StrangeSox Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 And no one at the time thought there was a constitutional issue over the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:20 PM) And no one at the time thought there was a constitutional issue over the issue. Correction. Everyone thought there would be a constitutional challenge. No one wagered on the 5 Court republicans totally throwing out any precedents and decisions they don't like, including their own (Raich). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Well that is just silly. I admittedly dont follow this type of stuff, but when the bill was passed I would have bet tonights mega millions on the fact that it was going to be in front of the Supreme Court. Which is why I would have tailored the bill in such a way that if the Conservative Judges were to deny it, it would severely change United States law (ie it is a privilege and if the Supreme Court struck it down, it would be saying that the govt cant make restrictions on privileges.) I understand the game of the Senate, but ultimately the Supreme Court was going to be deciding this law, and you needed to write it in a way that would force the Conservative Judges to agree or have to hurt other areas they care about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:23 PM) Well that is just silly. I admittedly dont follow this type of stuff, but when the bill was passed I would have bet tonights mega millions on the fact that it was going to be in front of the Supreme Court. Which is why I would have tailored the bill in such a way that if the Conservative Judges were to deny it, it would severely change United States law (ie it is a privilege and if the Supreme Court struck it down, it would be saying that the govt cant make restrictions on privileges.) I understand the game of the Senate, but ultimately the Supreme Court was going to be deciding this law, and you needed to write it in a way that would force the Conservative Judges to agree or have to hurt other areas they care about. Like I said, it might well be the wild west of challenging tax credits if they overturn this, because that's all it is, and "You didn't use the word tax" is simply not the basis of a legitimate supreme court decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 But they are right. If it was a tax, why not call it a tax. If you dont call it a tax, then it seemingly is something new, and therefore may not be allowed. Its a disingenuous argument, but it is an argument nonetheless. In fact it derives straight from contract law, penalty versus liquidated damages. If I write the exact same provision in a contract and call it a "penalty" as opposed to a "liquidated damage" it is unenforceable. So this really isnt that far fetched. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:27 PM) But they are right. If it was a tax, why not call it a tax. If you dont call it a tax, then it seemingly is something new, and therefore may not be allowed. Its a disingenuous argument, but it is an argument nonetheless. In fact it derives straight from contract law, penalty versus liquidated damages. If I write the exact same provision in a contract and call it a "penalty" as opposed to a "liquidated damage" it is unenforceable. So this really isnt that far fetched. Because changing that wording would have lost them votes and thus they couldn't have passed the bill. That's the filibuster for you. That's the Senate for you. The Senate is that dumb. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 So they purposefully didnt draft it properly, and now its the Supreme Court's fault because the Senate didnt draft a good bill. I may dislike certain judges for many reasons, but you cant ask the Supreme Court to make the laws for the Senate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Should the Court overturn a major legislative bill on a minor technicality that doesn't really affect the implementation of the policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:34 PM) Should the Court overturn a major legislative bill on a minor technicality that doesn't really affect the implementation of the policy? Yes, because it grants congress a power it didn't have, as it sets new precedent. That minor technicality is major. Edited March 30, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Its not a minor technicality. Balta just said that if it had been written as a tax it would not have passed. A technicality would be that they made a typo and called it a "taxe" and the technicality had no impact on the bill passing. IF this is a technicality, then everything the Senate ever does could be interpreted by the Supreme Court as a mere technicality. Oh the bill only got 59 of the 60 necessary votes, well thats just a technicality. In the legal field, people live and die over technicalities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:32 PM) So they purposefully didnt draft it properly, and now its the Supreme Court's fault because the Senate didnt draft a good bill. I may dislike certain judges for many reasons, but you cant ask the Supreme Court to make the laws for the Senate. According to Balta and SS, the SC can do whatever the hell it wants. Forget precedent, forget the Constitution - 9 people could address every political issue at stake in the country by simply rewriting the text of statutes. Oh, but when things don't go their way it's, "Gawd, the system is so f***ed when 5 conservative justices don't do their jobs properly. They're all so terrible. They're so conservative." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Just so my bias is known, I would prefer Universal Health Care. I have no problem with the idea. But, you have to play by the rules to get the bills passed. And the reason that you need to be careful, is because yes, maybe today I want the Supreme Court to overlook the issues and not strike the law because I think it may be in the best interest of the United States. The problem is, that once you allow that precedent, there will be a day, when that precedent is used against an issue that I care about. Im not saying that ultimately the Supreme Court wont affirm the law, I am saying that when you do things like this, it gives the Supreme Court an opportunity to make a ruling based on ideology, instead of a ruling based on precedent and the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:36 PM) Yes, because it grants congress a power it didn't have, as it sets new precedent. That minor technicality is major. Congress can't do anything it couldn't do before, but it can do the exact same thing in a slightly different manner, maybe. This injustice must be stopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:38 PM) According to Balta and SS, the SC can do whatever the hell it wants. Forget precedent, forget the Constitution - 9 people could address every political issue at stake in the country by simply rewriting the text of statutes. I'm not sure what you're talking about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:49 PM) Congress can't do anything it couldn't do before, but it can do the exact same thing in a slightly different manner, maybe. This injustice must be stopped. If this law is upheld, yes, congress CAN do something it couldn't do before. Because this is something it's NEVER DONE BEFORE. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 And as I specifically explained, sometimes doing something in a slightly different manner, is a major deal at law. I admittedly do not know the text of the document, I havent done research into constitutional law. But to argue that the Supreme Court should read between the lines, is a really dangerous idea. Especially when you consider the fact that arguably 5 of the 9 judges are Conservative. Do I really want them reading between the lines in every case? Or do I prefer that they are bound by the actual language of the bill? I want everyone in the US to have access to health care. But just because I want something, doesnt mean that its always the best ruling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:53 PM) If this law is upheld, yes, congress CAN do something it couldn't do before. Because this is something it's NEVER DONE BEFORE. Congress can do all sorts of things its never done. It can tax us at 100%. It can impose a national healthcare system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:05 PM) Congress can do all sorts of things its never done. It can tax us at 100%. It can impose a national healthcare system. They can do things they've never done if they take the LEGAL STEPS TO DO SO. They have to stay within their RIGHTS. This is *POSSIBLY/MAYBE* out of their scope of power, which is why it's being discussed. I know you don't want to accept that...but it doesn't really matter. If what they did wasn't grey area or questionable, it wouldn't be being questioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Thats not what y2hh is saying. (imo) Congress has powers that are enumerated in the constitution. The power to tax is recognized. Once the power to tax is recognized, then its not an additional power to be able to tax at 1% or 100%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:38 PM) According to Balta and SS, the SC can do whatever the hell it wants. Forget precedent, forget the Constitution - 9 people could address every political issue at stake in the country by simply rewriting the text of statutes. This is the short definition of the Citizens United decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:07 PM) They can do things they've never done if they take the LEGAL STEPS TO DO SO. They have to stay within their RIGHTS. This is *POSSIBLY/MAYBE* out of their scope of power, which is why it's being discussed. I know you don't want to accept that...but it doesn't really matter. If what they did wasn't grey area or questionable, it wouldn't be being questioned. The thing that bothers me is that when you take Raich as precedent, there is no debate. None. There is no way that the same court that wrote the Raich opinion can say the health care bill is unconstitutional under the commerce clause...unless you change the framework you make the argument in, which is what the challengers have successfully done. And as I mentioned earlier, I think the argument to change that framework was pretty tenuous. Apparently 5 of the justices disagree with me. Bastards! That said, I still think Raich was a bad opinion, because they kinda ignored the difference between the illegal weed market and the legal medicinal market, but I digress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) This is the short definition of the Citizens United decision. Fun Fact -- Citizen United's lead counsel was speaking at a symposium at my school today (I had a test and didn't go, though). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 05:36 PM) This is the short definition of the Citizens United decision. In my best Seth Meyers/Amy Pohler voice: really, Balta, really? Deciding that corporations have 1st Amendment protections is the same as completely ignoring the text of a law and supplanting the Court's own interpretation of what the bill was REALLY meant to be? REALLY? That's the same? Balta, you're a smart guy from what I can tell, but your knowledge of the law and the operation of law is just...terrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 04:50 PM) I'm not sure what you're talking about here. You completely ignore the role of the SC. It interprets the constitutionality of law. It doesn't read a statute's text and say "you know, I really think Congress meant this, so, despite the fact it doesn't say this, we'll allow it." That's what you want them to do here. Ignore how the law is written, interpret the whole mandate as a tax and move along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 07:07 PM) You completely ignore the role of the SC. It interprets the constitutionality of law. It doesn't read a statute's text and say "you know, I really think Congress meant this, so, despite the fact it doesn't say this, we'll allow it." That's what you want them to do here. Ignore how the law is written, interpret the whole mandate as a tax and move along. they do this all the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts