Initial reading of the testimony today leads me to believe that if the mandate declared unconstitutional then the whole legislation goes down. The mandate is a vital instrument of the law ,and it doesn't appear that the justices would be willing to read the 2000+ pages of the bill to decide which part is good or bad ;and essentially rewrite the whole law for the Congress.

I was listening to Tom Hartman on progressive radio today ,and he was bemoaning 'Marbury v Madison' and was complaining loudly that (now get this ) the Founders NEVER intended SCOTUS to have judicial review . While I wholeheartedly agree with him ,I have to wonder when this progressive learned to appreciate originalism ?

I think he does Ex

Hello again, tom:

He's believed it for as long as I've been listening to him... Which is as long as I've been here. I DID wonder why he agreed with you. I STILL do.

excon

The question is if THIS particular mandate is constitutional. Worry about the next one when it comes. That will give SCOTUS another case in the future. Now if they shoot this one down, Medicare for all is down the road. But then there is those pesky poor people. Will the government take food stamps?

Will the right wing even allow that?

You guys don't want to fund fixing bridges, or FREE contraception for women, so I doubt seriously if you can fund somebody who can't afford health insurance, or worse, those that don't WANT it. Raising taxes maybe, only on lower incomes?? Heck you guys want to do that any way. Ask Romney, Ryan, and Santorum.

Go ahead, shoot the whole thing down, then I won't have to have insurance either. Funding from you guys for poor peoples insurance, HA, that will be a bigger circus than this Constitutional thing you guys are freaking over. So get ready for republican ideas about paying for something.

To each his own eh! We will see how well that works out for you

Now what could that mean?

It means that when people only look after themselves they deserve all they get

Nope ;the difference here is that never before has the federal government madated a contract between citizens and a private company. Medicare is a tax according to the Social Security ruling .

So look to see medicare updated

Hi Tom,

I know you favour original intent. So, which is it?

Originalism or original intent?

You can't hold both at the same time.

Tut

Originalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hi Tom,

Thanks for the link.

I think if you look a bit more into it you will find this article and similar articles support what I have said.

5.4.1 Originalism is not a theory of original intent. Also Justice Scalia's comments in the article you posted. What Scalia is saying is that he does not support original intent. It is reasonable to assume he does not do this on the basis of original intent being a 'committee decision' This was the basis of our discussion a month or so ago.

Scalia says, "You will never hear me refer to original intent, because as I say I am first of all a textualist and secondly an originalist"

Most people reject original intent because it has too many problems not least of all the problems Scalia is alluding to. Basically, original intent takes a group decision and gives it expansive or all embracing status. In other words, this goes against the notion of the separation of the powers;notably, the separation of the legislative bodies when it comes to decision making.

Another problem I see is that original intent can mean what ever or choose it to mean. This is especially relevant to the conservative side of politics. Original intent can be what my side of conservative politics wants the Constitution to say.

You are better off being an originalist.

Tut

I don't always agree with Scalia . Where he applies the text's meaning at the time of its adoption in his decisions I tend to agree with him . Whatever semantics that's called is OK with me . I know it is harder than saying that the text means whatever the language has evolved in 200+ years ,or the even lazier application that the living breathing crowd thinks. But it sets the only true standard for interpretation in my opinion.

Hi again Tom,

In relation to Tom Hartman. It is probably also worth noting that you don't have to be a conservative to support originalism.

Tut

Hartman believes in judicial activism. I bet you never heard him saying his critique of Marbury the number of times the courts intervened ,and ruled against laws ,and then imposed remedies on states and local governments.I bet he didn't object when Roe v Wade was decided . I bet he believes this statement ......“specific guarantees in the Bill of Rights have penumbras, formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance.” (the idiot Justice William O. Douglas )

So Tom are you telling us your Bill of Rights is not sacrosanct

No he is saying his interpretation is the correct one and any other is WRONG!!

Hi Tom,

My comment was in relation to Hartman, not about Hartman.

As I said, you don't have to be a conservative to support originalism.

Tut

I think that anything that ignores actual cause and effect, also ignore the solutions. I guess that's why we have none. You can interpret any thing you want, any way you want, but if the corn don't get planted you eat dirt.

So interpret the law, but fix the process that the law was made, then you fix the problem. And the corn can grow. I know too deep for the politician, who wants to look good with his arguments, and goes over the head of a judge who has never seen corn, but the hungry guy with his sleeves rolled up knows exactly what I mean.

So if the law doesn't work for the practical purpose of the peoples actual good, then the hell with interpretation.

You mean like the farmer who was growing wheat to feed his pigs and the Federal Government told him if he did that he'd have to pay a penalty... ooops I mean tax ?