June 26, 2012
Health Insurance Decision Reminder
I believe there's an excellent chance the health insurance act will be shot down, either in significant part, or in its entirety. If that does happen, President Obama and the Democrats will attack conservative Attorneys General, conservatives in Congress, and conservatives in the Supreme Court. They will leverage this into even more divisiveness. Obama has been pitting Us vs. Them since his inaugural address, and he's not going to stop now.
Just remember one thing, though: many of us, including myself, said the mandate was obviously unconstitutional before the bill was passed by either house of Congress. If I believed that, and many other conservatives believed that, then surely Obama and the Democrats knew it was very possible -- if not likely -- that five Supreme Court justices would believe that.
But they rammed this through Congress anyway, marking the first time since Reconstruction that major social program changes became law with the backing of only one political party, against what almost all polls say was against the will of a majority of Americans. This was obviously going to be challenged in court, where we all knew there was a good chance it would get overturned.
And Obama himself said very clearly that an individual mandate was a problem -- because it forced everyone to buy insurance -- when he was running for the Democratic nomination back in 2008 against other top candidates Hillary Clinton and John Edwards, who both favored a mandate.
So they spent over a year of deliberations in Congress to get an unpopular, single-party policy into law, that Obama himself had opposed just a year earlier, that they knew had a good chance of being overturned by the Supreme Court, and that didn't have any clear way to accomplish severability.
They literally, knowingly, and intentionally set themselves up for this. I don't know if it was some bizarre Machiavellian scheme to get overturned and cast blame elsewhere, or if it was just a vain hope they could pull it off, against the odds. But they knew a very likely outcome was a challenge and overturn. And yet they'll still have the gall to blame conservatives and Republicans. Harry Reid said just yesterday that the Supreme Court knocking down some of the Arizona immigration law "proves" that the law was unconstitutional. Will he be singing the same song after his health insurance act is ruled unconstitutional?
If you're angry about not getting more government control over health insurance, please do blame conservatives and Republicans. I'll gladly accept some of that blame, because I believe we should have less government control over health insurance, because I believe this is better for our individual freedom, and that it will result in lower costs for everyone.
But if you're angry at all the wasted time and energy to pass a law that only got overturned, setting us back to Square One -- but behind four years from where we were before -- the blame lies with the Democrats, not with the people who stood up against an unconstitutional law and got it overturned.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at June 26, 2012
10:44 AM | Email This
The most interesting part of this decision is what happens to the rest of the bill, because it doesn't look like the mandate has a chance of survival. One thing is for certain, if the rest of it survives, the taxpayers and SCOTUS can look forward to more lawsuits.
The liberal teeth gnashing on Thursday will be fun to watch. Get your popcorn ready.
It is convenient that you have forgotten the entire history of the individual mandate. That is was an idea that came from the Heritage Foundation as a private sector based system to control cost and coverage, and that it was happily adopted by the GOP as their alternative to health care reform during the Clinton administration.
That is why Mitt Romney picked it up for Massachusettes, and said that it should be a model for reform at the national level.
Strange how none of the problems with its constitutionality came up until the Democrats tried to meet the Republicans half way on reforms. Of course, with a Republican party that has only one organizing principal currently, defeat Obama, there was no attempt to compromise by the GOP, who were basically given the health care reform they had championed only a decade before.
We have seen the Roberts court be more activist than any previous court. Issuing decisions and remedies that were not briefed or argued by the parties, overturning century old precedent on a whim to meet their conservatively politically correct point of view, and making decisions on political, not judicial bases. We will see more of the same on Thursday, I'm sure. It is thankfully, at least, still a question of such activism will hold sway.
@2 - Your post demonstrates that you do not care about the rule of law.
Answer this question; Provide at least one detailed example that demonstrates Roberts or Alito are activist judges, subject to fact checking (This should be interesting...). Either back up your assertion or drop it from your vernacular.
4. Palouse, wow, it is surprising to me the IRS would do something so publicly, and so obviously illegal. Thanks, Obama.
KDS, you make this too easy:
Breyer gave a rare oral dissent from the bench on Thursday. He noted that the court, without hearing argument, had issued a broad decision that effectively declares existing laws in many states unconstitutional.
"This court does not normally find state laws unconstitutional without, at least, giving those who favor the law an opportunity to argue the matter," he said sardonically.
