GPS_Flex
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 20, 2005
- Messages
- 2,726
- Reaction score
- 648
- Location
- California
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
't
Bush v Gore should have never gone to SCOTUS, the Florida Supreme made a decision to manually recount the entire state and that should have been upheld. Bush didn't like the decision so he ran to his buddies on SCOTUS.
It was a 7-2 decision in SCOTUS. You have a twisted perspective of "his buddies".
The 7-2 decision was to stop counting of the 'Gore' counties. A 5-4 decion was also made to stop the total recount of Florida which was the Florida Supreme court decision. Like I said previously, Bush ran to his buddies on SCOTUS.
Why should all laws go through this process?
Do you think Bush V Gore should have been dragged through the courts for several years rather than being fast tracked to the SCOTUS?
The damage that will be done to our economy and federal/state budgets if we continue to prepare for it as if the law will go into effect, only to have it overturned by SCOTUS, is astronomical.
Both sides agree that the central issue in this case is whether or not congress has the power, under the commerce clause, to mandate that people purchase something. The arguments have been the same, for and against, they won’t change as it goes up the ladder and, as both sides always say after they lose a decision, “the only ruling that matters is the SCOTUS”.
The only reason this case isn’t being taken straight to the SCOTUS (like Bush V Gore was) is Obama doesn’t want to risk a 2012 election following the SCOTUS overturning this law as unconstitutional.
I just don’t see any reason for a delay, other than putting politics before what is best for America. There is nothing sacred about the “process” you seem to revere.
The fact is that the law is already helping people, so I don't know how you can say it would hurt the nation. The controversial part - the so-called mandate - isn't actually a mandate at all. No one will be required to purchase health care insurance. If you don't have health insurance you will be paying higher taxes. Those extra bucks will be used to pay the medical services for people who don't pay their medical bills.This isn’t a Bush V Gore debate but I’ll take note of your desire to see our great nation brought to its knees for the sake of political gain. Every vote has since been counted (numerous times) and Bush wins every time so it worked out the way the votes were cast.
My point was that the need to get the issue settled in the courts quickly happened because both sides wanted it resolved asap. If Bush V Gore had taken 2 or 3 years to decide, this nation would have been in a world of hurt. If health care takes 2 or 3 years to decide and then gets overturned as unconstitutional, this nation will be in a world of hurt.
This isn’t a normal case. SCOTUS will hear this case, you know it will, so “cuts down on number of cases” is a straw man argument.Because it cuts down on the number of cases that the supreme court gets petitioned for, and gives them a basis to decide whether or not they will even hear a case. The supreme court already gets petitioned for around 5000 cases per year and only has time to hear a fraction of them. That number would jump through the roof if we started fast-tracking cases straight to the supreme court.
You just contradicted yourself (above) and made my point for me. BTW, I don’t want to belabor Bush V Gore but it had everything to do with the constitutionality of laws.This is completely irrelevant because it is a different situation altogether. It had nothing to do with a lawsuit alleging a law was unconstitutional.
I’m no different than most. I think it’ll be a 5/4 decision with Kennedy casting the deciding vote. I expect Kennedy will decide it is unconstitutional.You seem to be operating under the assumption that having it overturned is the only possible outcome.
Most cases that end up at the supreme court won’t cause as much damage to the entire nation if they are found unconstitutional as this one will. We are talking about 1/6 of the US economy being totally reformed during the worst recession in US history.And? This is true of most cases that end up at the supreme court.
The states felt differently when? You do realize this thread is based upon a post Florida ruling right? My poll isn’t asking what the states should have done when the law was first passed. Timeline is important and the Florida ruling is the basis of this discussion.Clearly the states that filed suit against the healthcare reform bill felt differently. Because the cases involved were filed by a state and not a person, they would have fallen under original jurisdiction, and could have been filed directly with the supreme court. Clearly the states felt it was advantageous not to do so.
Sure, the States might file a writ of certiorari now that the biggest court ruling is in. Thing is, the SCOTUS might reject it unless both parties agree and file it together. If Team Obama and the States agree that the constitutionality of this issue should be decided sooner rather than later, we could have a SCOTUS ruling within 90 days. Why do you think it would be a bad thing to remove questions and doubts about where 1/6 of the US economy will be in 2 or 3 years?It would also be possible to fast-track the law straight to the supreme court with a writ of certiorari before judgment. As far as I can tell none of the states involved have even filed one (though I could be wrong about this, I'm having trouble finding information on it)
Sure there are. They knew they needed to wait for the 26 state ruling in Florida and they also know the SCOTUS isn’t likely to cross the POTUS by taking up the case early unless he agrees. That’s the point you refuse to think about because you are obviously so politically loyal to your party that you refuse to ask why the POTUS isn’t asking for this to be decided in the SCOTUS asap so we can all get some clarity on where this nation is going from here. It isn’t rocket science. If Obama agreed, the states would file the writ of certiorari and it would be on the SCOTUS roster within 30-60 days.Whether you think so or not, there are clearly reasons why the states involved have not gone straight to the supreme court.
The states want it to go to the supreme court (asap) now because their case has been heard and ruled upon. Team Obama is dragging it out for political reasons (re-election). If you don’t think 1/6 of the US economy being thrown into doubt during the greatest recession in US history or the private, state and federal dollars that are already being spent to try and conform to the dictates of this law are enough to desire quick and decisive answers, you aren’t a true American, you are a political hack.Let's get something straight here. I don't revere the process and I don't think it's sacred. I think it's a good idea, but that's about as far as it goes. I just don't see anything about the healthcare bill, above and beyond any of the other cases that the supreme court hears, that is of such dire importance that it should go straight to the supreme court, especially when the states involved in the case don't seem to want it to either.
The fact is that the law is already helping people, so I don't know how you can say it would hurt the nation. The controversial part - the so-called mandate - isn't actually a mandate at all. No one will be required to purchase health care insurance. If you don't have health insurance you will be paying higher taxes. Those extra bucks will be used to pay the medical services for people who don't pay their medical bills.
This doesn't kick in for couple of years, so I don't know what the rush is.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?