3 Fed judges find Obamacare legal, 2 find it unconstitutional

[Little-Acorn]

So, the liberals tell us, this means that since more judges found it OK, that means it's OK. Or, since the last judge to reder a verdict found it OK, THAT means it's OK.

It's sort of like the Titanic bumping into five icebergs, one after the other. Our friends of the southpaw persuasion would have us believe that, since two of the bergs ripped big holes in the hull, but three didn't hit hard enough to pierce it, that means the ship is fine and won't sink.

Or since the last berg to tap the hull didn't break through, THAT means the ship can maintain full power and make it to port without further problem.

Gotta love these leftist fanatics. Their entertainment value almost makes up for the extra oxygen they consume.

[fj1200]

OK, my question is this: How can the various judges be this down-the-line partisan? Are the various groups bringing the suits so good at forum shopping that they know which judges will give them the answer that they want or is this particular issue that clear cut to each side?

[Little-Acorn]

OK, my question is this: How can the various judges be this down-the-line partisan? Are the various groups bringing the suits so good at forum shopping that they know which judges will give them the answer that they want or is this particular issue that clear cut to each side?

Is the Pope German?

[fj1200]

Is the Pope German?

Sometimes German, sometimes Polish, etc. but you'd hope he's ALWAYS Catholic which is why it's disconcerting that opinions on this issue, and others of course, are so widely divergent and down the line.

[Little-Acorn]

Sometimes German, sometimes Polish, etc.

Bzzzzt. He's German. Obviously.

And it's just as obvious that the lawsuit-bringers are expert judge-shoppers... or they hire experts.


it's disconcerting that opinions on this issue, and others of course, are so widely divergent and down the line.
Well, that comes from differing opinions on the fundamental purpose and nature of government in a human society.

Some feel that govt's purpose is to bring order to our lives, to control and regulate things so that we work more smoothly together, to take care of our problems and shield us from fear and trouble.

Other think that govt's only purpose is to safeguard our rights - something that private individuals and groups CANNOT do with any degree of dispassion or fairness. And nothing else - the rest of the time, it's incumbent on govt to keep its nose out of our business, and let us live our lives, take our chances, and learn from our mistakes without any interference or "help".

The two viewpoints are incompatible at the most fundamental level. And they produce radically different agendas among people who actively watch and try to control government.

And they always will.

[fj1200]

Bzzzzt. He's German. Obviously.

And it's just as obvious that the lawsuit-bringers are expert judge-shoppers... or they hire experts.

I know he's German... NOW.

I'm not sure if it makes me feel better that they can choose the specific forum to get the decision they want.


Well, that comes from differing opinions on the fundamental purpose and nature of government in a human society.

Right, disconcerting.

[logroller]

I know he's German... NOW.

I'm not sure if it makes me feel better that they can choose the specific forum to get the decision they want.


Right, disconcerting.

If you've ever been to court for something, you'd appreciate a judge's history for ruling one way or another. Experts, aka experienced lawyers, are worth their weight in salt when it comes to getting the decision you desire. I'm not particularly concerned with which doctor to go to for a marijane card-- someday I may be. Just saying, options are always good--isnt that the beef, options, opting out included!

Besides, I think everybody with an ounce of legal knowledge knew this would receive mixed rulings. At this point its all about how soon SCOTUS will hear the case-- hopefully October, but thats just speculation.

[Indy]

OK, my question is this: How can the various judges be this down-the-line partisan? Are the various groups bringing the suits so good at forum shopping that they know which judges will give them the answer that they want or is this particular issue that clear cut to each side?

It's done all the time. In Califonia the 9th circus of appeals is full of leftist activists.

[Psychoblues]

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act will stand in one form or another for as long as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and SSI remain as law in the USofA. The majority of Americans already support it and as others more ignorant or obstinate learn about and enjoy the social benefits of the Act they, too, will come along and hold the Act as representative of American goodwill towards it's own society. Americans spend more on the health of foreigners than we do our very own population and that's got to change ASAP.

Psychoblues

[red states rule]

The Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act will stand in one form or another for as long as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and SSI remain as law in the USofA. The majority of Americans already support it and as others more ignorant or obstinate learn about and enjoy the social benefits of the Act they, too, will come along and hold the Act as representative of American goodwill towards it's own society. Americans spend more on the health of foreigners than we do our very own population and that's got to change ASAP.

Psychoblues

A majority suppirt Obamacare? What the hell are you reading?





Most voters nationwide continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, but one-in-five now believe the plan will have no real impact on the federal deficit.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of Likely Voters shows that 56% favor repeal of the health care law, including 43% who Strongly Favor repeal. Forty percent (40%) oppose repeal of the law, including 27% who are Strongly Opposed. (To see survey question wording, click here.)

Support for repeal has changed little from last week. Weekly tracking since the bill was signed into law by President Obama last March has shown support for repeal ranging from a low of 50% to a high of 63%.

Fifty-two percent (52%) say the legislation is likely to increase the federal deficit, down six points from earlier this month. Since passage of the bill last year, the number expecting the law to increase the deficit has ranged from 51% to 63%. Only 15% expects the plan to reduce the national deficit, while slightly more (20%) say the plan will have no impact on the deficit.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/health_care_law

[fj1200]

If you've ever been to court for something, you'd appreciate a judge's history for ruling one way or another. Experts, aka experienced lawyers, are worth their weight in salt when it comes to getting the decision you desire.

You can't choose the judge in the district as they are generally doled out to the judges.


It's done all the time. In Califonia the 9th circus of appeals is full of leftist activists.

Which decision was in CA? The 9th gets overturned a lot.

[revelarts]

It's really interesting, An unconstitutional law is both struck down and upheld by various courts and states. And rather than law everyone is appealing to momentum.
But the whole thing is swaying in the wind at this point.
Which is a great sign on a practical level but doesn't say much for the state of our gov't..

[Psychoblues]

It's really interesting, An unconstitutional law is both struck down and upheld by various courts and states. And rather than law everyone is appealing to momentum.
But the whole thing is swaying in the wind at this point.
Which is a great sign on a practical level but doesn't say much for the state of our gov't..

revy, the preamble to the United Staytes of America reads thusly:

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The USSC has ruled in various ways throughout history as to the exact meaning of our founders to include those highlighted words and it is generally accepted that it means what it says. We were desperate for a strong and healthy population and military therefore our founders included these words to constantly ascertain the general well being of the US citizenry. My point being that your statement condemning the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act as "unconstitutional" would be inaccurate at best and certainly premature.

Psychoblues

[revelarts]

revy, the preamble to the United States of America reads thusly:

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The USSC has ruled in various ways throughout history as to the exact meaning of our founders to include those highlighted words and it is generally accepted that it means what it says. We were desperate for a strong and healthy population and military therefore our founders included these words to constantly ascertain the general well being of the US citizenry. My point being that your statement condemning the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act as "unconstitutional" would be inaccurate at best and certainly premature.

Psychoblues


Psych. Um,

the USSC has determined clearly that "Promoting the general welfare" really means tax payers should pay for the medical care of others and be forced to pay Ins Companies for med coverage? Orchestrated by the federal gov't?

If Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin etc were here today,
do you honestly believe they would tell you that's what they meant?

Did they implement or propose anything close to that while in office?
Did they advocate for anything like it in their writings?
Did they promote it even on there state levels?

no.

Psych it's an invention,
the constitution is very clear on the powers granted the federal gov't.
the USSC has allowed the modern congresses and the Executive to overstep those mostly clear lines.

All due respect pysch but that line of reasoning sounds like me as a kid trying to convince my Dad that
he said I was suppose to go to bed but he didn't NECESSARILY mean I was to go to sleep.

I mean cmon, right Psych, be honest.
Just say you don't care what the constitution says.
You just think the health care deal is a good law Constitutional or not.
No need to lie about it. As a christian your suppose to be honest.

[Psychoblues]

Psych. Um,

the USSC has determined clearly that "Promoting the general welfare" really means tax payers should pay for the medical care of others and be forced to pay Ins Companies for med coverage? Orchestrated by the federal gov't?

If Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin etc were here today,
do you honestly believe they would tell you that's what they meant?

Did they implement or propose anything close to that while in office?
Did they advocate for anything like it in their writings?
Did they promote it even on there state levels?

no.

Psych it's an invention,
the constitution is very clear on the powers granted the federal gov't.
the USSC has allowed the modern congresses and the Executive to overstep those mostly clear lines.

All due respect pysch but that line of reasoning sounds like me as a kid trying to convince my Dad that
he said I was suppose to go to bed but he didn't NECESSARILY mean I was to go to sleep.

I mean cmon, right Psych, be honest.
Just say you don't care what the constitution says.
You just think the health care deal is a good law Constitutional or not.
No need to lie about it. As a christian your suppose to be honest.

Although there weren't many hospitals or doctors or about any healthcare at all back then, revy, they DID all they could do at that time to keep the population healthy. Nothing immature about that.

If you want to discuss the Constitution then you need to be ready to provide reasonable explanations for the wording contained therein, the technologies and meanings of criterion as understood back then and as compared to updated information today and be willing to be honest with yourself as well as me about the subject.

I stand by what I said.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

revy, the preamble to the United Staytes of America reads thusly:

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

The USSC has ruled in various ways throughout history as to the exact meaning of our founders to include those highlighted words and it is generally accepted that it means what it says. We were desperate for a strong and healthy population and military therefore our founders included these words to constantly ascertain the general well being of the US citizenry. My point being that your statement condemning the Patients Rights and Affordable Care Act as "unconstitutional" would be inaccurate at best and certainly premature.

Psychoblues


Little psycho has been debunked on this fib before. He's apparently practicing the standard leftist tactic of waiting for a period of time after his wishful thinking is corrected, and then re-posting it as though it was never refuted.

The Preamble does nothing but make the Constitution into a law... and explain why. Explanations are not mandates, whether in the Preamble ("... , in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ...") or in the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..."), and if they were left out completely, their absence would not change the meaning ot the mandate.

The Constitution was designed to create and limit the Federal government. People like little psycho keep trying to get around those limits, and have to be regularly smacked down, since their reading level isn't up to the task of understanding what the Constitution actually says.

[Psychoblues]

Little psycho has been debunked on this fib before. He's apparently practicing the standard leftist tactic of waiting for a period of time after his wishful thinking is corrected, and then re-posting it as though it was never refuted.

The Preamble does nothing but make the Constitution into a law... and explain why. Explanations are not mandates, whether in the Preamble ("... , in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, ...") or in the 2nd amendment ("A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..."), and if they were left out completely, their absence would not change the meaning ot the mandate.

The Constitution was designed to create and limit the Federal government. People like little psycho keep trying to get around those limits, and have to be regularly smacked down, since their reading level isn't up to the task of understanding what the Constitution actually says.

I have never, not ONE TIME, argued the preamble to the US Constitution for the promotion of general welfare or any other issue on this board or any other until now. So, fuck you, la. You are a liar plain and simple. But onto the subject at hand. The subject of the Preamble has been discussed ad nauseum before the courts and in law schools nationwide as well as millions of pages of books both of law and of other non-fiction. With very rare exception it is generally agreed that he Preamble is not only part and parcel of the Constitution but further, without it there could not even be a United States Constitution. I find your position preposterous, la, and without logic or precedence whatsoever.

Psychoblues

[revelarts]

Although there weren't many hospitals or doctors or about any healthcare at all back then, revy, they DID all they could do at that time to keep the population healthy. Nothing immature about that.

If you want to discuss the Constitution then you need to be ready to provide reasonable explanations for the wording contained therein, the technologies and meanings of criterion as understood back then and as compared to updated information today and be willing to be honest with yourself as well as me about the subject.

I stand by what I said.

Psychoblues

James Madison:
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

James Madison:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

[logroller]

James Madison:
With respect to the words general welfare, I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.

James Madison:
If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress... Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.

Well I certainly applaud Madison, and Jefferson for the matter of opposition to the Federalist doctrine in its pure form, I nonetheless realize Hamilton and a number of other founding fathers who would, and did, disagree on the Federal role in citizen livelihood. Though considering the source, Hamilton was never one for following procedure; Burr would attest to that!