Pure judicial activism. I can't think of an opinion from the left that was done without even giving the opposing parties a chance to argue their case. And note that it trashed states rights and federalism, all in service of a Conservative ideological point. I don't even think Pudge is willing to try to twist such a naked disregard for judicial principals as a good thing.
Hutz: It is convenient that you have forgotten the entire history of the individual mandate.
You're lying: I forgot nothing. I didn't mention it because it bears no relevance. You bringing it up is a fallacious red herring.
That is was an idea that came from the Heritage Foundation as a private sector based system to control cost and coverage, and that it was happily adopted by the GOP as their alternative to health care reform during the Clinton administration.
You're lying: "the GOP" never adopted a mandate. Some members of Congress did, but it was quickly dismissed as an unconstitutional overreach once the rest of the conservatives and Republicans took a close look at it.
And that's where the story ends. We thought about it, realized the federal government can't do such a thing, so it was dropped as an idea for a federal program.
That is why Mitt Romney picked it up for Massachusettes, and said that it should be a model for reform at the national level.
You're lying: Romney never said the federal government should mandate that everyone purchase insurance. But even if he did, it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference to anything I am saying, and that's the real point.
Strange how none of the problems with its constitutionality came up until the Democrats tried to meet the Republicans half way on reforms.
You're lying. First of all, I and many other conservatives criticized mandates long before Obama became President. When I was in the CNN/YouTube GOP debate back in November 2007, I made two video questions for the debate (before YouTube asked me to write a song, which was the one they used in the broadcast). One was a question to Huckabee about big social programs, and the other was to Romney about how he could justify forcing people to buy insurance.
Now, I didn't bring up constitutionality at the time, I think, because a mandate at the state level is much less obviously unconstitutional, but I did criticize Hillary Clinton for it being unconstitutional in 2008 when she pushed it during the debates.
Second, the Democrats never tried to meet the Republicans halfway: they insisted on a mandate, and the Republicans -- on principle -- refused to agree to a mandate. There was no halfway meeting, period. Yes, the Democrats said they were adding some "Republican ideas" into their plan, but that's a ploy to confuse simple minds like yours, because even if the Republicans wanted all of those so-called "Republican ideas," it doesn't change the fact that they could not agree to a mandate. It's no different than if I proposed to get rid of all public schools, but said I was meeting you halfway because I was also adding in more money for green technologies. That's not meeting you halfway, is it?
Of course, with a Republican party that has only one organizing principal currently, defeat Obama
You're a liar.
there was no attempt to compromise by the GOP
Neither was there any attempt to compromise by the Democrats. Unless they could bend on a mandate, there could be no compromise. They knew that. Everyone knew that.
who were basically given the health care reform they had championed only a decade before.
You're a liar.
We have seen the Roberts court be more activist than any previous court.
You're a liar.
Issuing decisions and remedies that were not briefed or argued by the parties
That's uncommon, including under Roberts, but it's not necessarily unreasonable or "activist," depending on the circumstances.
overturning century old precedent on a whim to meet their conservatively politically correct point of view
Since when has overturning incorrect precedent "activist"? That's stupid. Please don't be stupid.
and making decisions on political, not judicial bases
Oh, please. The left on the Court has done this since long before Roberts got there, and continues to. The gun cases are a great example: the Constitution and its history are very clear, but the left on the Court simply didn't care. The Ledbetter case is another great example: the law was absolutely clear, but the left wanted to ignore the law and hold the company liable for something the law explicitly says they are not liable for.
We will see more of the same on Thursday, I'm sure.
Yes, you will see more of the right of the Court standing by the Constitution, and more of the left of the Court ignoring the Constitution for their desired political goals.
It is thankfully, at least, still a question of such activism will hold sway.
Yes, you will continue to lie to people about how following the Constitution is "activist."
@2 The mandate in Obamacare is quite different from what Heritage proposed twenty years ago, and have since come out multiple times saying the federal mandate is unconstitutional, which it is. You can read more about it here.
As for Romney "picking it up for Massachusetts", that is irrelevant because no one is arguing that states have far more power to compel its residents to enter into private contracts, and that's what the residents there wanted. Fine.
8. Palouse: Heritage is still very wrong about having any sort of federal "encouragement" or otherwise for health insurance. If anything, we should encourage people to have LESS insurance, not more, and to pay out of pocket in the market for regular care. The federal government really has no business at all for trying to get people to buy a product, even if by carrot and not a stick.
@5 - Lionel - Why do you have such a big problem with the truth ? Your examples are bogus as pointed out by @6.
Keep defending the indefensible, no different from saying OJ and Mike Sandusky are both innocent.
Calling a person a liar doesn't really defeat an argument or make it bogus. The fact that neither you nor Pudge have any logical response just shows how weak your arguments are.
This is an activist court that has at least four Conservative judges in favor of putting their ideology ahead of precedent and judicial philosophy. Accept it, it is what you all wanted anyway. Just don't pretend that it is something other than what you built it to be. And don't claim that you have a better understanding of the Constitution than all the generations that came before that you are now ignoring.
Hutz: Calling a person a liar doesn't really defeat an argument or make it bogus.
Actually, it does: when you don't provide any basis for your claim, all I need to do to defeat it is to say it's not true.
And when you do provide basis, I call you a liar, and then I provide the reasons why.
The fact that neither you nor Pudge have any logical response just shows how weak your arguments are.
You're a liar: every point you made that you provided any evidence for, I provided an argument in response.
This is an activist court that has at least four Conservative judges in favor of putting their ideology ahead of precedent and judicial philosophy.
You're a liar. (See, you provide no evidence, so I need to do nothing more than say it's not true. Get it?)
And don't claim that you have a better understanding of the Constitution than all the generations that came before that you are now ignoring.
You're a liar: most of the generations before agree with me, and where they don't (such as in the aforementioned gun case), it's very clear where they went wrong (read Thomas' concurring opinion in McDonald, where he alone demonstrates that the views of the prior Court that destroyed the power of the "privileges and immunities" clause were based on racism and activism, rather than on the text and intended meaning of the Constitution).
LMAO. You have no substantive arguments to counter the assertions that you are not telling the truth. Pudge has already laid out his case. The ball is your court to rebut each of his arguments.
"This is an activist court that has at least four Conservative judges in favor of putting their ideology ahead of precedent and judicial philosophy."
You fail to state factually why "the Roberts Court" are activist - you curiously avoid referring to the Constitution.
Conversely, the four liberal justices are activist because they interpret the constitution as a living document and simply put - they ideologically twist the meaning to conform to their preconceived agenda and ignore the true meaning of the Constitution as it was written - that's the progressive way and Justice Breyer demonstrated a manifestation of that in his quote you cited @5.
"And don't claim that you have a better understanding of the Constitution than all the generations that came before that you are now ignoring."
You don't see the forest from the trees. Contrary to your belief, the constitution is not a living document. Wait ! how can that be ? it is outdated from 1777 - how can it possibly apply in today's complex world - right ? Therefore it is open to interpretation in today's terms by the courts - right ? Your argument is absurd.
If that is what you need to tell yourself to get through the day, have at it. But don't pretend you have some great mind, or that just saying someone is a liar when you disagree with something makes it real.
What a shame. Once, Conservatism could at least boast some great thinkers, now we are reduced to the Sean Hannitys, Tucker Carlsons and Pudges of the world. All bluster and no intellectual honesty if it will get in the way of what they feel.
@13 - You choose not to rebut our arguments - you have absolutely no case. Changing the subject doesn't get you off the hook.
Keep trying and feel free to dialogue if you wish.
Hutz: If that is what you need to tell yourself to get through the day
You're not fooling anyone. Everyone plainly sees that you made a whole slew of unsubstantiated claims, and then dishonestly asserted that somehow I had an obligation to provide substantiation for my dismissal of those unsubstantiated claims.
Plus, most people here know that your claims cannot be substantiated. Saying that abiding by the Constitution is "activist" is something not even the far left will believe. You can argue with our interpretation of the Constitution ... but good luck winning that argument. But you certainly cannot claim that our views aren't, to our mind, absolutely consistent with the Constitution.
don't pretend you have some great mind
I don't. I just point out that you're full of it. It doesn't take a great mind to do that.
... or that just saying someone is a liar when you disagree with something makes it real.
Shrug. If you think you're not lying, then back up the claims you made that prompted my accusation of lies. You can't, so instead you just whine about it. You're not fooling anyone.
16. The federal government really has no business at all for trying to get people to buy a product, even if by carrot and not a stick.
I don't have an issue with this, IF we had a flat tax. While a low flat rate with no deductions is ideal, as long as Democrats exist with enough power to block it, I don't see it happening any time soon. The progressive income tax is a tool for social engineering.
The most popular form of it is the mortgage interest deduction. As a homeowner, I'm thankful for it and I think it provides a good incentive to own property, which in turn boosts the overall economy. I would have a far less issue with a similar tax credit for purchasing health insurance if your employer doesn't provide it. To a certain extent, the credit already exists in the form of deductible health related costs over a certain threshold of your AGI. But I'd be willing to forgo both for a low flat tax.
As for the SEIU case:
Pure judicial activism.
Protecting individual free speech rights is not judicial activism.
Palouse: Protecting individual free speech rights is not judicial activism.
Yeah, I know, right? The First Amendment isn't here so that people with speech most of us want to hear is protected. Their speech doesn't need protection. It's for the people you want to censor. I don't give a damn whether you think their exercise of speech is a problem, and that we as a people have some "right" to prevent it: we don't, because the First Amendment says we don't.
The most aggregious example of judicial activism is Roe v Wade. No other case comes close causing the damage that society has suffered from this case.
Each state should have been allowed to establish the policy on abortion that met the needs of its citizens.
19. I sure can't figure out why liberals/progressive/commies think that when they point out that the Individual Mandate was a GOP/conservative idea that conservatives should all jump up and go: "Oops, my mistake, it's a good idea after all!!" A crappy, unconstitutional idea is bad no matter who thinks of it. Just because it came from the Heritage Foundation (if that is indeed true in the first place) doesn't make it good.
Shhhh, Oscarphone... you nearly revealed lefty's biggest secrets: Embrace every/anything your party does. Never admit a bad idea. Cheer lead EVERYTHING donkey. Change all uncomfortable subjects. ALWAYS blame your opponent... especially BushRoveKoch.
I believe it's called LOCKSTEP.
Some call it Koolaid drinking lemming sheep.
I call it mindless drones.
21. Wehn I saw the Arizona decision, I realized this court is way more liberal than conservative. So although I believe the individual mandate will be thrown out, I believe the rest of the 5000 pages of tax increases and socialized Med will live another day, and most likely help Obama. He is the Welfare President.
gs: it's not so much liberal/conservative. It's specific people. And it's hard to see Kennedy not joining a majority to overturn the mandate, and further hard to see how they could sever just the mandate.
I think Breyer was sympathetic to the mandate's unconstitutionality, though I don't hold out hope for him to be in favor of overturning it. But if he did, and the three women dissented ... would it be a war on women?
23. Putz Post@10: "Calling a person stupid really defeats an argument and makes it bogus."
The real effect you have here. Please stop, as your need to be flogged by pudge must be humiliating.
Repaired Lyingel drivel: "This is an activist court that has at least four left-wing judges in favor of putting their ideology ahead of precedent and judicial philosophy" Fixed that for you, since you obviously did not hear any of Kagan's or Sotomayor's infantile commentary during oral arguments clearly in favor of Obamacare vs. The Constitution.
Providing an NPR link as a reference? Really? Explains most everything about your mindset. At least get a sense of humor like MikeBS and some of your other troll brethren.
24. Leftists can't help it. Lying is as easy as waking up for a Leftist.
25. I can't wait to see the look on that witch Pelosi's face when this all crashes down. Remember her "Are you serious? ARE YOU SERIOUS???" rant when that reporter questioned the constitutionality of it?
26. zorch: and after the announcement is made, can somebody just toss a bucket of water on her so we can be rid of her?
27. LOL! Either that, or maybe it could be arranged for one of those flying monkeys from Oz to scoop her up and make off with her. Maybe Barney Frank as he leaves?
28. Upheld! Suck on that, the lot of you!
29. A sad day for federalism and individual rights.
31. Hey pudge: Thanks for another penetrating legal analysis!
Shouldn't this site be in all black by now? A good day for Obama and Mommy government types everywhere.
A bad day for individual freedoms in this country and the US Constitution.
33. Hey, McKenna, kiss your campaign for Governor bye-bye now.
34. The chances of ACA being struck down seem to have been somewhat less than "excellent." Nice going, pudge. Personally, I wouldn't have minded seeing ACA fall, because the alternative is universal Medicare, which I like better than this Rube Goldberg contraption.
The responsibility for nominating John Roberts to the SCOTUS can be laid at the feet of Bush. That was Bush's fault.
