A question for the lefties

[Paul Pless]

In the unlikely event that this conservative Supreme Court blindly ignores the dangerous precedent that would be set by affirming the AHCA, and illogically does so; will your opinion of the Roberts Court and its various personalities be fundamentally altered in a positive way?

[ccmanuals]

Not for me. I think there citizens united decision and the recent decision regarding election money in Montana has essentially sold government to corporations and the rich. It's like the put a for sale sign on government.

[Paul Pless]

do I qualify?

Go for it.

[Norman Bernstein]

In the unlikely event that this conservative Supreme Court blindly ignores the dangerous precedent that would be set by affirming the AHCA, and illogically does so; will your opinion of the Roberts Court and its various personalities be fundamentally altered in a positive way?

Not particulaly.

Periodically in history, the Supreme Court encounters some issue in which the ideological imperatives butt heads with the practical realities. The truth is that SCOTUS has historically given ectrordinarily wide lattitude to the constitutional empowerment of Congress to 'regulate commerce, and promote the general welfare'. These provisions, intentionally amorphous, are the 'safety valve' to release impulses in which ideology can triumph over reality and pragmatism. If they reject AHCA, they will be ignoring not just one or two precedents, but a whole slew of them, over a century or more.... and will not have settled an importnt question, at all. If they sustain the AHCA, it will NOT be any sort of signal that the court is undegoing any kind of leftward shift.

Not that I think they will, however.......

....but knocking down AHCA will not be without consequences.... and it isn't in the least bit clear to me that defeating the AHCA will be any kind of triumphant victory for Republicans.... it's going to be a POWERFUL incentive to the left, and it will force Romney to get a damn sight more specific about wht he plans to replace it with.... 30 million Americans who will lose any hope of health care coverage could be a very important factor in the election.

[leikec]

In the unlikely event that this conservative Supreme Court blindly ignores the dangerous precedent that would be set by affirming the AHCA, and illogically does so; will your opinion of the Roberts Court and its various personalities be fundamentally altered in a positive way?

I won't change my opinion of the court at all--they should know by now that I couldn't possibly think any less of them.

I also won't alter my opinion on who should be in position to pick potential SCOTUS members over the next 4 1/2 years. That is probably the biggest single reason why I won't be voting for Jill Stein in November.

Mitt Romney is currently lugging around more personalities around than Joanne Woodward's character in "The Three Faces of Eve", and I don't trust him to choose wisely while he's suffering from his Potomac Fever-induced, conservative dissociative identity disorder....

Jeff C

[brad9798]

WHAT is the difference between there and their, ccmanuels? JUST curious!

[johnw]

In the unlikely event that this conservative Supreme Court blindly ignores the dangerous precedent that would be set by affirming the AHCA, and illogically does so; will your opinion of the Roberts Court and its various personalities be fundamentally altered in a positive way?

Funny guy, most legal scholars think affirming the Affordable Care Act would be in line with precedent, and striking it down would be the dangerous precedent.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-0...rt-agrees.html
The U.S. Supreme Court should uphold a law requiring most Americans to have health insurance if the justices follow legal precedent, according to 19 of 21 constitutional law professors who ventured an opinion on the most-anticipated ruling in years.
Only eight of them predicted the court would do so.

So, your question should be, if the conservatives on the Supreme Court follow precedent, and logically does so, will your opinion of the Roberts Court and its various personalities be fundamentally altered in a positive way?

Unless, of course, this whole thread is about these chaps: http://www.ahcahockey.com/

In which case, I'm stumped.

[tigerregis]

"Socialised medicine", whatever TF that means is not only, the only way out of the dilemma my American friends face, but is the strawman resurrected from the ashes by an entrenched money machine, whose only desire is to keep bilking you poor adherents of a by-gone era out of your money. It is so sad to observe from a distance, the beliefs held by intelligent people, who couch their credos in some 18th century document, as if it came from Mt. Sinai. You may not like it, but in this regard, you are a laughing stock in the rest of the world. Pile it on, DILLIGAFF. Grow up. SCOTUS is 5/9ths on the payroll.

[wardd]

for the life of me i can't see why anyone would be against the ahca who isn't making money off the current system is against it


just my short sighted opinion

[ccmanuals]

WHAT is the difference between there and their, ccmanuels? JUST curious!

does my careless use of grammar and spelling result in confusing posts? are we graded on this stuff?

[Nicholas Scheuer]

There is no way my opinion of the "Roberts Court" wll become "positive" untill Obama appionts another Liberal. Hopefully Scalia will fall over dead soon.

[bobbys]

There is no way my opinion of the "Roberts Court" wll become "positive" untill Obama appionts another Liberal. Hopefully Scalia will fall over dead soon.

.

I suppose wishing some one dead in a discussion of a health care act does not register on your irony meter.....

[Chip-skiff]

Hopefully Scalia will fall over dead soon.

I've been hoping Thomas would kick the bucket. He lied to get on the bench, he's a nutcase, he's unashamedly corrupt, his vote is never in question— it will always be the fartherest right of any.

Scalia is a crypto-fascist, with his "originalist" mumbo-jumbo (which resembles papal infallibility), but he occasionally displays traces of conscience. And, unlike Thomas, Scalia has a sense of humor.

Alito is a characterless rubber stamp for corporations and police power. Roberts, with his smooth manners, is perhaps the most dangerous of all: a scheming corporate mole. His Machiavellian tactics on the Citizens United decision were breathtakingly dishonest.

A just god would strike them all down.

[wardd]

I've been hoping Thomas would kick the bucket. He lied to get on the bench, he's a nutcase, he's unashamedly corrupt, his vote is never in question— it will always be the fartherest right of any.

Scalia is a crypto-fascist, with his "originalist" mumbo-jumbo (which resembles papal infallibility), but he occasionally display traces of conscience. And, unlike Thomas, Scalia has a sense of humor.

Alito is a characterless rubber stamp for corporations and police power. Roberts, with his smooth manners, is perhaps the most dangerous of all: a scheming corporate mole. His Machiavellian tactics on the Citizens United decision were breathtakingly dishonest.

A just god would strike them all down.

you're in luck, sam can put you in touch with a just god

[Shang]

for the life of me i can't see why anyone would be against the ahca who isn't making money off the current system is against it


just my short sighted opinion

This has puzzled me too, since the beginning of our system of putting the foxes in charge of the hen yard.
Having the administration of the health care system under the direction of the medical insurance companies seems at least to be bizarre, and at worst criminal.

Why can any thinking person be against the AHCA unless they are on the other side, making a profit from it, or ignorant of what the issue actually means to them?

[Chip-skiff]

you're in luck, sam can put you in touch with a just god

Ever heard of Béziers? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Béziers

There might be a just god, but the Roman Catholic Church isn't on the same side.

[Keith Wilson]

blindly ignores the dangerous precedent that would be set by affirming the AHCA,

I reject the premise completely. 70 years of commerce clause precedent support the ACA. There are examples of federal laws requiring citizens to engage in commerce going back over 200 years.

[Paul Girouard]

I've been hoping Thomas would kick the bucket. He lied to get on the bench, he's a nutcase, he's unashamedly corrupt, his vote is never in question— it will always be the fartherest right of any.

Scalia is a crypto-fascist, with his "originalist" mumbo-jumbo (which resembles papal infallibility), but he occasionally display traces of conscience. And, unlike Thomas, Scalia has a sense of humor.

Alito is a characterless rubber stamp for corporations and police power. Roberts, with his smooth manners, is perhaps the most dangerous of all: a scheming corporate mole. His Machiavellian tactics on the Citizens United decision were breathtakingly dishonest.

A just god would strike them all down.

I guess haters just gotta hate. Nice post!

[Canoeyawl]

WHAT is the difference between there and their, ccmanuels? JUST curious!

does my careless use of grammar and spelling result in confusing posts? are we graded on this stuff?

If we are graded on this stuff one would surely note the difference between ccmanuals and ccManuels, or was that just a racist slur?

[brad9798]

Evidently, you are racist, canoeyawl ...

[wardd]

watching tv tonight it was explained why the mandate was a hollow shell

if you dont buy insurance you get a $100 fine but the irs is forbidden enforcement to collect

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

In the unlikely event that this conservative Supreme Court blindly ignores the dangerous precedent that would be set by affirming the AHCA, and illogically does so; will your opinion of the Roberts Court and its various personalities be fundamentally altered in a positive way?

I think Justice John Roberts is on the way to being esconced right next to Justice Stephen J. Field in the lexicon of justices who had his own agenda and wouldn't give an inch no matter what.
And the idea that the five conservatives are all Roman Catholic makes me believe their Catholic education has failed to imparted the doctines of St. Paul by which we are supposed to living.
The media in my town is already publishing/broadcasting stories of unfortunates who have life threatening ailments and no way to pay for the required treatments. Wait till it hits Today or GMA.

