How dare they. Appeals court questions Obama's comments.

[piasabird]

It is the job of the president to uphold the constitution according to the Oath of the presidency! If the Supreme Court makes a ruling that is the constitution!

Might be nice if we did not have to wait till june for a ruling. There is an awful lot riding on the balance of their decision. Must take a long time to pick the judges to write the pro and con decisions. Or do they all write both and pick the best ones? They probably dont write anything because it is their clerks writing all the decisions.

President O-Bammah's remarks could be considered threats against the supreme court. I think what he said should be considered an impeachable offense.

 

[hal2kilo]

Although this is more of a legal point than a political one, Obama was referring to the USSC invalidating a law based on the commerce clause as opposed to one like DOMA. The courts have invalidated a whole lot of social laws, but basically no economic laws like that.

Anyways, I totally agree that Obama is just preparing to run against the judiciary as well as the Republicans in Congress if the ACA is struck down or neutered or whatever. That was the point of his speech, not an attempt to strongarm the supreme court. It's just politics on Obama's part, but the courts are supposed to be above that.

To summarize, it's called politics folks. Man there's a bunch of hypocritical frothing at the mouth going on by the righties.

 

[theeedude]

It is the job of the president to uphold the constitution according to the Oath of the presidency! If the Supreme Court makes a ruling that is the constitution!

Might be nice if we did not have to wait till june for a ruling. There is an awful lot riding on the balance of their decision. Must take a long time to pick the judges to write the pro and con decisions. Or do they all write both and pick the best ones? They probably dont write anything because it is their clerks writing all the decisions.

President O-Bammah's remarks could be considered threats against the supreme court. I think what he said should be considered an impeachable offense.

What are you smoking?

 

[theeedude]

Just Obama's ex student and other legal experts that say Obama was wrong. OK. So we get some people saying Obama was wrong and some people that say the Judge was wrong? Usually based on their own political stances?
Reading this thread earlier it seemed that the judge was being widely disparaged and criticized while pretty much everyone else agree with Obama, I guess my impression was wrong. My mistake.

Saying Obama was wrong and saying Obama overstepped his authority are two different things. One is a difference of opinion, the other is an accusation. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including Obama, accusing someone without proof is libel.

 

[Bowfinger]

Saying Obama was wrong and saying Obama overstepped his authority are two different things. One is a difference of opinion, the other is an accusation. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, including Obama, accusing someone without proof is libel.

See, on the one hand you have an assortment of legal experts across the political spectrum, people who in general do not have any skin in this issue, all stating that this judge went over the line. On the other you have two people with skin in a closely related issue, partisans opposed to Obama, who say Obama is wrong... about something else. For people lacking in critical thinking skills, this is all the proof needed that Obama must be wrong since opinions are equally divided. These people cannot be reasoned with; their blind partisanship rules them.

 

[werepossum]

Yes, and the DoJ letter cites authority on that very point. The last sentence of the second last paragraph. This is what Obama meant by "unprecedented." I suppose he could have been clearer and mentioned the commerce clause and/or economic legislation. Apart from that, his description of the margin of victory for passage of the law was an exaggeration. Otherwise, I can't find much fault in what he said.

Your points above about the judiciary are also correct. The one thing judges cannot afford is to lose the perception of impartiality. We expect partisanship from Congress and the POTUS, not so much from the judiciary.

But if he did that he'd lose most of his impact. If you point out that SCOTUS has never thrown out a law claiming jurisdiction under the commerce clause, the natural response is "Why the hell not?" Is the commerce clause some magical formula allowing Congress to take over every part of our lives, reduce all our G-D-given freedom to whatever is considered tolerable by government? If the commerce clause is such a magic formula, then the entire Bill of Rights means squat. Put that way I'd be agitating for SCOTUS to overturn Obamacare just to set the precedent that the commerce clause is not a 20 gallon bottle of "Potion that does anything I want."

I agree with your comments about the judiciary needing to be seen as above partisanship and I agree these judges made a serious mistake in demanding an explanation for what is merely a political speech. I would point out though that Darth Bader Ginsberg coached the administration's attorney on what he should have said, which in itself is hardly a nonpartisan thing.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

If there was a line to be drawn on interstate commerce, it should have been done here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Scalia and Kennedy are flaming hypocrites after allowing federal prosecution of intrastate marijuana growth if they move to strike down any part of the ACA.

 

[monovillage]

Supreme Court decision

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I was pretty sure I recalled a case about the commerce clause.

 

[cybrsage]

So that makes two things proving Obama lied about it being an "unprecidented" action.

 

[werepossum]

If there was a line to be drawn on interstate commerce, it should have been done here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gonzales_v._Raich
Scalia and Kennedy are flaming hypocrites after allowing federal prosecution of intrastate marijuana growth if they move to strike down any part of the ACA.

Considering that weed is still illegal except with a prescription and that the federal government does not recognize a state's right to legalize medical marijuana, that's a massively weaker case than Wickard v. Filburn. In any case, the ACA differs in mandating not what you cannot do, but rather what you must do. That's unique.

Personally I think the commerce clause has been stretched far beyond any recognition and is ripe for a smack-down. I'm not expecting it here because SCOTUS in the final analysis is government and government is not in the business of disempowering itself, and because Wickard v. Filburn seems to me to be vastly more of an intrusion than requiring that one pay into the system to get an already-guaranteed benefit. But if the smack-down comes here it will be because of the nature of prescription versus proscription.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I was pretty sure I recalled a case about the commerce clause.

Ah, well overthrowing the health care law will affect millions of people.

 

[monovillage]

Ah, well overthrowing the health care law will affect millions of people.

If you judge every law that way then Congress would never be able to pass new laws since they affect millions of people, everything would remain static forever.

 

[Fern]

See, on the one hand you have an assortment of legal experts across the political spectrum, people who in general do not have any skin in this issue, all stating that this judge went over the line. On the other you have two people with skin in a closely related issue, partisans opposed to Obama, who say Obama is wrong... about something else. For people lacking in critical thinking skills, this is all the proof needed that Obama must be wrong since opinions are equally divided. These people cannot be reasoned with; their blind partisanship rules them.

Lawrence Tribe says he was wrong.

Constitutional law scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law School professor and former mentor to President Barack Obama, said the president “obviously misspoke” earlier this week when he made comments about the Supreme Court possibly overturning the health-care law.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/...sspoke-on-supreme-court/?mod=google_news_blog

Fern

 

[Fern]

How dare they. Appeals court questions Obama's comments.

I think the obvious is the obvious: Obama started some shiz with the judicial branch (again) and they are firing back. That's all.

Fern

 

[cybrsage]

"Obviously mispoke", that is newspeak for "lied", right? Double Plus good!

 

[werepossum]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I was pretty sure I recalled a case about the commerce clause.

That's exactly the kind of case where SCOTUS should smack down Congress. The ACA is in my opinion much less clear cut. The justices seemed to make a lot about the difference between prescription and proscription, but other than that health insurance seems to me to fall under interstate commerce. Or rather, that it doesn't is because it's arbitrarily prohibited from being so.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Considering that weed is still illegal except with a prescription and that the federal government does not recognize a state's right to legalize medical marijuana, that's a massively weaker case than Wickard v. Filburn. In any case, the ACA differs in mandating not what you cannot do, but rather what you must do. That's unique.

Personally I think the commerce clause has been stretched far beyond any recognition and is ripe for a smack-down. I'm not expecting it here because SCOTUS in the final analysis is government and government is not in the business of disempowering itself, and because Wickard v. Filburn seems to me to be vastly more of an intrusion than requiring that one pay into the system to get an already-guaranteed benefit. But if the smack-down comes here it will be because of the nature of prescription versus proscription.

I would say allowing the use of federal law enforcement to arrest, seize, and prosecute is at least one bridge further in "regulating" interstate commerce than merely imposing a financial penalty. And interpreting "regulation" as only allowing "prevention" of economic activity really subverts the clear intention of the commerce clause.

It's clear Scalia is being guided by his politics in this (or was in Gonzales v. Raich). I'll give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt until the ruling, but inconsistent jurisprudence is a terrible thing to have in the highest court of the land.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Ah, well overthrowing the health care law will affect millions of people.

That it will. It would be nice to have it done for people instead of party. Alas, if this were done correctly a good measure of control would be sacrificed and nothing has become more important than taking credit or blaming the other party.

Winning isn't the important thing, it's the only thing. Whats best, not so much.

 

[Moonbeam]

That it will. It would be nice to have it done for people instead of party. Alas, if this were done correctly a good measure of control would be sacrificed and nothing has become more important than taking credit or blaming the other party.

Winning isn't the important thing, it's the only thing. Whats best, not so much.

I only address the issue within the court, that the fact that few were affected was part of the reason the court ruled against the legislation. In this case that will not be true. I do not know what the court will do or should do, but they shouldn't, it would seem, be able to say they can rule against it in part because few will be affected.

 

[werepossum]

I would say allowing the use of federal law enforcement to arrest, seize, and prosecute is at least one bridge further in "regulating" interstate commerce than merely imposing a financial penalty. And interpreting "regulation" as only allowing "prevention" of economic activity really subverts the clear intention of the commerce clause.

It's clear Scalia is being guided by his politics in this (or was in Gonzales v. Raich). I'll give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt until the ruling, but inconsistent jurisprudence is a terrible thing to have in the highest court of the land.

So your belief is that regulation always included the right to make you buy a product but it took the federal government 200+ years to get around to it? Amazing. And yet you think feel that clearly Scalia is being guided by his politics.

Mighty big of you to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt until you disagree with him.

 

[fskimospy]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

I was pretty sure I recalled a case about the commerce clause.

Good thing that health care doesn't affect the economy on a massive scale.

Oh wait.

 

[HomerJS]

If the lawyer had been think response could have been.

Your honor, please clarify, I'm an unaware of any law enacted by the federal governmant titled Obamacare. Are you referring to the recently passed Affordable Care Act? If so I will be happy to supply the requested paper on this law.

It would have, on the record outed the judge for having a bug up his ass concerning the President as opposed to a legitimate inquiry.

 

[Thump553]

If the lawyer had been think response could have been.

Your honor, please clarify, I'm an unaware of any law enacted by the federal governmant titled Obamacare. Are you referring to the recently passed Affordable Care Act? If so I will be happy to supply the requested paper on this law.

It would have, on the record outed the judge for having a bug up his ass concerning the President as opposed to a legitimate inquiry.

To be frank you know crap about the practice of law. Some judges are petty tyrants, especially if they can't be fired-like federal judges. Judges have a huge amount of discretion in cases in determining what the facts are in a case. Basic rule is if you are going to show up a judge once be prepared to never practice in that court again-not to mention probable torpedoing of your present case. Quite a price to pay in order to smartmouth the judge.

 

[werepossum]

To be frank you know crap about the practice of law. Some judges are petty tyrants, especially if they can't be fired-like federal judges. Judges have a huge amount of discretion in cases in determining what the facts are in a case. Basic rule is if you are going to show up a judge once be prepared to never practice in that court again-not to mention probable torpedoing of your present case. Quite a price to pay in order to smartmouth the judge.

This is true.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

So your belief is that regulation always included the right to make you buy a product but it took the federal government 200+ years to get around to it? Amazing. And yet you think feel that clearly Scalia is being guided by his politics.

Mighty big of you to give Kennedy the benefit of the doubt until you disagree with him.

First, due to the very definition of "regulate," the commerce clause has never been limited to solely curbing or prohibiting commerce.

Second, the fact that it has taken 200 years to be confronted with a situation like this only reaffirms the uniqueness of the healthcare market we have.

Third, you aren't being *made* to buy anything with this "mandate." You are fully within your rights to not buy health insurance and pay the penalty. Or even not pay the penalty.

Fourth, if Scalia (or Kennedy) can find interstate commerce in growing and smoking your own pot without ever leaving your home, and use that justification for federal criminal prosecution, then it would be extremely logically inconsistent for either to NOT find interstate commerce in our healthcare market, and NOT allow that to justify a mere financial penalty. At least Thomas can come down against this and still be completely consistent with his ruling in Gonzales v. Raich.