Does that mean if no coverage has been used, as in the insurance company didn't pay out any money, then the person gets all their premiums refunded?
You'd be the last person anyone should rely on for accurate information.
"Judicial Activism" is not striking down a law in order to maintain the limitations on Government set by the Constitution. Judicial Activism is when justices choose to "update" the Constitution to something more in line with their preferences. Classically, this has involved using ever-expanding readings of the 14th Amendment to Judicially Amend the rest of the document, but is not restricted to that. In addition, the theory of Judicial Supremacy falls under the heading of Judicial Activism, and is it's most dangerous component.
SCOTUSBlog has some great summaries up. SCOTUSblog, health care, and a few things you might have missed : SCOTUSblog
I especially recommend all of Lyle's Analysis and Amy's Plain English articles linked at the above link. You will know more after reading them about the arguments after you read them.
Interesting. Any decision you don't like is judicial activism? How nice to have it that way.
:coffeepap
Interesting. You enjoy long walks in the park, the sound of crickets at night, and drinking mohito's while listening to Rick Astley. How nice to have it that way.
:coffeepap
(trying to get inside the head of boo, where people hear one thing and your mind somehow creates an entirely seperate and different statement that you attribute to them and respond to as thus)
That would be against the law. Insurance companies can not drop an insured because they are sick. Material misrepresentation (within the first 2 years of the contract) or the client not paying premiums are the only reasons they can cancel policies. I realize democrats told you they cuold, but they lied to you.
However, even if you were correct, which you aren't, then toughen that up so they can't just drop you for no legal reason. I wouldn't have much problem with that. I doubt any republican would.
How can you possibly call yourself conservative yet be in favor of the gov't forcing you to buy something?
Try harder.
As a conservative, you must know how often your side of the isle screams judicial activism. And somehow, someway, it is always about a ruling you didn't like. Seems like sour grapes to me.
Oh, I absolutely agree that at times those on the right cry judicial activism when none has been conducted.
However, you have seemingly decided that rather than act differently then them and speak objectively you will simply mirror them in stereotyping and utilizing hyperbole to wrongfully paint any and everything said by a conservative on the issue as being a lie or misrepresentation and that in reality any conservative talking about it must REALLY believe that judicial activisim is just things they dislike.
Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.
If the court was to rule that the mandate was not constitution, this case would not fit that definition. The courts ruling would not be based on the court finding that there is some constitutional principle not explicately stated in the constitution which inherently disallows the mandate, IE an affirmative argument against it based on a supposed provision of the constitution. Rather, the courts ruling would be based on a negative argument on the part of government that there simply isn't a provision within the constitution that allows them to do such.
While you may disagree with Cpwill's definition of what is or isn't judicial activism, he is clearly and directly stating what the basis for his judgement on the issue is. However, whether than fairly and objectively dealing with his words you've instead chosen to stereotype all conservatives, place that stereotype upon him, and then decree what he "actually" meant through your implications of what his words were stating.
If this is upheld, I'd bet a cup of coffee (and I don't like giving up my coffee) that he will call it judicial activism.
If it is upheld, it WOULD be activism of some sort. Since the constitution not only does not provide government with the power to force people go buy a product from private industry, it also does not provide the power for them to be in the health care business, or the auto business, or many other places it has expanded it's power.
If it is upheld, it will set a precident that government can force citizens to buy things 'for the good of all'. So the out of control, power hungry people in DC will start brainstorming and come up with more they can do to steal more money from those that work, and give it to those that do not, in order to ensure their votes next time around.
I can't do anything about your poor judgment.
:coffeepap
See what I mean?
See what I mean?
Cpwill's statement, even if you disagree with it, at least sought to put forward a legitimate definition and line in regards to what judicial activism is in his opinion and gave a fair explanation of it. Essentially his view seems to be that "Judicial Activism" is a process in which judges put forth an affirmative argument that the consitution infers or states something that it doesn't clearly indicate and uses that affirmative argument as the basis for its ruling.
If it is upheld, it WOULD be activism of some sort.
By definition it can't be activism if the Court simply let's a piece of legislation stand. Activism means that the Court substituted its judgment for the judgment of our elected representatives.
Oh, you meant that some people have actually read and understood the constitution and federalist papers? Yeah, some of us have. Obviously some, like yourself, have not.
"Judicial Activism" simply means the court is legislating rather than adjudicating.
For example, if the Court came back with "we decided a better way than Obama Care to address healthcare is..." or rewrote the bill to their own designs - and then order it be done.
"Judicial Activism" simply means the court is legislating rather than adjudicating.
For example, if the Court came back with "we decided a better way than Obama Care to address healthcare is..." or rewrote the bill to their own designs - and then order it be done.
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?