.

reply to post by Indigo5

If the law is overturned, Congress will go Dem and the bill will be reconstructed with a Dem Majority and a Dem President, a wiser, more mobilized left...

You are predicting a Dem majority?



I would take that bet. No way, not this year.

Now is the time to stand up for religion, for the free enterprise system, For God, for family, for freedom, for life, liberty for all, for the unborn, for good, for justice, for light. Pray for the resurrection of the United States of America and our way of life.

Originally posted by kawika
reply to post by Indigo5

 

You are predicting a Dem majority?

I would take that bet. No way, not this year.

If the law is overturned...yes, without a doubt. You need to have a political/social imagination...imagine the consequnces of the law being overturned and how that will play in elections. The GOP briefly cheer and pat themselves on the backs, and then the reality kicks in, the news starts to break about the real world consequences...people all over the country with dire diseases are dropped, insurance rates rise anew unhindered. college kids can't be covered anymore and those that are up to the age of 26 are dropped - parents of all political leanings asking WTF?, people with pre-existing conditions without hope, companies once again having to invest in policy changes, the stock market tanks on the unpredictability...all of the blame at the feet of a GOP, who by that time will have loudly and publicly taken full credit for the comming wreckage, a GOP that isn't doing so great already ...and all of it just a couple of months before election time and a fiercly mobilized left egging on the rage with re-invigorated campaign funds and ads etc.

If the bill is overturned...the GOP loses the House...again...I am not the only one that sees that storm on the horizon, you just need to take off the colored glasses and think.

I think the bigger deal lies in this.... 26 states want to appeal at least the individual mandate... that is unprecedented! The law hasn't even gone into play and there's already a hearing about it, that also is not suppose to occur... The fact that the section of the bill is holding the rest up is basically the problem of that 2700 page monstrosity... I'm still not convinced that everyone has read it involved with this case.. But it's obviously not a good thing is a majority of the states are on board with striking this thing down...

The complaints about the supreme court are easy to fix... We need to push term limits on officials.... However having the sitting president replace them is kind of a double edge sword in the lifetime membership department. the conservative movement got a huge morale boost with this... Not only that it shows the direction of at least half the country....

The bigger question is... Is this the tipping point?

reply to post by DrNotforhire


The justices get life terms so it is difficult for a sitting president to load the SC with partisan judges. The founding fathers were no dummies.

Obama has a whole house of Czars that were not elected. They are making policy and conducting themselves without restraint every single day. They are the ones that need to be removed, investigated and prosecuted if found to be breaking the law or implementing policy that is against the constitution. It is time for house cleaning . It is repulsive to me to have any one in our government called Czars. Russia has czars not America. We have to stop thinking it is ok to exploit of our system 0f government. When and who can we depend on to call a wolf a wolf. We let the weasel into the hen house and now we have a problem.

reply to post by AwakeinNM


yeah thats why its a double edge sword! But you are correct, it does help in cases like this... Its just hard to plan when people die or quit... That's the other side of the coin... We lucked out... who knows how long these guys will be along, especially if obama wins another term

reply to post by Indigo5

If the law is overturned...yes, without a doubt. You need to have a political/social imagination...imagine the consequnces of the law being overturned and how that will play in elections. The GOP briefly cheer and pat themselves on the backs, and then the reality kicks in, the news starts to break about the real world consequences...people all over the country with dire diseases are dropped, insurance rates rise anew unhindered. college kids can't be covered anymore and those that are up to the age of 26 are dropped - parents of all political leanings asking WTF?, people with pre-existing conditions without hope, companies once again having to invest in policy changes, the stock market tanks on the unpredictability...all of the blame at the feet of a GOP, who by that time will have loudly and publicly taken full credit for the comming wreckage, a GOP that isn't doing so great already ...and all of it just a couple of months before election time and a fiercly mobilized left egging on the rage with re-invigorated campaign funds and ads etc.

Most of us travel in a small circle of friends, and as such are insulated from opposing opinions, so I could be really wrong about this.

But most of the people I know, understand that the cause of all this is the same cause that has caused disaster in places like Michigan and California. Note who has been in charge of those places for years.

Its not the Republican policies that have wrecked the economy. In fact, quite the opposite.

Will be a fun election to watch. Keeps life interesting.

Uh - Oh looks like someone is being taken behind the woodshed....

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

A source inside the courtroom, who did not want to be identified, confirmed the incident to Fox News. The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate challenge to the health care law. It was apparent, however, that the justice who questioned the government attorney present was referring to Obama's recent comments about the Supreme Court's review of that law.

The source said the justice, Judge Jerry Smith, was pointed in his questioning of the government attorney, asking whether Attorney General Eric Holder believes judges can strike down federal laws.

Smith then ordered a response from the department within 48 hours. The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

All three judges on the panel are Republican appointees.

The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.

Read more: www.foxnews.com...

Now granted this court are all (R) appointees but it is funny none the less. Holder is incompetent and needs to be schooled.

