An insightful analysis of Obama vs. SCOTUS

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.

This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.

Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.

This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

 

[SmarterthanYou]

them damned activist judges. how dare they consider striking down a law that a strong majority obviously want....../sarcasm

 

[gui1tars]

them damned activist judges. how dare they consider striking down a law that a strong majority obviously want....../sarcasm

Dig That!!!!!!!!

 

[Bonestorm]

Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.

This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.

Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.

This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

So a person who wrote an amicus brief asserting that the ACA is unconstitutional thinks Obama is wrong to say that the ACA is constitutional. Amazing!

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

So a person who wrote an amicus brief asserting that the ACA is unconstitutional thinks Obama is wrong to say that the ACA is constitutional. Amazing!

It's very insightful. Besides being amazing. Amazingly insightful really would be the proper way to phrase it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

So a person who wrote an amicus brief asserting that the ACA is unconstitutional thinks Obama is wrong to say that the ACA is constitutional. Amazing!

and.........once again nigel offers nothing except to attack the messenger.

can you actually refute anything he said?

 

[Bonestorm]

and.........once again nigel offers nothing except to attack the messenger.

can you actually refute anything he said?

Just letting people know the biases of the person you think is "insightful." Not attacking the messenger, just providing some disclosure that you left out.


And, yes, I can refute pretty much everything he said.

 

[cawacko]

Dung, what is your take on Ruth Marcus's comments towards Obama?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Just letting people know the biases of the person you think is "insightful." Not attacking the messenger, just providing some disclosure that you left out.


And, yes, I can refute pretty much everything he said.

by quoting the preamble???

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Obama should know better on Supreme Court's role

Since 1788, in the famous defense of the Constitution set forth by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, it has been understood that it is the task of the Supreme Court to rein in majoritarian legislatures when they go beyond what the Constitution permits.

This is not, as Obama implies, judicial activism, or political activity on the part of the justices. This is simply, as Hamilton explained, fidelity to the Constitution itself, fidelity to the highest expression of "We the People of the United States," the body whose representatives ratified that Constitution.

That doctrine of judicial review was most famously expressed by the great Chief Justice John Marshall in Marbury v. Madison (1803), but it had been noted not only by Hamilton, but by many other federal judges in the late 18th century. And over the years, in more than 50 instances, courts have struck down unconstitutional behavior by the federal and state legislatures.

Judicial review is not usurpation -- it is the manner in which the rule of law is preserved in this nation. It is certainly true that sometimes courts, and even the Supreme Court, have erred in their interpretation of the Constitution, and some legislative acts that clearly were permitted by the Constitution have been struck down. But if the ACA's individual mandate is rejected, this will be fully within the legitimate exercise of judicial powers.

This is because, as was made clear in the recent arguments in the court, that mandate, for the very first time in history, is an attempt to compel virtually every adult American to participate in commerce. It is not an attempt to regulate commerce -- which the Constitution permits -- but is, instead, an attempt to create and compel commerce, which the Constitution does not authorize.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/04/03/opinion/presser-obama-supreme-court/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

There are several false assumptions here. #1. It assumed the majority in congress has gone beyond what the constitution permits and #2. That this is the first time in US history of such a mandate. Those are very arguably false premises.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

There are several false assumptions here. #1. It assumed the majority in congress has gone beyond what the constitution permits and #2. That this is the first time in US history of such a mandate. Those are very arguably false premises.

1) like it wouldn't be the first time they've done that
2) has there been a nationwide mandate to purchase a product in our history?

 

[NOVA]

There are several false assumptions here. #1. It assumed the majority in congress has gone beyond what the constitution permits and #2. That this is the first time in US history of such a mandate. Those are very arguably false premises.

Really ?......What other commodity does the government demand I buy under penalty of law ?

 

[Bonestorm]

Dung, what is your take on Ruth Marcus's comments towards Obama?


http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...supreme-court/2012/04/02/gIQA4BXYrS_blog.html

I find her column hilarious. In fact, I find the whole lot pearl-clutching blowhards to be hilarious. But sticking with Marcus, she basically says that she believes "the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause" and that "overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself." But she gets upset with Obama for saying pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I don't get it.

Presidents get in tiffs with the Supreme Court all the time. Christ, when he worked for the Reagan Administration John Roberts advocated for stripping the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain matters that Reagan thought the Court fucked up on.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I find her column hilarious. In fact, I find the whole lot pearl-clutching blowhards to be hilarious. But sticking with Marcus, she basically says that she believes "the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause" and that "overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself." But she gets upset with Obama for saying pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I don't get it.

Presidents get in tiffs with the Supreme Court all the time. Christ, when he worked for the Reagan Administration John Roberts advocated for stripping the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain matters that Reagan thought the Court fucked up on.

and yet some people think that the courts are the end all and be all of the constitution. wow.

 

[cawacko]

I find her column hilarious. In fact, I find the whole lot pearl-clutching blowhards to be hilarious. But sticking with Marcus, she basically says that she believes "the individual mandate is both good policy and sound law, well within Congress’ powers under the Commerce Clause" and that "overturning the mandate would be bad not only for the country but for the court itself." But she gets upset with Obama for saying pretty much the same thing. Frankly, I don't get it.

Presidents get in tiffs with the Supreme Court all the time. Christ, when he worked for the Reagan Administration John Roberts advocated for stripping the Court of jurisdiction to hear certain matters that Reagan thought the Court fucked up on.

Dung, a personal question for you which you are obviously 100% free not to answer. Are you a lawyer or did you go to law school? Or neither and the law and courts is just something that interests you (or you have to know for you job/profession)?

 

[Bonestorm]

Dung, a personal question for you which you are obviously 100% free not to answer. Are you a lawyer or did you go to law school? Or neither and the law and courts is just something that interests you (or you have to know for you job/profession)?

Yeah, I'm going to go ahead and pass on this one.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Just letting people know the biases of the person you think is "insightful." Not attacking the messenger, just providing some disclosure that you left out.


And, yes, I can refute pretty much everything he said.

the "disclosure" is listed at the beginning of the article in the link. it is the height of dishonesty to claim you're not attacking the messenger...you're just telling people they are biased.

if you can refute it....then do so and stop constantly attacking the messenger like a petulant child. it is clear to anyone that this is an opinion. it is hilarious how you never feel the need to point out any left bias.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

There are several false assumptions here. #1. It assumed the majority in congress has gone beyond what the constitution permits and #2. That this is the first time in US history of such a mandate. Those are very arguably false premises.

really. because #1 is an opinion, not an assumption. and let's see your cite for #2.

 

[Bonestorm]

the "disclosure" is listed at the beginning of the article in the link. it is the height of dishonesty to claim you're not attacking the messenger...you're just telling people they are biased.

I said that you left out. You aren't CNN are you?

if you can refute it....then do so and stop constantly attacking the messenger like a petulant child. it is clear to anyone that this is an opinion. it is hilarious how you never feel the need to point out any left bias.

I'm not attacking the messenger. You apparently don't know what that means. Attacking the messenger in this instance would be attacking CNN. "Attacking the messenger" applies where an innocent third-party transmitter of information from another is attacked for merely conveying the message of another. It does not apply to attacks on biased interested parties conveying their own information and opinions.

Yes, it is clear that it is an opinion. It isn't clear from what you posted that it is the opinion of one of the people who opposed the law in court.

It's hilarious that you still don't understand that it is perfectly OK for people to be selective in the things that they choose to write about. I don't feel the need to point out lefty bias because that's what you and the rest of your right-wing friends are for. Just like you don't feel the need to point out right-wing bias. It's OK. I don't mind. I understand.

Lastly, if you want me to refute anything in particular just point it out to me and I'll take a crack at it.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

=General Buck Turgidson;976742]I said that you left out. You aren't CNN are you?

i didn't leave anything out as i gave the link. i also said it was an analysis. i didn't claim it was unbiased, nor did i claim it was fact. the very fact you're still nit picking over this shows your desperation over the issue because you refuse to address any substance, rather, stick to ad homs.

I'm not attacking the messenger. You apparently don't know what that means. Attacking the messenger in this instance would be attacking CNN. "Attacking the messenger" applies where an innocent third-party transmitter of information from another is attacked for merely conveying the message of another. It does not apply to attacks on biased interested parties conveying their own information and opinions.

no dung...that is "shooting the messenger"....not attacking the messenger, which is an ad hom in which the party attacks the person based on their bias or belief instead of the message. you clearly don't know what it means.

Yes, it is clear that it is an opinion. It isn't clear from what you posted that it is the opinion of one of the people who opposed the law in court.

It's hilarious that you still don't understand that it is perfectly OK for people to be selective in the things that they choose to write about. I don't feel the need to point out lefty bias because that's what you and the rest of your right-wing friends are for. Just like you don't feel the need to point out right-wing bias. It's OK. I don't mind. I understand.

Lastly, if you want me to refute anything in particular just point it out to me and I'll take a crack at it.

right...but you will accept opinions of those who support your view. stop being such a whiny hypocritical ass and address the OP. you claimed " I can refute pretty much everything he said." then do it and stop the sissy ad homs. i even underlined main issues i agree with it and have actually argued on this board in the past. this isn't difficult, but i can understand your desperation to avoid actual discussion and continue to throw out solely ad homs.

where did i ever say i don't think it is ok for people to be selective in the things they choose to write about. you are the king of strawman arguments on this board. your last sentence is nothing but false deflection and a desperate attempt to justify your silly ad homs.