Why hasn't this so-called conservative court overturned Obamacare already?

[Anarchist420]

Is it because John Roberts believes that its Constitutional due to his broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause? Is that it?

There have been several lawsuits and I'm fed up with a court calling itself conservative not hearing it yet.

I wish the fuck they'd brink Rehnquist back to life or something, because John Roberts doesn't cut it for someone who calls themself conservative.

 

[waggy]

..really?

 

[CallMeJoe]

The Supreme Court only hears cases on appeal from lower courts. Since this issue has not yet been adjudicated on any level, the Supreme Court has had no opportunity to address the issue.

 

[waggy]

The Supreme Court only hears cases on appeal from lower courts. Since this issue has not yet been adjudicated on any level, the Supreme Court has had no opportunity to address the issue.

and that can take well years.

 

[CallMeJoe]

I wish the fuck they'd brink Rehnquist back to life or something, because John Roberts doesn't cut it for someone who calls themself conservative.

If you're saying that a mouldering corpse could be a more effective Justice than Mr. Roberts, you may not be as dumb as I thought...

 

[Genx87]

What do you think these cases are filed right at the Surpreme Court? It will take years of appeals for this to finally be decided by the Supreme Court.

 

[Anarchist420]

I forgot that another court had to hear it first.

 

[Mursilis]

The Supreme Court only hears cases on appeal from lower courts. Since this issue has not yet been adjudicated on any level, the Supreme Court has had no opportunity to address the issue.

That's mostly, but not entirely, true. See 28 USC 1251 for situations in which the Supremes have original jurisdiction.

 

[HumblePie]

specific cases can be railroaded up to the supreme without hearings from lower courts. It happens.

 

[waggy]

specific cases can be railroaded up to the supreme without hearings from lower courts. It happens.

true. but its rare. this is not going to be one. wich is a pity.

 

[feralkid]

I forgot that another court had to hear it first.

A fundamental misunderstanding of the basic functions of your government, along with the unbridled urge to scream it to the universe.

You're doing real, real good.

 

[her209]

 

[ElFenix]

I forgot that another court had to hear it first.

for the most part two courts have to hear the case first. there are a couple of things where the supreme court has trial court jurisdiction, but for the most part the supremes only hear things by mandamus.

 

[First]

There's nothing unconstitutional about it, so it's irrelevant.

 

[nick1985]

There's nothing unconstitutional about it, so it's irrelevant.

Just because you think that doesn't make it true

 

[Thump553]

Classic tea partier, doesn't even have the slightest knowledge of basic civics but claims to know the Constitution and constitutional law.

 

[shortylickens]

A fundamental misunderstanding of the basic functions of your government, along with the unbridled urge to scream it to the universe.

You're doing real, real good.

Perhaps he would know better if the government spent more money on education and less on free handouts for American slack-asses and foreign countries that hate us. Also two illegal wars.

 

[umbrella39]

Is it because John Roberts believes that its Constitutional due to his broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause? Is that it?

There have been several lawsuits and I'm fed up with a court calling itself conservative not hearing it yet.

I wish the fuck they'd brink Rehnquist back to life or something, because John Roberts doesn't cut it for someone who calls themself conservative.

Take a summer school class.

Edit: I don't really think you forgot but good on you for acknowledging.

 

[ichy]

specific cases can be railroaded up to the supreme without hearings from lower courts. It happens.

Even in cases like that it can take a while. I know the line-item veto went straight from district court to the supreme court, and from what I recall that still took a couple of years. The fastest high-profile case I can think of was the Pentagon Papers case, I think that was decided within a few weeks. No way that SCOTUS will move that quickly to decide on healthcare reform though.

 

[ichy]

I forgot that another court had to hear it first.

Yes, that's about the level of civics knowledge I'd expect from someone who calls himself "Anarchist420."

 

[bl4ckfl4g]

Troll is troll

 

[waggy]

Even in cases like that it can take a while. I know the line-item veto went straight from district court to the supreme court, and from what I recall that still took a couple of years. The fastest high-profile case I can think of was the Pentagon Papers case, I think that was decided within a few weeks. No way that SCOTUS will move that quickly to decide on healthcare reform though.

was it faster then the bush vs gore?

 

[ichy]

was it faster then the bush vs gore?

I think so, yes. The government sought an injunction in US District Court against the NY Times after they began publishing the Pentagon Papers on June 13, 1971, and the Supreme Court handed down its decision on June 30.

Edit: Nevermind, the actual litigation in Bush v. Gore took even less time than that. My mistake.

 

[Throckmorton]

All kidding and insults aside, what is it exactly that makes healthcare reform constitutional? If it's the commerce clause, how does that apply?

Why not general welfare and defense? The healthcare system is clearly a vital part of national security.

 

[piasabird]

It can take years to get a case to the supreme court level. We may be in the seventh level of Hell before they hear a case like this. Before they hear a case like this you have to prove that a person has been damaged. The bill for health care is taking so long to implement that it makes it difficult to fight against it.

Commerce clause is pure bullshit. There are other clauses that can circumvent the commerce clasue. The federal government is not in charge of everything and everyone, and it was never meant to be. The constitution was designed to prevent a strong federal government, not enable it. Some people need to be reminded of this.