Hey Eric here is your homework....

The related letter from the court, obtained by Fox News, instructed the Justice Department to provide an explanation of "no less than three pages, single spaced" by noon on Thursday.

Are they are going to get detention or grounded or something if they don't.

The Justice Department had no comment when asked about the exchange.

If I were in charge of the Justice Department I would have said...does spelling count? Then again I very much doubt I'd ever be appointed to an Obama department of anything even chicanery.

reply to post by Indigo5


The other side of the coin though is your taxes. We have no taxes other than property taxes. Crunch the numbers and I'm sure I'm better off here. Your State does not pay the difference as the government has no money. They take it away from others who earn it. To support that they will of course collect more taxes.

There is this zone where people like me fall through the cracks. We earn to much to qualify for most things and to little to deal with the costs of medical care. There are many of me out here. We are the ones being screwed because either way, we pay.

Still I far prefer working for myself because quality of life is almost more important than giving it up for handouts I did not earn. I'm sure I've paid for many other peoples health care over the years. Lord knows I've paid more in taxes than I've taken home and I know most of that goes to others. If I had that back with interest my MD would be borrowing from me. Entitlements are targeted, even in this case.

All that money and there will still be millions going without and yet people defend that?

I challenge them to spend more than they earn, year after year and then come back with a report of how they did? Same with old Uncle Sam. He spends more than he has year after year and guess what happens? He takes to much from the people who actually earn their living and guess what happens? I'll never go over to the darkside of the Entitlement Mentality that is destroying the Free Worlds economy.

None of this changes the fact that Obama is lying yet again. None of it changes the fact that the mandate is obscene and clearly illegal. None of it changes the fact that Obama ignored that the Supreme Court is doing exactly what it is supposed to do and that he lied.

Originally posted by memnoch25
reply to post by tangonine

 

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority" all cases arising under this constitution. get it?

Arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority...does not imply ruling an existing law unconstitutional. It wasn't until Marbury Vs. Madison case which gave birth to Judicial Review, the claim by the Court itself that it has that power.
Afterwards, President Jefferson wrote that if that decision wasn't challenged by Congress, "Then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo-de-se (a suicide pact). ... The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please."

It was Judicial Review NOT the Constitution.

Get it?

edit on 3-4-2012 by memnoch25 because: (no reason given)

Law school 101. Let me post it for you:

Facts

On his last day in office, President John Adams named forty-two justices of the peace and sixteen new circuit court justices for the District of Columbia under the Organic Act. The Organic Act was an attempt by the Federalists to take control of the federal judiciary before Thomas Jefferson took office.

The commissions were signed by President Adams and sealed by acting Secretary of State John Marshall (who later became Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and author of this opinion), but they were not delivered before the expiration of Adams’s term as president. Thomas Jefferson refused to honor the commissions, claiming that they were invalid because they had not been delivered by the end of Adams’s term.

William Marbury (P) was an intended recipient of an appointment as justice of the peace. Marbury applied directly to the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of mandamus to compel Jefferson’s Secretary of State, James Madison (D), to deliver the commissions. The Judiciary Act of 1789 had granted the Supreme Court original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus “…to any courts appointed, or persons holding office, under the authority of the United States.”
Issues

Does Marbury have a right to the commission?
Does the law grant Marbury a remedy?
Does the Supreme Court have the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void?
Can Congress expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in Article III of the Constitution?
Does the Supreme Court have original jurisdiction to issue writs of mandamus?

Holding and Rule (Marshall)

Yes. Marbury has a right to the commission.

The order granting the commission takes effect when the Executive’s constitutional power of appointment has been exercised, and the power has been exercised when the last act required from the person possessing the power has been performed. The grant of the commission to Marbury became effective when signed by President Adams.
Yes. The law grants Marbury a remedy.The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws whenever he receives an injury. One of the first duties of government is to afford that protection.

Where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the law for a remedy. The President, by signing the commission, appointed Marbury a justice of the peace in the District of Columbia. The seal of the United States, affixed thereto by the Secretary of State, is conclusive testimony of the verity of the signature, and of the completion of the appointment. Having this legal right to the office, he has a consequent right to the commission, a refusal to deliver which is a plain violation of that right for which the laws of the country afford him a remedy.
Yes. The Supreme Court has the authority to review acts of Congress and determine whether they are unconstitutional and therefore void.

It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply.
No. Congress cannot expand the scope of the Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction beyond what is specified in A

reply to post by tangonine



memnoch25


Here's the part where you lose and I win:

"
It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is. Those who apply the rule to particular cases must, of necessity, expound and interpret the rule. If two laws conflict with each other, the Court must decide on the operation of each. If courts are to regard the Constitution, and the Constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature, the Constitution, and not such ordinary act, must govern the case to which they both apply. "

Yes, the judiciary is empowered to uphold the constitution. Welcome to the first day of law school. and 5th grade government. genius.