Political cover by saying the Individual Mandate was unconstitutional in terms of the Commerce clause, but constitutional in terms of it being a tax. It is what it is...The left is happy and celebrating and moderates and conservatives are energized but angered at this decision. Here comes Taxageddon!
ivan: yes, please do applaud unfettered federal power. Show your true colors. And why do you think this hurts McKenna? Most of the state agrees with him, and disagrees with you and Roberts.
scottd: Shrug. The four dissenters agreed with me. And most of the country, too.
Roger Rabbit: You don't understand probabilities at all, do you?
37. I play with probabilities in the stock market and do all right at that.
38. @37 Yeah, right and pigs fly...
39. Is Roberts a traitor now or really a 'libral' all along?
40. @38 You got something against capitalism?
@38 You got something against capitalism?
Posted by Roger Rabbit at June 28, 2012 09:17 AM
@40 Hey stupid troll ...You can't have statism and capitalism at the same time and Obamacare is government controlled - socialism. Crawl back in your rabbit hole over at HA.
"The liberal teeth gnashing on Thursday will be fun to watch. Get your popcorn ready. "
Tee hee hee.
Tea (party) he he.
43. @42 - Too much premature gloating. Their bad.
44. scottd: Shrug. The four dissenters agreed with me. And most of the country, too.
Got it. Next time I read one of your airtight analyses of the way it's gotta be, I'll bear in mind that your target is 4 out of 9.
Harry Reid said just yesterday that the Supreme Court knocking down some of the Arizona immigration law "proves" that the law was unconstitutional. Will he be singing the same song after his health insurance act is ruled unconstitutional?
Doesn't look like it. Next question...
45. scottd: my target is the Constitution. I know the concept is foreign to you, though. But I clearly hit my target.
I know you feel that way, pudge. But plenty of folks disagree with you. Too bad for you that five of them sit on the Supreme Court.
I also know you won't understand this, but my target is also the Constitution. And I'm fine with the way things turned out. It was a close call and it could have gone either way -- based on distressingly arbitrary factors in both directions -- which I think just goes to show that things are not as clear cut as you think they are.
In this case, I agree with many Republicans who seem to understand that ultimately, this question will get resolved politically -- as it should. If Republicans can get enough voters to support their position, then they'll have a president and congress that can enact their own laws. We'll see how it goes, but I'm still waiting for a viable plan from Mitt Romney. He doesn't seem to like the last one he came up with.
scottd: plenty of folks disagree with you
Yes, plenty of people put their personal preferences above the rule of law. And?
I also know you won't understand this, but my target is also the Constitution.
No, I understans very well that you're a concern troll.
And I'm fine with the way things turned out.
Right, because you want more government power even though the Constitution prohibits it.
It was a close call
In numbers of votes, yes. In terms of what the Constitution says, no.
based on distressingly arbitrary factors in both directions
You mean how Roberts arbitrarily ignored what the law says to get it to say what it needed to say to fit his argument? It says "require" and "shall," clearly and uneuivocally saying it's not optional, and he says it's OK because it's optional. He says it is not a penalty for violating this requirement (oops, "suggestion"), even though the law clearly says it is.
But worse, it shouldn't matter: the government obviously has no right to make us pay more taxes or to do anything negative to us in any way for not buying something not covered by its powers, nor does it have any right to give us benefits for something not covered by its powers.
This backdoor power to do anything the government wants that can possibly be done with the tax code was never granted by the 16th Amendment. It's an invention, it's stupid, and it's unconstitutional.
I think just goes to show that things are not as clear cut as you think they are.
If you can't actually demonstrate that through reasonable argument -- and you can't -- then I don't care what you think.
In this case, I agree with many Republicans who seem to understand that ultimately, this question will get resolved politically -- as it should.
That's irrelevant to the decision itself, which is what I am currently discussing.
"I also know you won't understand this, but my target is also the Constitution."
scottd: Based on your ideological DNA, your target is to make the Constitution a living document so you can fold, spindle and mutilate it, at the whim of the Progressives.
"We'll see how it goes, but I'm still waiting for a viable plan from Mitt Romney. He doesn't seem to like the last one he came up with."
While Romney has already laid out a framework, ultimately Congress will pass the revised plan and the President will sign. The GOP have already proposed numerous plans over two years, but these plans were all rejected by the Democrat leadership that controlled the House at that time. These plans address the portions of the ACA deemed to be replaced for a more efficient and less costly Health Care system. Check out the most recent plan by Rep. Paul Brown (R), GA.