Judge allows states' healthcare suit to proceed

[buck]

Yes lets go back to the old ways of health care, it was much better back then. Seriously, shouldn't we at the very least see how this works out before calling for it to be overturned.

I don't know. Shouldn't we at the very least see how Arizona's new immigration law works out before calling (and suing) for it to be overturned?

 

[American]

The law has to mediate practicality with principle. Practicality enables the law to function in a plurality of situations, but principle confers the legitimacy necessary for it to to be obeyed. Principle is supported by precedents (preceding examples), and the health care reform rests on top of legal precedents that proceeded from the long instituted principle of federalism, which is why the judge only goes so far to say as it is, "plausible," that a line has been crossed, not 'obvious' or 'indisputable'. If there was something about federalism that opponents of health care reform affirmed, then for the sake of supporting the principle of the matter, they would have to accept health care reform. Not because they like it, or because they think it will function properly, but because it is consistent with the principle they affirmed.

I think that's a bit simplistic.

Federalism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Whovian]

Yes lets go back to the old ways of health care, it was much better back then. Seriously, shouldn't we at the very least see how this works out before calling for it to be overturned.

I don't know. Shouldn't we at the very least see how Arizona's new immigration law works out before calling (and suing) for it to be overturned?

That's completely different, and you know it. Shame on you.

 

[Goobieman]

Because our elected officials do something our reactionary elements don't like, and what do they do? They don't try and win hearts and minds to change the law, no! They decide to use the courts to subvert democracy.

You mean like Roe v Wade?
You mean like the CA court overtunring Prop 8?

 

[Patria Antiqua]

You mean like Roe v Wade?
You mean like the CA court overtunring Prop 8?

Oh ho ho, two wrongs make a right, do they?

It's interesting to see the invective hurled at our judiciary by conservatives until they have need of it.

 

[Goobieman]

Oh ho ho, two wrongs make a right, do they?

No, you -don't- get to dodge away from this...
Do you or do you not agree that it was proper for the courts to subvert democracy in each of these cases?

 

[mike2810]

Because our elected officials do something our reactionary elements don't like, and what do they do? They don't try and win hearts and minds to change the law, no! They decide to use the courts to subvert democracy.

How is taking the Feds to court over Obamacare suberting democracy? To use your logic then is not Obama (Feds) subverting democracy when they take States to court over State laws they do not like? IMO, the health care bill was rushed / pushed through.

I agree we as a nation need to do something about health care costs. Little hidden items in the Bill/Law like some states getting a break on medicare costs while others don't just to secure their vote, like the 3% cost some will have to pay on the sale of their house (second home).

 

[Patria Antiqua]

No, you -don't- get to dodge away from this...
Do you or do you not agree that it was proper for the courts to subvert democracy in each of these cases?

There was no subversion of democracy to start with. I dabble in anti-democratic thought, anyway, so I wouldn't care even if there was. I don't personally take issue with any of the cases mentioned in this thread. The people who do, however, have some explaining to do. I hope that if anyone in this thread supports this suit, they have the integrity never to complain about judicial activism ever again.

 

[Goobieman]

There was no subversion of democracy to start with

How so? Each of these cases overturned a law that was democtatically passed, just like Obamacare.

I dabble in anti-democratic thought, anyway, so I wouldn't care even if there was.

Oh - but regarding Obamacare, you DO care about the subversion of democracy?

What a joke.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

How so? Each of these cases overturned a law that was democtatically passed, just like Obamacare.


Oh - but regarding Obamacare, you DO care about the subversion of democracy?

What a joke.

Of course not, it's just interesting to see the conservative hypocrisy that created this thread.

 

[Goobieman]

Of course not, it's just interesting to see the conservative hypocrisy that created this thread.

So you dont have any REAL concern here, except to troll.
10-4.

 

[Whovian]

I hope that if anyone in this thread supports this suit, they have the integrity never to complain about judicial activism ever again.

That is a patently stupid comment. You're implying that there is no way a judge would handle this suit with anything other than judicial activism.

Judicial activism is a political term used to describe judicial rulings that are suspected to be based upon personal and political considerations other than existing law.

What is your basis for assuming this case cannot possoble be handled without judicial activism?

 

[Patria Antiqua]

That is a patently stupid comment. You're implying that there is no way a judge would handle this suit with anything other than judicial activism.



What is your basis for assuming this case cannot possoble be handled without judicial activism?

You're right, I should rephrase. It's an attempt to "abuse" the court system to get what they want instead of going through voters. As such, the right's hypocrisy is palpable.

 

[Goobieman]

You're right, I should rephrase. It's an attempt to "abuse" the court system to get what they want instead of going through voters.

You mean like in Roe v Wade and CA Prop 8?

 

[Hicup]

You're right, I should rephrase. It's an attempt to "abuse" the court system to get what they want instead of going through voters. As such, the right's hypocrisy is palpable.

Hehe.. I LOVE Liberals that have a bad case of foot in mouth disease! You made a comment, I called you on it, and now you're ducking the central question about you're own hypocrisy..

Roe v Wade - Judicial activism, yes, no?
Prop 8 - Judicial activism, yes, no?

It's not complicated deary..


Tim-

 

[Whovian]

You're right, I should rephrase. It's an attempt to "abuse" the court system to get what they want instead of going through voters. As such, the right's hypocrisy is palpable.

Like the Obama administrations attempt to get what they want in AZ, instead of letting what the voters wanted stand?

 

[Goobieman]

Hehe.. I LOVE Liberals that have a bad case of foot in mouth disease! You made a comment, I called you on it, and now you're ducking the central question about you're own hypocrisy.

Classic example of moving the goalposts, a symptom of 'this conversation is way over my head' disease.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

Hehe.. I LOVE Liberals that have a bad case of foot in mouth disease! You made a comment, I called you on it, and now you're ducking the central question about you're own hypocrisy..

Roe v Wade - Judicial activism, yes, no?
Prop 8 - Judicial activism, yes, no?

It's not complicated deary..


Tim-

Oh, of course. I love our judicial system, and appealing to it is part of the bargain.

I just think it's cute that righties complain about it until they want to have a go.

 

[Boo Radley]

You mean like Roe v Wade?
You mean like the CA court overtunring Prop 8?

Don't confuse legal issues with radical responses. Just because a majority voted for something, or wanted something, doesn't mean what they wanted was legal. Think if a majority voted to take away your guns. Would you say ok, or point to the consititution?

 

[Goobieman]

Oh, of course. I love our judicial system, and appealing to it is part of the bargain.
I just think it's cute that righties complain about it until they want to have a go.

The only one complaing here is you, and you're only doing it because you got caught with your rhetorical pants down.

 

[Patria Antiqua]

The only one complaing here is you, and you're only doing it because you got caught with your rhetorical pants down.

I don't have a problem with this suit. It'll lose, but I don't have an issue with it. I do have an issue with the willingness of the right to openly contradict itself with regards to how our judicial system should be used. The way you lot behave is enough to make a cat laugh.

 

[Goobieman]

Don't confuse legal issues with radical responses. Just because a majority voted for something, or wanted something, doesn't mean what they wanted was legal. Think if a majority voted to take away your guns. Would you say ok, or point to the consititution?

Interesting that you bring up guns.

Breyer, dissent, McDonald v Chicago

Given the empirical and local value-laden nature of the questions that lie at the heart of the issue, why, in a Nation whose Constitution foresees democratic decision making, is it so fundamental a matter as to require taking that power from the people? What is it here that the people did not know? What is it that a judge knows better?

According to this, if Breyer is consistent, he opposes the court actions agianst CA Prop 8 and would have opposed the decision on Roe v Wade.

Now... do you think that is REALLY the case, or was Breyer picking and choosing the application of this argument according to how he wants the decision to turn?

 

[Goobieman]

I don't have a problem with this suit. It'll lose, but I don't have an issue with it.

So, you were trolling. 10-4.

I do have an issue with the willingness of the right to openly contradict itself with regards to how our judicial system should be used.

See my comment re: Breyer and McDonald v Chicago.

 

[Hicup]

Some righties perhaps, not me. I outlined what judicial activism actually is, and I stand by it.

I actually thought that Walker's ruling in Prop 8 (Although I disagree with the application of the law) was technically correct. Same with Roe v Wade, inter alia, that said, you have not answered the questions pointed at you like a big fat red target. You're new here, I see that, but you can't avoid direct questions, unless you want to marginalize yourself toot sweet.

Tim-

 

[Boo Radley]

Interesting that you bring up guns.

Breyer, dissent, McDonald v Chicago



According to this, if Breyer is consistent, he opposes the court actions agianst CA Prop 8 and would have opposed the decision on Roe v Wade.

Now... do you think that is REALLY the case, or was Breyer picking and choosing the application of this argument according to how he wants the decision to turn?

No, that's just your interpretation. Laws are specific, to a point. But nothing can be written plain enough that everyone will read it the same way. Assuming that your intepretation of any comment is without question the only possible answer is hubris.

However, the question was, would you say OK or point to the constitution?