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

[Throckmorton]

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.

Well to be fair, the Constitution was also meant to allow states the right to have legal slavery.

 

[werepossum]

I don't like the health care bill, but I don't think that SCOTUS will strike much of it. SCOTUS has previously ruled that the commerce clause can be used to justify federal control over anything that could potentially affect interstate commerce, the classic case being wheat grown for one's own use (and therefore replacing wheat one would presumably buy on the open market.) Given that many if not most health care interactions involve multiple states (insurance, drugs, hospital or clinic chains, etc.) I can't imagine that this would be viewed as exceeding Congress' authority. I would love to see the commerce clause brought back into a proper originalist role, but I think the health care bill on balance would meet that more strict constitutional test. Almost any 2,000 page bill is going to have some parts struck down, but I don't think the core of the bill is necessarily unconstitutional even if personally I dislike it.

As far as Roberts being a conservative justice, the conservative view on the judiciary is that judges should exercise restraint and impartially interpret the law as it stands, NOT as they personally think it should be. For Roberts to move on this because as a conservative he thinks it is exceeding Congress' rightful authority would be to adopt the liberal/progressive view of the judiciary as a tool for societal justice and would thus be a rejection of the views he himself professes. We need less judicial activism, not judicial activism in a different particular direction.

 

[Infohawk]

Anarchist420, you get a lot of anger directed towards you. I don't think it's deserved because I haven't seen you be a jerk like so many other posters are.

However, you would benefit from more education. This is basic US government stuff and a lot of your other posts suggest similar lack of knowledge. And remember when it comes to political science, government, and political analysis the stuff on the internet is garbage (like that awful website you linked to about the 16th Amendment). Published books are still the main way to learn about these topics.

 

[nick1985]

Well to be fair, the Constitution was also meant to allow states the right to have legal slavery.

Good thing the Constitution is a living document and was amended to ban that shit.

 

[Throckmorton]

Good thing the Constitution is a living document and was amended to ban that shit.

The living Constitution is conservative taboo. Glenn Beck is going to send his stormtroopers to take you away.

 

[nick1985]

The living Constitution is conservative taboo. Glenn Beck is going to send his stormtroopers to take you away.

ok

 

[Throckmorton]

ok

Check your conservative platform. Did you miss the memo about opposing Kagan because she believes in the living Constitution?

http://www.american-conservativevalues.com/constitution/living-constitution.html

 

[QuantumPion]

Well to be fair, the Constitution was also meant to allow states the right to have legal slavery.

And abortion too, apparently.

 

[werepossum]

Check your conservative platform. Did you miss the memo about opposing Kagan because she believes in the living Constitution?

http://www.american-conservativevalues.com/constitution/living-constitution.html

Big difference between conservative version of a living Constitution (change via Amendments) and the liberal-progressive version of a living Constitution (reinterpret it to mean whatever I want at the moment.)

 

[hal2kilo]

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.

I guess everyones forgotten who elected GWB.

 

[Zebo]

Give it time. Wheels of Justice move slow but they are moving.

 

[feralkid]

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.

Yes...that may be true...

Or the OP could have:

A. Paid attention in class.

B. Opened a frakkin book on his own time.

 

[shira]

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.

BS. Important cases that affect every American are fast-tracked through the legal system - isn't it amazing that Bush v Gore got to the Supreme court in about two weeks - filed on November 26, 2000, and oral arguments heard on December 11 - and the decision was reached in one day.

The legal challenge to Obamacare by the states will be heard in the next term.

 

[Rainsford]

I don't get the constitutional argument here...mostly because I have yet to hear one. I get it, conservatives don't like Universal Health Care, and they like to claim to represent the framers and believe in the Constitution...but that doesn't automatically make UHC unconstitutional.

 

[shira]

Big difference between conservative version of a living Constitution (change via Amendments) and the liberal-progressive version of a living Constitution (reinterpret it to mean whatever I want at the moment.)

This is a stinking pile of feces and you know it. The conservatives on the SC have been just as activist and overreaching as any liberal justice; the only difference is that you LIKE conservative decisions, so you rationalize that those decisions MUST have been the result of "good" judgeship.

Let's put this propaganda to bed, shall we? And stop pretending to support some particular "theory" of Constitutional reasoning. The only truth is that you want decisions that agree with you own biases, just like I want decisions that align with mine.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Anarchist420, you get a lot of anger directed towards you. I don't think it's deserved because I haven't seen you be a jerk like so many other posters are.

However, you would benefit from more education. This is basic US government stuff and a lot of your other posts suggest similar lack of knowledge. And remember when it comes to political science, government, and political analysis the stuff on the internet is garbage (like that awful website you linked to about the 16th Amendment). Published books are still the main way to learn about these topics.

Highlighted for truth.

Political socialization has been fail in the US for over 2 generations. Do they even teach Civics in grade school, anymore?




--

 

[bamacre]

Check your conservative platform. Did you miss the memo about opposing Kagan because she believes in the living Constitution?

http://www.american-conservativevalues.com/constitution/living-constitution.html

Well, I think it depends on what one means by "living document." If by "living document," one means that we can alter it due to the current world in which we live, then I would agree. However if by "living document," one means we can legislate in a way that alters the core ideas and general principals in which the Constitution was written and based upon, then I would personally disagree that it is a "living document."

 

[bamacre]

I don't get the constitutional argument here...mostly because I have yet to hear one. I get it, conservatives don't like Universal Health Care, and they like to claim to represent the framers and believe in the Constitution...but that doesn't automatically make UHC unconstitutional.

Well, there is no UHC that was enacted. What will be questioned is the federal mandate that citizens purchase health insurance from a private entity.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

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.

It's funny you mention that. From the very same OP:
Shouldn't mandatory education be abolished?

 

[RabidMongoose]

Big difference between conservative version of a living Constitution (change via Amendments) and the liberal-progressive version of a living Constitution (reinterpret it to mean whatever I want at the moment.)

They're both basically the same. Conservatives 'reinterpret' the Constitution at times, too. Neither group is particularly consistent.

 

[shortylickens]

It's funny you mention that. From the very same OP:
Shouldn't mandatory education be abolished?

Not at all surprising. Its almost always the people with the worst educations who dont value it and think its a waste.

 

[manimal]

Highlighted for truth.

Political socialization has been fail in the US for over 2 generations. Do they even teach Civics in grade school, anymore?




--

Sadly they teach Civics in some schools, like how to lower your honda, how to make the exhaust sound cool, how to make your car look completely stupid with neon green halos..


Have any of you ever really been sick? Have you ever spent hours and hours going back and forth with an insurance company whos threatening you with collections for something that should have been payed/covered? If you seriously think that health care was soo good in this country then clearly you have always been very healthy....

 

[First]

Well, I think it depends on what one means by "living document." If by "living document," one means that we can alter it due to the current world in which we live, then I would agree. However if by "living document," one means we can legislate in a way that alters the core ideas and general principals in which the Constitution was written and based upon, then I would personally disagree that it is a "living document."

You can very easily argue slavery was a core belief in the Constitution because, well, it was. Blacks were literally considered 3/5ths of a person specifically because of race/genetics. Doesn't get much more "core" than that, especially when considering they were the backbone of 40% of the union economy from the outset.

 

[bamacre]

You can very easily argue slavery was a core belief in the Constitution because

You're as bad as the OP.

 

[Brigandier]

You can very easily argue slavery was a core belief in the Constitution because, well, it was. Blacks were literally considered 3/5ths of a person specifically because of race/genetics. Doesn't get much more "core" than that, especially when considering they were the backbone of 40% of the union economy from the outset.

Okay, shut up, wanna know who got the 3/5 compromise passed? SOUTHERN STATES! Non-slave states didn't want slaves to count for anything in the vote, but southern slave owners thought it was a rip off because they had hundreds of souls that could vote. Slave-owners wanted slaves to count for a whole vote, and as a compromise, the north said "3/5's".