Ask Me Help Desk - SCOTUS to hear the case of Obamacare vs American liberty tomorrow

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes ;just overturn it and send it back to Congress. There is no need at all ;nor is it desirable for SCOTUS to give a prescriptive . All they need to do is give their opinion as to why it is unconstitutional .

.

Hi Tom,

Are you telling me that SCOTUS has the power to overturn legislation even before the case is brought before them? Might be wrong, but it doesn't sound right to me.

In fact that would be ludicrous. It would give the judiciary the opportunity to mold legislation as to how they see fit. Isn't it all about limiting the power of the judiciary when it comes to making descriptive decisions?

Are you sure you are not talking about giving an opinion in terms of proof reading legislation to see if it is constitutional in terms of format? In other words, their job is not overturning the content per se. but rather pass muster. That would sound more likely. If this is the case then yes it would be SCOTUS giving a descriptive explanation rather than a prescriptive.

My position is still that once the case actually comes before SCOTUS it's rulings must necessarily contain a descriptive explanation.

Some clarification as to how it is possible for SCOTUS to overturn legislation even before the case gets to them would be appreciated.

Tut

Quote:

Are you telling me that SCOTUS has the power to overturn legislation even before the case is brought before them? Might be wrong, but it doesn't sound right to me.

No it's not that simple . Someone has to bring the case to court ;and SCOTUS has to determine that they have "standing " to bring the case.

Quote:

Some clarification as to how it is possible for SCOTUS to overturn legislation even before the case gets to them would be appreciated.

I never said that . I don't know where you are getting that impression.
Everything I've said about the decisions made by SCOTUS has been after hearing a case they gave standing to. What I am saying is that SCOTUS should simply give a law an up or down decision on it's constitutionality ,and to explain why it is . They should not be required ;as the Administration lawyers suggested , to parse through a bill and line item which part of it can remain law and which part must be scrapped . That is where they cross the line into making law... well that ,and when the impose solutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

No it's not that simple . Someone has to bring the case to court ;and SCOTUS has to determine that they have "standing " to bring the case.
I never said that . I don't know where you are getting that impression.
Everything I've said about the decisions made by SCOTUS has been after hearing a case they gave standing to. What I am saying is that SCOTUS should simply give a law an up or down decision on it's constitutionality ,and to explain why it is . They should not be required ;as the Administration lawyers suggested , to parse through a bill and line item which part of it can remain law and which part must be scrapped . That is where they cross the line into making law ....well that ,and when the impose solutions.

That's what I thought. This is why we have, so and so versus so and so. The history of cases decided by SCOTUS would be a mile long. These are the cases I am talking about.

I am also trying to find one; wherey when a decision is hand down it doesn't come with a prescriptive explanation.

If unsuccessful then my original contention seems to stand. You carn't rule on a law without creating a law.

Actually, I got the impression from your last posting.

"Yes; just overturn it and send it back to congress" You used the word "overturn". Perhaps you were going to say, revise or fix up.

Tut

No I mean overturn
Who can overturn a law pass by congress
Just declare it unconstitutional ;explain why it is unconsitutional ;and then the ball is back in Congress court.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TUT317

"Yes; just overturn it and send it back to congress" You used the word "overturn". Perhaps you were going to say, revise or fix up.

Tut

Now Tut you know that's naughty, the court isn't in the position of advising the government how to frame leglislation, but its ruling that the law is unconstitutional overturns it

Quote:

Originally Posted by paraclete

Now Tut you know that's naughty, the court isn't in the position of advising the government how to frame leglislation, but its ruling that the law is unconstitutional overturns it

Thanks Tom and Clete. I didn't realize that 'overturn' was the term used in this type of thing.

Tut

Plain language Tut use the word invalidate if you like

Whether it is, or isn't constitutional has yet to be announced. I bet it is.

The President's preemptive smear of SCOTUS makes me think that Kagan gave him a heads-up about the results of Friday's vote. Perhaps he thinks some Chi-town arm twisting will convince Kennedy to change his vote before the June release of the decision ? Look for Spike Lee to tweet Kennedy's address.

.getting conflicting reports on theSCOTUS decision..

OK cleared up now. Obamacare has been upheld by the court . They rejected all the arguments except the absurd contention that forcing people to buy insurance is covered under the government taxing authority . ALL I HAVE TO SAY TO THAT IS BULL SH*T!

So sad your side lost a really big one. :D

Go figure, Kennedy voted against the mandate and Roberts upheld. The leftists will be dancing in the streets today. Can't for that arrogant putz Obama to spike the ball.

Hello again, tom:

Big decision. There's going to be a lot of fallout. I think it hurts Republicans across the board. It has implications in the presidential race..

Wow, is all I got to say.

excon

Such class, calling someone a penis. A great example of the righties.

The question asked in the oral arguments has been answered . There is nothing ;absolutely no limits ,beyond the taxing or regulatory authority of the non-federal Leviathan government of America.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

There is nothing ;absolutely no limits ,beyond the taxing or regulatory authority of the non-federal Leviathan government of America.

Hello again, tom:

You, Scalito and the quiet one can lament this all you want.. But, the IMPORTANT discussion is how the constitutional law will be jiggered and expanded to cover all Americans. Frankly, I think it's our FIRST step toward universal coverage, and I think ALL your arguments against it have been severely damaged.

excon

Yeah ironically the President swore to the world that it wasn't a tax ;and that was the argument that idiot Roberts bought . All the other arguments that the government made were rejected . But the court's majority said that anything and everything can be taxed ;and any confiscation of people's property can be done under the government's vast expansive power to tax.

Well I for one remember what the revolution was about .

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedKarma

Such class, calling someone a penis. A great example of the righties.

The word was putz, only you would use the vulgar interpretation of that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by excon

Hello again, tom:

Big decision. There's gonna be a lot of fallout. I think it hurts Republicans across the board. It has implications in the presidential race..

Wow, is all I got to say.

excon

This is a sad day for America as we are getting back to square one where it all started. A revolution over taxation. Having yet more rights stripped is going to cause major waves. And this is a new previously unknown power given to the government. I believe they got it wrong. What is next? Force us to buy solar or tax us out of our homes? Its within the law now to do so.

What's next? I'm afraid to ask.

I don't know if Obama has spiked the ball yet but the DNC executive director has with, "it's constitutional, b*tches."

Now THAT'S classy, NK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by califdadof3

This is a sad day for America as we are getting back to square one where it all started.

Hello dad:

In my view, there's more to LIKE about it, than not. But, first and foremost, medical bills will NO longer be the number one reason for bankruptcy in this great land of ours.

There's more, of course. Stay tuned.

excon

Hello again,

Brief interuption... Romney says the WORST thing about Obamacare is that it puts the government between you and your doctor...

Hmmm... If right wingers had their way, there would be a federal PREGNANCY cop in between you and your doctor... How come he/you don't get that?

Back to the program in progress.

excon

Not really stopping bankruptcy, now you can't afford to pay for the insurance that they say you must take, and will tax you when you can't afford it.

So you still will not have insurance because you can't pay for it, and then you will pay a penalty for not having it.

Right now a man and wife in their 40s or 50s will pay about 700 a month for health insurance, if they both work min wage jobs and both work full time they may gross about 2400 a month before taxes and may at best clear about 1920 where are they going to have the money to pay ?

Can't get medicaid since in my state a family of 3 earning 1000 dollars a month can't get it.

So still who is going to pay my premium ? What about the family where the wife or husband is out of work, and only one working,

It is fine to say everyone has to be insured. But where and how do I pay for it?

That's why universal health care is the way to go. But I see your opposition to it by saying that the government doesn't run anything well - that is indeed true in your country. I don't know how you're going to fix that. Most if not all wealthy nations use UHC or single payer for the healthcare of their citizens. In the US the corporations will fight tooth and nail against it. Good luck, I don't see any outcome that please anyone.

There is no federal pregnancy cop and as far as I know, none are planned. That's how I don't get it.

P.S. Obamacare is now a tax paid to the insurance industry, who gets to tax us next? Car makers? Plumbers? Electricians? "Green" energy corporations?

Whoever gives your politicians the biggest donations. I thought you all knew that.

Well the debate is over, now the candidates have something to fight about

who gets to tax us next? Car makers? Plumbers? Electricians? "Green" energy corporations?

They already do, seen any bills lately?

Back at the governors meeting in 2011, Obama told ALL the governors if they have a great idea, he would listen, and so far the governors, 26 of them, only response is a lawsuit. And now that SCOTUS is affirmed it, the right says REPEAL, even Romney, though the system was based on HIS idea.

I think its going to be hard to take away what most Americans have said they liked so far that the law does provide, and as they see more, that REPEAL cry by the right won't work. But now the issue is how the states run their Medicaid programs which is optional instead of mandatory.

People seem to forget that the poor, and working poor are more affected by this no insurance deal than anyone, and get tax credits and subsidies that help them pay for it, as well as many small businesses. Don't think its fair to take all those things away, or the provisions the republicans can't stand, and seems unfair that since 85% of Americans will not be affected at all since they have their own insurance anyway.

You tell all those seniors that the price of a do nut hole just went back up.

