OBAMA/TRUMPCARE MEGATHREAD

[Soxbadger]

But this ruling does change that since Roberts got to explicitly reject the Commerce Clause justification.

 

It doesnt matter the justification, they are just semantics for the law professors to argue about.

 

What matters is the end result, Congress has extremely broad powers to basically do whatever it wants. This ruling does not change that.

[EvilMonkey]

Classless and stupid. Of course, there is also a zero percent chance you would have called out the Republicans who would have done the same thing at the fringes.

 

Had to know there'd be some stupidity like this after the decision regardless of what it was.

Actually, I would have. Especially since top Repubs all came out before this decision and said if it went there way, there would be no 'spiking the ball', like Obama did. I expect the stupidity from blogs and message boards. Not national committee chairmen.

[StrangeSox]

Instead they're coming out, saying the bill is still unconstitutional and calling for state-level nullification:

 

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entr...se-to?ref=fpblg

 

I anticipate the conservative outrage over someone challenging the legitimacy of the court.

[EvilMonkey]

Instead they're coming out, saying the bill is still unconstitutional and calling for state-level nullification:

 

http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entr...se-to?ref=fpblg

 

I anticipate the conservative outrage over someone challenging the legitimacy of the court.

LIke all the outrage over the now unneeded pre-emtive strikes against the court, 'warning' them not to overturn this case, blah blah blah. All the court did was say the things wasn't unconstitutional by changing the verbage to 'tax'. They didn't say it was a good law. Nothing wrong with people still not liking it and seeking to change it thru legal means.

[Balta1701]

LIke all the outrage over the now unneeded pre-emtive strikes against the court, 'warning' them not to overturn this case, blah blah blah. All the court did was say the things wasn't unconstitutional by changing the verbage to 'tax'. They didn't say it was a good law. Nothing wrong with people still not liking it and seeking to change it thru legal means.

Did you just call "State level nullification" "thru legal means"?

[StrangeSox]

Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with it and fighting it policy-wise. The court "called balls and strikes," as Roberts said in his confirmation hearings, but did not interject into policy. Republicans are free to continue to press for the law to be repealed via the legislature.

 

But that's not what DeMint is saying. He's saying the law is still unconstitutional regardless of this ruling. He's specifically disregarding what this ruling has said; the analog would be that it was struck down but Obama still pressed forward on implementation anyway. And he's calling on governors of states to simply refuse to enact the policies proscribed by this law. State nullification sorta died out after 13A, but he wants to bring it back.

[Rex Kickass]

Best internet reaction so far:

 

http://yfrog.com/hw7ozrfj

[EvilMonkey]

Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with it and fighting it policy-wise. The court "called balls and strikes," as Roberts said in his confirmation hearings, but did not interject into policy. Republicans are free to continue to press for the law to be repealed via the legislature.

 

But that's not what DeMint is saying. He's saying the law is still unconstitutional regardless of this ruling. He's specifically disregarding what this ruling has said; the analog would be that it was struck down but Obama still pressed forward on implementation anyway. And he's calling on governors of states to simply refuse to enact the policies proscribed by this law. State nullification sorta died out after 13A, but he wants to bring it back.

Kinda like him telling Justice what laws NOT to enforce. Still no outcry there either.

[StrangeSox]

Kinda like him telling Justice what laws NOT to enforce. Still no outcry there either.

 

The federal executive has leeway in that regard, as the majority in Monday's AZ immigration ruling points out. States, however, do not have the authority to nullify federal laws.

 

Nor does this explain or excuse DeMint's attacks on the court, calling the bill unconstitutional in spite of their ruling and advocating for actions that SC's in the past have ruled unconstitutional.

 

edit: or Rand Paul's attack on the legitimacy of the courts:

 

"Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be 'constitutional' does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional. While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right," Sen. Rand Paul said.

Edited June 28, 2012 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

By the way, another bright spot here is that I should get a $200 rebate check this year from my Health Insurer in August. Yay money!

[mmmmmbeeer]

But many of them wouldn't support Romney. That could change now.

 

 

By voting for the guy who created the prototype?

 

Politically speaking, this decision hurts Romney's campaign because his only means of justifying Romneycare while being against Obamacare, despite them being essentially the same program, was that Romneycare was constitutional under MA constitutional law. With SCOTUS declaring Obamacare constitutional, there is basically nothing different between Romneycare and Obamacare.

 

 

mrnn

[Balta1701]

By voting for the guy who created the prototype?

 

Politically speaking, this decision hurts Romney's campaign because his only means of justifying Romneycare while being against Obamacare, despite them being essentially the same program, was that Romneycare was constitutional under MA constitutional law. With SCOTUS declaring Obamacare constitutional, there is basically nothing different between Romneycare and Obamacare.

 

 

mrnn

Bah, no one's going to pay that much attention unless Obama makes that a feature of his debate defense. Romney still felt it fully appropriate to go out today and reiterate that on day 1 he'll repeal the full bill without saying what he would do instead, which is all he's said for the last year.

