• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."
  • Community Question: What makes a good motherboard?

Obama Has Brought Us to ‘Constitutional Tipping Point’

Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Dream On.

You link Newsmax? Might as well link the Enquirer.

Oh, and it's nice of you to finally admit the obvious, that Repubs are obstructionist, even if you mis-attribute their efforts and the scope of them. You merely parrot the excuses they've employed all along. They've been obstructionist in all matters, right down to the confirmation of rather minor functionaries & routine matters.

If the People won't let them run the Govt, they'll be damned if they'll let Dems do it. It's scorched earth policy, an exercise in bitterness & spite.
You're incapable of even looking at anything from a non-partisan perspective, that's amazing... pathetic, but amazing. :awe:

I'm going to tell you that your scenario has about a 0% chance of happening. Taking any and all bets that it will though. I offer very favorable odds!
Explanations why a SCOTUS, especially one stacked in favor of conservatives, wouldn't find Obama's egregious use of executive orders unconstitutional?

*Note, I didn't say "excessive", but although there have been former presidents who have issued more, none have pushed their scope to this extreme.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Even if SCOTUS rules that what Obama did was not legal, it will not be suspended and kicked back to Congress like that.
Since they can't edit a law and remove the offending changes, that's pretty much their only recourse.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
Since they can't edit a law and remove the offending changes, that's pretty much their only recourse.
It definitely isn't and like I said, I basically guarantee that won't happen. All they would do is invalidate those rules and things would move forward as if they hadn't been made. Considering the amount of time it will take to wind through the courts it will probably end up mattering little anyways.

If you feel so confident in that analysis however, feel free to sign up and take my money.
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,812
192
106
Unless the employer mandate goes into effect months before the midterm election, obama won this political move.

The employer mandate needs to go into effect so the people can weigh its effect, and vote accordingly.
 

michal1980

Diamond Member
Mar 7, 2003
8,019
43
91
Unless the employer mandate goes into effect months before the midterm election, obama won this political move.

The employer mandate needs to go into effect so the people can weigh its effect, and vote accordingly.
It will be delayed for political gain for his party.

Its so obvious now why parts of the law are being delayed, only surprising thing is, that his supports still dont see it.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,040
136
You're incapable of even looking at anything from a non-partisan perspective, that's amazing... pathetic, but amazing.
Pure Denial, as expected. Having initially contended that Repubs are not obstructionist, you finally concede that they are, and that it's for purely partisan reasons.

Then chide me for reactive partisanship as Repubs deliberately cripple the govt of the People, prevent it from functioning on behalf of all citizens. They'd destroy it if they could, or nearly so, paving the way for greater wealth & control by people who need & deserve more of neither.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Pure Denial, as expected. Having initially contended that Repubs are not obstructionist, you finally concede that they are, and that it's for purely partisan reasons.

Then chide me for reactive partisanship as Repubs deliberately cripple the govt of the People, prevent it from functioning on behalf of all citizens. They'd destroy it if they could, or nearly so, paving the way for greater wealth & control by people who need & deserve more of neither.
Interesting, because I never said they weren't being obstructionist, not once, you filled that in yourself. Did you notice how you did that?

Both parties are at fault for this, BOTH, but you can't admit that, can you?
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
It definitely isn't and like I said, I basically guarantee that won't happen. All they would do is invalidate those rules and things would move forward as if they hadn't been made. Considering the amount of time it will take to wind through the courts it will probably end up mattering little anyways.

If you feel so confident in that analysis however, feel free to sign up and take my money.
I'd like to see where they have the power to do that, because what I found is that they can make unconstitutional laws inert and they're then turned back over to congress. You seem to be attributing to them a power that isn't actually theirs.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
70,068
18,808
136
I'd like to see where they have the power to do that, because what I found is that they can make unconstitutional laws inert and they're then turned back over to congress. You seem to be attributing to them a power that isn't actually theirs.
Oh no that's not the only powers of SCOTUS in the slightest. It's important to understand the basic structure of how things are operating here, which is the layering of Constitution -> Statute -> rule/regulation. In order for a regulation to be enforceable the statute that is is based on has to be in line with the Constitution, but then in addition to that the rule or regulation needs to be in line with the statute.

Remember, SCOTUS already found the law constitutional, so that's over and done with. While the law is constitutional however, that doesn't mean that every interpretation or rule made by the Obama administration comports with the text of the statute. SCOTUS could easily find that one or more regulations did not follow the letter of the statute. This would do nothing as to the status of the law, it would simply invalidate those specific rules generated by the administration.
 

boomerang

Lifer
Jun 19, 2000
18,897
638
126
Bill to Make the Fine $0 for Violating the Individual Mandate Passes by 90 Votes

BO doesn't like this and says he'll veto it.

Our community organizer/constitutional law professor, choomy, preezy is taking apart this legislation piece by piece all on his own. All we've got to do is sit back and let it happen. There will be such a small percentage of it implemented by the time he gets on AF One that last time, that it will be a mere formality to terminate the whole thing. A puff of air and gone. Thanks Obama!
But it also relies on lawlessness—a fact that is becoming more apparent by the day. Within hours of threatening to veto this legislative change to Obamacare, Obama announced that he is again making an executive change to Obamacare, in plain defiance of the legislative text, the rule of law, and the constitutional separation of powers. No wonder left-leaning constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley says that we are at “a constitutional tipping point” and that Congress must act to stop this president’s “dangerous,” “destabilizing” “aggregation of power.”
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,040
136
Interesting, because I never said they weren't being obstructionist, not once, you filled that in yourself. Did you notice how you did that?

Both parties are at fault for this, BOTH, but you can't admit that, can you?
You've denied their record obstructionism all along, or tried to justify it. You still are, claim that Obama can somehow give them an attitude adjustment. The only way to do that is to just let 'em run the country.

What they want, and what they've achieved to some extent, is to deny Dems any victories, any accomplishments. It makes their own callous blunders seem less egregious. And they want to gum up the workings of govt by denying Obama's right to appointees, as well. If the DC dogcatcher were an appointee, Repubs would probably filibuster the nomination. Meanwhile, the Repub HOR spends their time posturing & pandering to their right fringe with bills that have zero chance of ever becoming law or no relevance to reality. Defund Acorn, again. and again, and again, 13 times. Defund the ACA & the CFPB, hold America's least fortunate citizens as hostages in a depressed economy. Attach sanctions against Iran to every bill that comes up, even as the Admin attempts honest negotiation. So helpful. Such wonderful partners in governance.

This isn't about advancing their ideas, but rather about bitterness & spite, along with a great deal of obfuscation about how we've come to the economy as it is.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,040
136
Bill to Make the Fine $0 for Violating the Individual Mandate Passes by 90 Votes

BO doesn't like this and says he'll veto it.

Our community organizer/constitutional law professor, choomy, preezy is taking apart this legislation piece by piece all on his own. All we've got to do is sit back and let it happen. There will be such a small percentage of it implemented by the time he gets on AF One that last time, that it will be a mere formality to terminate the whole thing. A puff of air and gone. Thanks Obama!
Puff it up! Another meaningless vote staged by House Repubs, more posturing. Pander, pander, pander!

The Faithful, of course, won't notice just how ineffectual & disinterested their reps are in actually accomplishing anything meaningful. They seem to have been picked for their entertainment value entirely.
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,040
136
Trying to get a partisan to admit that their party might share culpability is damn near impossible.
Yeh, it's Obama's fault because he didn't just nominate Teatards as appointees, right? And it must be Reid's fault that O'Connell filibustered his own bill minutes after introducing it. Dems fault that HOR Repubs spend their time de-funding Acorn, over & over, along with investigating trumped up "scandals" ad nauseum, puffing up their chests over Ukraine & Iran, stalking their next hostage in their game of political extortion.

Your game of false equivalency just won't play.
 

MrPickins

Diamond Member
May 24, 2003
8,832
215
106
Yeh, it's Obama's fault because he didn't just nominate Teatards as appointees, right? And it must be Reid's fault that O'Connell filibustered his own bill minutes after introducing it. Dems fault that HOR Repubs spend their time de-funding Acorn, over & over, along with investigating trumped up "scandals" ad nauseum, puffing up their chests over Ukraine & Iran, stalking their next hostage in their game of political extortion.

Your game of false equivalency just won't play.
You'll notice I didn't restrict my statement to one side or the other.

I said "partisans", and I meant all partisans.


You're both to blame. :colbert:
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Oh no that's not the only powers of SCOTUS in the slightest. It's important to understand the basic structure of how things are operating here, which is the layering of Constitution -> Statute -> rule/regulation. In order for a regulation to be enforceable the statute that is is based on has to be in line with the Constitution, but then in addition to that the rule or regulation needs to be in line with the statute.

Remember, SCOTUS already found the law constitutional, so that's over and done with. While the law is constitutional however, that doesn't mean that every interpretation or rule made by the Obama administration comports with the text of the statute. SCOTUS could easily find that one or more regulations did not follow the letter of the statute. This would do nothing as to the status of the law, it would simply invalidate those specific rules generated by the administration.
No, they found the penalty (the mandate) constitutional, not the ACA as a whole, because that was the scope of the case and they didn't extend beyond it.

Whether they can pick at individual clauses in the law, I guess we'll need to watch and see. It won't be long, the case regarding the EOs is moving up rather quickly.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
You've denied their record obstructionism all along, or tried to justify it. You still are, claim that Obama can somehow give them an attitude adjustment. The only way to do that is to just let 'em run the country.

What they want, and what they've achieved to some extent, is to deny Dems any victories, any accomplishments. It makes their own callous blunders seem less egregious. And they want to gum up the workings of govt by denying Obama's right to appointees, as well. If the DC dogcatcher were an appointee, Repubs would probably filibuster the nomination. Meanwhile, the Repub HOR spends their time posturing & pandering to their right fringe with bills that have zero chance of ever becoming law or no relevance to reality. Defund Acorn, again. and again, and again, 13 times. Defund the ACA & the CFPB, hold America's least fortunate citizens as hostages in a depressed economy. Attach sanctions against Iran to every bill that comes up, even as the Admin attempts honest negotiation. So helpful. Such wonderful partners in governance.

This isn't about advancing their ideas, but rather about bitterness & spite, along with a great deal of obfuscation about how we've come to the economy as it is.
No, I didn't deny it, go find where I did, you can't. However, I will say there was a reason to obstruct, because there always is (cause and effect rule politics), whether it was justified or not is in the eye of the beholder.

You did answer my question however, you can't disconnect from your partisanship, and that's actually a little scary, because that means your party could, almost literally, talk you into accepting or supporting anything. o_O

Puff it up! Another meaningless vote staged by House Repubs, more posturing. Pander, pander, pander!

The Faithful, of course, won't notice just how ineffectual & disinterested their reps are in actually accomplishing anything meaningful. They seem to have been picked for their entertainment value entirely.
You ARE one of "the Faithful".
 
Last edited:

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
No, they found the penalty (the mandate) constitutional, not the ACA as a whole, because that was the scope of the case and they didn't extend beyond it.
I would think that a law passed by congress and signed by the President is constitutional and the fact that a constitutional challenge to it failed means that it remains constitutional, and thus in totality. I don't think a law passes and signed requires any court approval to be the law. So to say they didn't rule the whole law constitutional seems to give weight to the notion that the law is somehow defective before any such finding is made. The law is constitutional period unless in the future the court takes a case that proves otherwise, as you suggested and to speak of the law as constitutional in whole rather than part makes no logical sense.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 30, 2003
26,916
172
106
If the SCOTUS ruled that Obama's changes to Obamacare were illegal and must be undone, IMO, the problem isn't one of Constitutionality but rather one of 'reality', political and otherwise.

To suddenly require that the employer part and all plan qualification be immediately imposed after declaring extensions is likely simply not do-able. Insurers need to prepare calculations and submissions to state regulatory agencies. The regulatory agencies need time to digest and approve lest they find their state citizens purchased plans from insurers who can't actually cover costs and go bankrupt leaving paying customers with no coverage.

Perhaps those actually in the HI profession can chime in, but I don't think an immediate reversal is do-able thus leaving us a particularly difficult conundrum.

Fern
 

Jhhnn

No Lifer
Nov 11, 1999
61,106
13,040
136
Perhaps those actually in the HI profession can chime in, but I don't think an immediate reversal is do-able thus leaving us a particularly difficult conundrum.
It's not a conundrum for practical purposes at all. It's over, finito, a done deal, for precisely the reasons you gave, and it'll stay that way despite all the maudlin hand wringing & whining. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS will overturn or even review any ruling to that effect.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
Wow, if (when) the SCOTUS finds Obama's EOs unconstitutional there's going to be a lot of progressives going into a panic. "How can this be!?! It's not possible!! Those damned conservatives and their dirty Supreme Court!"

I can here the indignation now, even after being told all this time that it's a real possibility. :hmm:
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
66,489
3,250
126
Wow, if (when) the SCOTUS finds Obama's EOs unconstitutional there's going to be a lot of progressives going into a panic. "How can this be!?! It's not possible!! Those damned conservatives and their dirty Supreme Court!"

I can here the indignation now, even after being told all this time that it's a real possibility. :hmm:
If the court rules EOs unconstitutional they will be unconstitutional regardless of what people feel. We accept as part of our system that the SC has the last word on measures brought before them they choose to decide.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,537
3
76
If the court rules EOs unconstitutional they will be unconstitutional regardless of what people feel. We accept as part of our system that the SC has the last word on measures brought before them they choose to decide.
Does not compute:

It's not a conundrum for practical purposes at all. It's over, finito, a done deal, for precisely the reasons you gave, and it'll stay that way despite all the maudlin hand wringing & whining. I seriously doubt that the SCOTUS will overturn or even review any ruling to that effect.
As I said, progressives will freak out.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY