This probably pisses me off more than most because my dad was a judge and this ahole is tarnishing the image of the judiciary by making all judges look biased and political and quite frankly, catty. Still can't believe this.

(04-04-2012 09:13 AM)Max Power Wrote:  And besides, Obama has a point in that overturning the law would be inconsistent with the judicial philosophy espoused by conservative judges and legal scholars for the last three decades. (ie, Conservative judges have spent years talking about the need to respect the judgment of the legislature.

The fact that this particular law is so verbous, so profound in its potential to expand the power of govt (through the requirement to purchase a product or service) without limitation, it has to be looked at carefully. The underlying issue of its constitutionality has been around since it was written. Is it not the job of the Supreme Court to resolve issues of constitutionality regarding laws? It wouldn't be unprecedented to overturn the parts of whole of the law if found to be unconstitutional. It's called judicial review, not judicial activism, and it's a commonplace occurrance.
Many laws passed by much, much wider margins than Obamacare have been overturned after judicial review.

This isn't profound. Read Wicker and Gonzales for "profound expansions" of government power. You're already, in many states anyway, required to purchase car insurance if you drive. Now many conservatives will say, "lol but you opt into that automotive transportation market by purchasing a car and seeking a license and putting everyone else at risk by being on the road." Yeah, but you don't "opt into" the health market. You're in the health market by virtue of breathing. You can be walking down the street and get incapacitated by some sudden illness, and rushed to the hospital where they have to treat you. And if you don't have health insurance that cost is passed onto everyone else. So yes, everyone who doesn't have health insurance is putting everyone else at risk of picking up their tab, just as people who drive without auto insurance are putting everyone else at risk of picking up their tab, so both mandates are necessary and appropriate.

Besides, the issue isn't whether the gov't has required you to do anything before. That's a stupid meme being spread by Fox News. The constitutional question at issue is whether the law regulates interstate commerce. The "how" part of the regulation doesn't (or shouldn't) matter. Health care is 13% of the GDP, and like I just said, the mandate addressed the "free rider" problem that drives up the cost of health insurance for everyone. It most certainly has an impact on interstate commerce, and in my opinion is much clearer than some of the other cases (Wickard, Gonzalez, the Ollies Barbeque case) decided in the last 70 years.

Every law should be looked at carefully. Of course it's their job to resolve the issues of constitutionality. Liberals are just saying it's hypocritical for conservatives who have decried activist courts who don't respect the will of legislatures for decades to start doing it themselves.

The lawyer that argued Gonzalez v Raich in front of the court and was advocating for home grown mary jane to not be subject to the Commerce Clause has said it does not apply to Obamacare for a multitude of reasons. He's a professor at Georgetown Law.

I'd say he's more qualified to make that determination than our resident ambulance chaser.

(04-04-2012 09:54 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Liberals are just saying it's hypocritical for conservatives who have decried activist courts who don't respect the will of legislatures for decades to start doing it themselves.

Is it hypocritical for Liberals to be saying because a majority voted for it that the court should stay out of the way?

The whole purpose of a life-tenured, unelected, independent judiciary is to be anti-democratic; to preserve life, liberty, and property from the tyranny of the majority. Without such a judiciary, nothing but brute force would protect us from a Congress that recognized no limits on its authority.

The Supreme Court firmly established in Marbury v. Madison in 1803 that government behavior that is repugnant to the Constitution is not valid, and it is the duty of the courts to make that determination and to invalidate such behavior. This is called “judicial review:” It is the power of the courts to review the acts of the other branches of the federal government, and to review the laws of the states, and to void them when they exceed the confines of the Constitution. No serious legal scholar has questioned this power in the past 175 years. 


The Court is his equal, as a branch of government. But since 1803, the Court is superior to the president on having the final say as to what the laws and what the Constitution mean; and the president knows that. 

(04-04-2012 10:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 09:54 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Liberals are just saying it's hypocritical for conservatives who have decried activist courts who don't respect the will of legislatures for decades to start doing it themselves.

Is it hypocritical for Liberals to be saying because a majority voted for it that the court should stay out of the way?

Who's saying that?

(04-04-2012 11:20 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 10:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 09:54 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Liberals are just saying it's hypocritical for conservatives who have decried activist courts who don't respect the will of legislatures for decades to start doing it themselves.

Is it hypocritical for Liberals to be saying because a majority voted for it that the court should stay out of the way?

Who's saying that?

Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. -- President Obama

(04-04-2012 11:54 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 11:20 AM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 10:53 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 09:54 AM)Max Power Wrote:  Liberals are just saying it's hypocritical for conservatives who have decried activist courts who don't respect the will of legislatures for decades to start doing it themselves.

Is it hypocritical for Liberals to be saying because a majority voted for it that the court should stay out of the way?

Who's saying that?

Ultimately I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress. -- President Obama

I think this same quote was listed earlier in the thread...Max chooses to ignore inconvenient facts.

He's not saying they shouldn't review it though.

He is misleading the public when he says this would be an "unprecedented and extrodinary" step.