[StrangeSox]

Bah, no one's going to pay that much attention unless Obama makes that a feature of his debate defense. Romney still felt it fully appropriate to go out today and reiterate that on day 1 he'll repeal the full bill without saying what he would do instead, which is all he's said for the last year.

 

He'd also make the most popular components, guaranteed issue, community rating and elimination of lifetime caps, part of his solution. But without a mandate. And less government involvement.

[southsider2k5]

By voting for the guy who created the prototype?

 

Politically speaking, this decision hurts Romney's campaign because his only means of justifying Romneycare while being against Obamacare, despite them being essentially the same program, was that Romneycare was constitutional under MA constitutional law. With SCOTUS declaring Obamacare constitutional, there is basically nothing different between Romneycare and Obamacare.

 

 

mrnn

 

I have to laugh at this keeping coming up, when Obama was given universal praise by the left for switching positions on gay marriage. Romney has obviously switched positions here, just like Obama did.

[Cknolls]

It doesnt matter the justification, they are just semantics for the law professors to argue about.

 

What matters is the end result, Congress has extremely broad powers to basically do whatever it wants. This ruling does not change that.

 

 

Like through budget reconciliation? This being a tax and all.

[StrangeSox]

I have to laugh at this keeping coming up, when Obama was given universal praise by the left for switching positions on gay marriage. Romney has obviously switched positions here, just like Obama did.

 

Universal praise, except the criticism by me and others on this board for taking so god damned long to come to this position.

 

Romney has also not disowned Romneycare, he's making a federalism argument. It's not exactly analogous.

[Balta1701]

The word choices in Kennedy's dissent suggests that it might well have been written as a majority opinion prior to a flip by Roberts. It even refers to the arguments of Justice Ginsberg as being from "The dissent".

[CrimsonWeltall]

I have to laugh at this keeping coming up, when Obama was given universal praise by the left for switching positions on gay marriage. Romney has obviously switched positions here, just like Obama did.

 

Because making a slight shift from pro-civil unions to pro-gay marriage is similar to crapping on *your own idea*.

[StrangeSox]

The word choices in Kennedy's dissent suggests that it might well have been written as a majority opinion prior to a flip by Roberts. It even refers to the arguments of Justice Ginsberg as being from "The dissent".

 

David Bernstein on Volokh was conspiracy-mongering on that early on.

 

Two problems. First, Ginsberg's opinion is a partial concurrence and partial dissent and is listed as such. She dissented from Roberts on the Commerce Clause section while the STAK dissent agreed with him. Second, were the STAK staffers too incompetent to do a "find and replace?"

 

This is just being used to feed the "Obama bullied Roberts into this decision" narrative.

[Cknolls]

The federal executive has leeway in that regard, as the majority in Monday's AZ immigration ruling points out. States, however, do not have the authority to nullify federal laws.

 

Nor does this explain or excuse DeMint's attacks on the court, calling the bill unconstitutional in spite of their ruling and advocating for actions that SC's in the past have ruled unconstitutional.

 

edit: or Rand Paul's attack on the legitimacy of the courts:

 

 

So Romney wins and tells HHS fuggedaboudit. Tells IRS not to collect the "penalty".

[Balta1701]

Because making a slight shift from pro-civil unions to pro-gay marriage is similar to crapping on *your own idea*.

Bah, if he wants to be angry about Obama for changing positions, feel free to let him be, because anyone who take the position that politicians should never change positions on anything of major importance is not only being silly, but will never find a politician they can cast a vote for.

 

Mittens changed his position and thinks his own accomplishment was terrible. Don't care that he changed position. Care a lot that he has turned his back on a very effective bill.

[NorthSideSox72]

I think this could fire up some of the far right wing that was tepid on Romney.

 

This...

 

By voting for the guy who created the prototype?

 

Politically speaking, this decision hurts Romney's campaign because his only means of justifying Romneycare while being against Obamacare, despite them being essentially the same program, was that Romneycare was constitutional under MA constitutional law. With SCOTUS declaring Obamacare constitutional, there is basically nothing different between Romneycare and Obamacare.

 

mrnn

 

The voters on the far right are voting against Obama, not for Romney, and this won't help that cause since it just reinforces one of Romney's own policies.

 

[StrangeSox]

So Romney wins and tells HHS fuggedaboudit. Tells IRS not to collect the "penalty".

He has some ability to that, yes. It's essentially what happened with the EPA under Bush.

[Balta1701]

He has some ability to that, yes. It's essentially what happened with the EPA under Bush.

We see a similar effect when the IRS chooses which tax-cheats to actually use its enforcement efforts against.

[StrangeSox]

Upset about today's SCOTUS decision? Want to leave the U.S.? Here's a list of other industrialized countries without universal healthcare: