Apparently this idiotic "constitutional lawyer" has never heard of judicial review, and also of checks and balances? The USSC has overturned over 100 federal laws since it was created, so what exactly would be "unprecedented" in overturning an individual mandate by the federal government? http://ca.news.yahoo.com/combative-obama-warns-supreme-court-health-law-192629533.html
"Uninelected"? "I'd like to remind conservative commentators"? WTF? What a moron. People hate this law, and it was passed by bribing Democrat senators from Louisiana and Nebraska. By the way, isn't Kathleen Sebelius "uninelected", as well as Stephen Chu? [video=youtube;yWZ9JVvUG0g]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWZ9JVvUG0g[/video]
All through the 70s and 80s, Democrats had to listen to Republicans thundering against "judges making laws" and demanding "strict constructionist" judges. Now that a Democrat says the same thing, it's waah-waah time from Republicans.
Given your obvious and embarrassing ignorance on the difference between states' rights and the U.S. Constitution re: this law, I wouldn't expect you to know the difference between "judicial review" and "judicial activism". The only things unprecedented in this is the creation of the word "uninelected", and also the President of the USA publicly calling out the USSC. I guess Obama forgot that he calls DOMA "unconstitutional", as decided by the court system? But, smart people can see what he's doing here.
The boatloads of bureaucrats at HHS and the IRS who will be enacting and enforcing regulations under the law are selected, not elected. If the court were to go through each provision of the law, it would be activism. The case was brought before them, they should do their job and rule on the questions they are petitioned to answer. ObamaFail.
It's funny to hear your side on the other side of the fence, after all these years of nonsense, saying that any judge who disagreed with you was a judicial activist. As Obama said, "And I'd just remind conservative commentators that for years what we've heard is the biggest problem on the bench was judicial activism or a lack of judicial restraint, that an unelected group of people would somehow overturn a duly constituted and passed law. Well, this is a good example." http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...g-to-unelected-supreme-court/?intcmp=trending
I happen to be pro choice, but Roe v Wade was an activist ruling. Activism is writing law from the bench; it's the job of congress to write and pass laws. The courts can and should strike down laws that don't pass muster - Brown v Board of Education, the court ruled to end segregation with all due haste, but didn't tell congress how to make it happen. I bet you don't get it, though.
Polls say that most Americans want government to legislate a right of health care. They are reluctant about the Republican-inspired payment method, in which each person writes a check, instead of the normal method, taxation. If Democrats lose this court decision, it will be a great boon to them in this campaign. The issues which Republicans have carefully framed and prepared will be subsumed to the need for a single-payer payment, nationalized medical system. This will push the final product way to the left. You guys should have quit while you were ahead.
This thread is a non issue. Anytime a President is desperate for a particular Supreme Court ruling they go on the offensive. But it never works, of course, because a president cannot influence their decision. I think even Obama realizes the case is most likely lost due to the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of the law. I think this is some PR to try and ensure healthcare gets addressed in the next Congress. And that's going to be tough as they next Congress already has a pretty full agenda. The political capitol he had to have expended for this law makes it a real long shot to think he will get his wish. Forgetting my personal stance on universal healthcare, Obama had a golden opportunity to fulfill his #1 agenda and he seemingly putzed it away with some of the provisions. He had other and better ways to go about what he wanted, but opted for what is probably the worst way. That's a sign of both inexperience and Pelosi.
What Obama did yesterday by trying to usurp the authority of the court hasn't been seen from a President since Andrew Jackson. Using the words "uninelected" (or unelected, as we say in non-idiot land), and "judicial activism" to describe what is really judicial review by the USSC, is just another indication of what a dufus and idiot this guy is when he's not reading things from a TV screen. Never thought I'd see the day where a sitting President, at a joint meeting with two other world leaders, would publicly lecture the USSC, and also try to diminish their purpose and very reason for existence.
There is no way in hell a single-payer system is going to pass Congress. The Dems couldn't even do it with a super-majority in the Senate, and a large majority in the House. Plus, I'm not sure how you blame the GOP for the mandate, since not a single GOP member voted for it. The Dems had to negotiate within their own party to get the votes. Seriously, do you even read the posts that your write? Many are just so dumb, I have to think you're just trolling for attention.
Obama is so far out of his league. I did notice he somewhat walked back his comments yesterday ... probably because most rational Americans realize the existence of the separation of powers in our government.
Obama brought this on himself and I hope he enjoys the shitstorm he has created with his astonishingly ignorant remarks. Why Obama - who needs to be a leader and be Presidential - time after time keeps sticking his nose in the fray, getting his hands dirty with attempts at hard-nosed (Chicago style politics) is a puzzle to me. Especially when compared to his push for the Health Care bill in the first place where he laid out his goals, handed the whole shebang off to (a very dysfunctional and fucked up) Congress to implement, resulting in a bastard bill that everybody hates. It is crap like this that is going to lose Obama a lot of moderate votes. I know moderates who latched onto Obama because they were so sick of the "embrace of ignorance" from the Bush years. I see your "nukelar" and raise you a Constitutional Law Professor who doesn't know (or more likely) intentionally disregards the Constitution and law and history and tradition and using the most powerful of bully pulpits bashes the head of another branch of government.
The U.S. already has the biggest single-payer healthcare system in the world. It's called Medicare. And if the SCOTUS overturns "Obamacare", then get ready for the biggest expansion of an existing government service ever.
You'd have to have such a massive tax increase to pay for it, you'll never see it happen in this climate. If single payer was going to happen, it would have in 2009, when the GOP could do nothing to stop it. Even then, the Dems had to compromise within their own party and came up with the "mandate". You honestly think that a GOP House is going to pass a tax increase to pay for single payer? Really?? The Dems could barely do it with a mandate last time around, and had many Dems vote against it. Also, Medicare has its own issues, and even it isn't self-funded even though people pay into it their entire lives.