(04-04-2012 12:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  He's not saying they shouldn't review it though.

Just that they shouldn't find it unconstitutional... because it had a majority in congress vote for it.

(04-04-2012 12:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  He is misleading the public when he says this would be an "unprecedented and extrodinary" step.

Unconstitutional and Preempted Laws 1789-2002
According to the GPO (Government Printing Office Database):

1789-2002 Acts of Congress Held as Unconstitutional..............................158

1789-2002 State Statutes held unconstitutional......................................935

1789-2002 City Ordinances held unconstitutional....................................222

1789-2002 State and City laws preempted by Federal laws.......................224

Total State, Local and Federal Laws Declared Unconstitutional................1,315

Total State and Local Law Preempted by Federal Laws..............................224

Total Laws Overturned, all governments..............................................1,539

(04-04-2012 12:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  He's not saying they shouldn't review it though.

Max if they should not overturn laws passed by a "large majority" why bother reviewing them?

Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Unelected Group’

A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”).

“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” President Obama said.

“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”


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. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

And since making these remarks, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that it has until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.

Fox reports:


One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a “challenge” to judicial authority — referring directly to Obama‘s latest comments about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care case.


The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.

(04-04-2012 12:50 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 12:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  He's not saying they shouldn't review it though.

Just that they shouldn't find it unconstitutional... because it had a majority in congress vote for it.

I agree that's the implication--that the legislative vote should be a factor--and I think he's wrong. And misleading. It's disappointing.

Again, though, this is politics and politicians pander. Courts should be above it. Judges aren't politicians, or at least they shouldn't be.

(04-04-2012 01:18 PM)SumOfAllFears Wrote:  Fed Appeals Court to DOJ: You Have Until Thursday to Explain What the President Meant by ‘Unprecedented’ & ‘Unelected Group’

A federal appeals court has ordered the Justice Department to clarify comments made by the president when he said yesterday that it would be “unprecedented” for the Supreme Court to overturn his signature health care law (“Obamacare”).

“I am confident that this will be upheld because it should be upheld,” President Obama said.

“Ultimately I am confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.”


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. And I’m pretty confident that this court will recognize that and not take that step.

And since making these remarks, a three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has told the DOJ that it has until Thursday to explain whether the Obama administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law.

Fox reports:


One justice in particular chided the administration for what he said was being perceived as a “challenge” to judicial authority — referring directly to Obama‘s latest comments about the Supreme Court’s review of the health care case.


The testy exchange played out during a hearing over a separate ObamaCare challenge. It marked a new phase in the budding turf war between the executive and judicial branches.

Holy sh!t it's another incredibly misleading headline from the retarded Fox News web editor. Here there's an issue I'd agree with them on and they take it too far and have me defending Obama again.

Obama said that CONSERVATIVES had been calling judges "unelected". He was quoting/paraphrasing the conservative position to remind them of their hypocrisy. And yes it's something conservatives have been saying for decades to attack judges.

Can you imagine if a Clinton appointee liberal justice asked the DOJ during GW Bush's administration the same thing?

FOXNEWS: Judicial Activism

RUSH: TREASON!

(04-04-2012 12:49 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  He is misleading the public when he says this would be an "unprecedented and extrodinary" step.

He's a liar. And liars lie. That's what they do.

(04-04-2012 01:24 PM)Max Power Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 12:50 PM)RaiderATO Wrote:  

(04-04-2012 12:43 PM)Max Power Wrote:  He's not saying they shouldn't review it though.

Just that they shouldn't find it unconstitutional... because it had a majority in congress vote for it.

I agree that's the implication--that the legislative vote should be a factor--and I think he's wrong. And misleading. It's disappointing.

Again, though, this is politics and politicians pander. Courts should be above it. Judges aren't politicians, or at least they shouldn't be.

Judges should also not sit on a case involving a law that the supported as the solicitor general... But there is that whole politics thing..

You're right, its pandering and posturing and not a threat. I dislike the word "threat" being used because there is not "if you don't vote this way then I will X"..

Clearly he is positioning himself by

(1) stretching the truth at Obama Care passed by a huge majority

60 in the senate is not huge and 219 to 212 in the house is *certainly not a huge majority* abd the bi partisan faction was the nays (34D's all R's) not the yay's (all D's)

(2) trying to call judicial review and revocation of a federal law 'unprecedented'

(3) trying to make the fact the judges are unelected an issue (that the times editorial page is running with).

Should the judge in the other Obama care case have brought it up? Probably not...

(04-04-2012 01:29 PM)Max Power Wrote:  Can you imagine if a Clinton appointee liberal justice asked the DOJ during GW Bush's administration the same thing?

FOXNEWS: Judicial Activism

RUSH: TREASON!

MSNBC: Balance of Power

Olberman: A well deserved smack down

it really cuts both ways max..

I'll be the first to say this is a time for me to really examine how I have looked at the court system. Obviously people on the left want to be able to turn the rhetoric of the past 10 years on the right without realizing they are, by extension, leding some legit weight to it..