But the right never tells you the whole story, and facts are lacking in their REPEAL arguments. But I give you guys credit, it was an impressive push to obstruct, and get this to the SCOTUS in record time. Truly impressive. Seems to me if they showed the same zeal helping solve problems as they do harassing presidents, and AG's, we would have a lot more bridges schools roads, fixed, more teachers, fireman, and police, doing important jobs, then nobody would be paying a tax for not having affordable insurance, and access, to health care.

Yeah repeal the working poors' only chance to get what the rest of us have. Until we wake up and get single payer.

Any body getting a rebate from their insurance company? That's in the new law too!

Isn't our fault that there are a couple thousand pages of garbage in a bill that has a couple good ideas worth saving . The only thing that makes sense to me is the repeal and start over . That could happen quickly with some Democrat cooperation. Once they stop their Snoopy dance celebration maybe they will consider it .They should you know ;now that the "affordable " health care act has been defined by the so called 'final arbiters' as a huge middle class tax increase ;that the majority of the people do not like in general.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

The only thing that makes sense to me is the repeal and start over . That could happen quickly with some Democrat cooperation.

Hello again, tom:

It'll NEVER be repealed. Even IF Romney wins. You AIN'T going to get a super majority in the Senate. But, it surely can be tinkered with to keep the good stuff and to find a better way to pay for it.

But, there WILL be good stuff, and it's Going to be paid for. You can COUNT on that. You wingers LOVE to inflict programs on us that AREN'T paid for, like two wars and a massive tax cut for the richest of the rich amongst us. We AIN'T going to let you do that again.

excon

It's a work in progress. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Thursday, "The Affordable Care Act is not like the Ten Commandments, chiseled in stone; it's like a starter home, suitable for improvement. ... I invite the Republicans to bring their tool kits, not their sledgehammers."

Collecting taxes on behalf the government is not the same thing. AT&T forwards their taxes collected to the government, insurance companies will be keeping theirs. Surely you see the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wondergirl

It's a work in progress. Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Thursday, "The Affordable Care Act is not like the Ten Commandments, chiseled in stone; it's like a starter home, suitable for improvement. ... I invite the Republicans to bring their tool kits, not their sledgehammers."

Yes we understand the progressives definition of work in process. They will never be satisfied until it is a single payer ,top-down government managed and controlled plan.

And now a word from Emperor Zero.

Presidents tried to pass health care reform for decades—and this one got it done.
Twitter / BarackObama: Presidents tried to pass h

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Yes we understand the progressives definition of work in process.

Hello again, tom:

We too, understand how the right wing governs. Spend a bunch of money on two wars and huge tax cuts, and DON'T pay for it..

In response to the SCOTUS ruling yesterday, Romney said he would like to see health care reform legislation that ensures "people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so," enables people with preexisting conditions to get insurance, gives states more support in their efforts to expand health care access and focuses on lowering the cost of such care.

In other words he wants all the GOOD stuff in Obamacare. He just doesn't want to PAY for it...

excon

Quote:

"people who want to keep their current insurance will be able to do so,"

You think Obamacare takes care of that ? Employers are going to start dropping employee coverage in droves. It will be cheaper for them to pay the fine... ooops I mean tax ;and let their employees go into the state pools .

Not the small businesses who get the CREDITS, and subsidies for having medical insurance for there employees. And employees of most companies already have a percentage of insurances premiums deducted out of their monthly, weekly, or bi weekly pay checks. Both public, and private sectors.

What you thought the boss totes the entire costs?

Tal you know and I know that they still pick up the bulk of the cost. Again ; is there a mandate that employers provide this benefit (what your crowd calls "right ") ;or will cost analysis say it is more prudent for them to either drop employee coverage ,and pay the ummm tax ? Or perhaps even charge the employee more for all the premium increases that comes with freebies in the mandates ?
Here is the inconvenient Fact of Obamacare... After next year ;starting in 2014 all employers with more than 50 employees will be required to offer health benefits to every full-timer or to pay a penalty of $2,000 per worker .These requirements will increase medical costs for many companies. It's a fact that the penalty for not offering coverage is significantly below these costs.

This will force employees to find their own coverage (or pay that... tax);or to sign up in one of these state insurance exchanges that are being formed with the Obamacare cuts in Medicare . I guarantee you that the States are not prepared for this influx of new beneficiaries ;even with this Federal Government transfer .
You don't know the folly of what Obamacare has wrought because it hasn't really begun yet .
Now many employers plan on adjusting compensation and benefits in other ways. But the real issue is going to be the massive influx of the newly uninsured that the government programs will be responsible for. I think the ones that the States and National Government have already are on the death bed due to poor financing structures and future obligations to the entitled . Imagine a 10-20 % increase in the 1st year of these new exchanges. It's an approaching disaster .