[tigerregis]

What is good for Generals Insurance and HMO are good for the the USA. Ask the ghost of Abilene, he warned you, just like Xmas Past warned Scrooge. Oh, that's not the same thing! You bet your sorry ass it is. Lobbyists write the laws, like it or not(I don't have time to read it, it's too long). Orwell didn't have you,SA in mind, but it has come to pass. Up is down today, not necessarily tomorrow.

[BrianY]

No.

[bobbys]

I guess haters just gotta hate. Nice post!

.

These are the people that wanna be in charge of your health care.....

[Horace]

The media in my town is already publishing/broadcasting stories of unfortunates who have life threatening ailments and no way to pay for the required treatments. Wait till it hits Today or GMA.

Don't be shy, Chuck. Give us a link.

[Keith Wilson]

These are the people that wanna be in charge of your health care.....

Chip-skiff wants to be in charge of your heath care? Do tell.

Yes indeed, health care is a privilege which should be available only to those who can afford it. One punishments for the losers in the market system should include denial of access to non-emergency medical treatment. If you haven't got the money, you ain't sh!t.

[TomF]

...Yes indeed, health care is a privilege which should be available only to those who can afford it. One punishments for the losers in the market system should include denial of access to non-emergency medical treatment. If you haven't got the money, you ain't sh!t.

It parallels the medieval view that the righteous not only will live eternally, but if they bother to take notice at all ... should be allowed to enjoy the tortures of the damned. Because that torture differentiates the saved from the damned.

Except that in this version, righteousness = money.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Don't be shy, Chuck. Give us a link.

Link? Well you can get a bio of Justice Stephen J. Field from Google. You are familiar with Google ,aren't you?
By the way, your style is kind of unctuous.

[Gerarddm]

No, my opinion of this court is not swayed by one decision but by a multitude taken together.

Since Bush v. Gore at least, it has been, ah, not a good thing.

Where's William O. Douglas when you need him?

[Norman Bernstein]

In the unlikely event that this conservative Supreme Court blindly ignores the dangerous precedent that would be set by affirming the AHCA, and illogically does so....

Keith had it right; your presumption here is off the mark. A very broad interpretation of the commerce clause has been standard from the Supreme Court for many decades now... in order to knock down AHCA, the court will have to reverse MANY precedent decisions.

[Paul Pless]

Keith had it right; your presumption here is off the mark. A very broad interpretation of the commerce clause has been standard from the Supreme Court for many decades now... in order to knock down AHCA, the court will have to reverse MANY precedent decisions.

Might you provide me with one example where the Commerce Clause has been invoked with the requirement that U.S. citizens are required under penalty of law to make a purchase of some good or service from a private company or individual?

We both know the AHCA is unique in this case. . .

[Boater14]

You love a longshot don't you? Didn't you ask, "what if Sandusky is found not guilty" the other day?

[Paul Pless]

You love a longshot don't you? Didn't you ask, "what if Sandusky is found not guilty" the other day?

I can't believe that I'm being confused with Phillip ******* Allen!

[elf]

The Declaration of Independence elevated the "Pursuit of Happiness" to the same level of importance as "Life" and "Liberty". Why should the Supreme Court of the land stand in the way of that?

[Norman Bernstein]

Might you provide me with one example where the Commerce Clause has been invoked with the requirement that U.S. citizens are required under penalty of law to make a purchase of some good or service from a private company or individual?

I can't quote a recent one, but the historical requirement to arm one's self from the 18th century is such an example.

We both know the AHCA is unique in this case. . .

Yes, there is no denying that the AHCA mandate is unique. The issue is whether the historical interpretation of the commerce clause, to deal with important and pressing problems in the country, is going to be tossed out with the trash... and it has been broadly interpreted. The situation in health care is a national crisis... the problem is that it's not a personal crisis for everyone. If your political worldview is one which believes that freedom most often translates into 'every man for himself', then you're likely to disparage the AHCA. If, on the other hand, your political worldview is that we're all bozos on this bus, then you might consider that doing something about the healthcare crisis is essential to the country.

Count me in the latter group... and I'd feel the same, even if the results of the decision weren't likely to affect me personally (and it will, trust me).

I've yet to hear anyone from the former group, in a similar situation to my own, who thinks that they don't deserve, or have any sort of right, to the protections afforded by the AHCA.

[Boater14]

Sorry. We're looking a longer odds.

On world view, the right makes us lefties out to be coddling do gooders. I think of us as cold numbers crunchers. Calculate the cost of Crestor and blood pressure pills, (bought through a competitive bidding process like the VA is required to do) with the cost of caring for a stroke victim. It's all in the numbers.

[elf]

If the court decides against the commerce concept and its precedents, I wonder how many state-level organizations are preparing to contest state-level commerce requirements. With any luck we won't have to purchase car insurance in a few years and certainly will be freed from Social Security and Medicare withholding.

If that is actually the long-range plan of the Regressives on the current court I'm sure we'll see it being initiated by them, as was the theory of corporate personhood which resulted in Citizens United.

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

Might you provide me with one example where the Commerce Clause has been invoked with the requirement that U.S. citizens are required under penalty of law to make a purchase of some good or service from a private company or individual?

We both know the AHCA is unique in this case. . .

The Supreme court has the privelege of picking and choosing the cases they are willing to accept. And the number they do accept is very small. So the possibility of coming up with a prior case that has identical components is almost an impossibility. But if there was such a situation the case is not likely to get to the high court because the lower courts would have a rock solid reason for their opinion and any appeal would likely go nowhere.

[Paul Pless]

With any luck we won't have to purchase car insurance in a few years and certainly will be freed from Social Security and Medicare withholding.

This is lame assed spin. You are not required to own a car. I'd give wholehearted support to a Medicare/Tax based single payer health plan, over this patchwork of fascist corporate sellouts.

[Paul Pless]

So the possibility of coming up with a prior case that has identical components is almost an impossibility.

I'm not even looking for a prior case, just give one example of a prior piece of legislation.

[wardd]

.

These are the people that wanna be in charge of your health care.....

i'd rather have some faceless insurance agent whose bonus depends on how much he saves the company in charge of my health care

[wardd]

Might you provide me with one example where the Commerce Clause has been invoked with the requirement that U.S. citizens are required under penalty of law to make a purchase of some good or service from a private company or individual?

We both know the AHCA is unique in this case. . .

answered in post 21

just my short sighted opinion

[wardd]

I can't quote a recent one, but the historical requirement to arm one's self from the 18th century is such an example.



Yes, there is no denying that the AHCA mandate is unique. The issue is whether the historical interpretation of the commerce clause, to deal with important and pressing problems in the country, is going to be tossed out with the trash... and it has been broadly interpreted. The situation in health care is a national crisis... the problem is that it's not a personal crisis for everyone. If your political worldview is one which believes that freedom most often translates into 'every man for himself', then you're likely to disparage the AHCA. If, on the other hand, your political worldview is that we're all bozos on this bus, then you might consider that doing something about the healthcare crisis is essential to the country.

Count me in the latter group... and I'd feel the same, even if the results of the decision weren't likely to affect me personally (and it will, trust me).

I've yet to hear anyone from the former group, in a similar situation to my own, who thinks that they don't deserve, or have any sort of right, to the protections afforded by the AHCA.

forgot the seaman's health fund or some such

[S.V. Airlie]

The bonus...determined by how much is saved or earned for the company? The concept of getting a bonus for saving money does not compute.wardd

[wardd]

The bonus...determined by how much is saved or earned for the company? The concept of getting a bonus for saving money does not compute.wardd

i believe you

[Cuyahoga Chuck]

This is lame assed spin. You are not required to own a car. I'd give wholehearted support to a Medicare/Tax based single payer health plan, over this patchwork of fascist corporate sellouts.

Ya' mean ya' don't like it cause it ain't perfect? You must live in a spit and polished world!

[johnw]

Might you provide me with one example where the Commerce Clause has been invoked with the requirement that U.S. citizens are required under penalty of law to make a purchase of some good or service from a private company or individual?

We both know the AHCA is unique in this case. . .

Not even close. If Scalia rules against this because of the doctrine of original intent, we'll know that he hasn't read his history, because the Militia Act of 1792 clearly showed that the founders considered it within the scope of the government's power to require people to purchase a musket.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792

This is part of the reason that many legal scholars thought this was a non-issue when it first came up. However, the court appears willing to overturn such precedents if it suits them, so precedent may not matter.

[wardd]

"Harvard Law School professor Einer Elhauge writes that the very first Congress, in 1790, passed a law that included a mandate that ship owners buy medical insurance, but not hospital insurance, for their seamen. That Congress included 20 framers and was signed by another framer: President George Washington. In 1792, Washington signed another bill, passed by a Congress with 17 framers, requiring that all able-bodied men buy firearms. In 1798, Congress, with 5 framers, passed a federal law that required seamen to buy hospital insurance for themselves."

[wardd]

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/...nality-framers