3 of 5
3
Conservative Supreme Court Irony
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:03 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 04 April 2012 11:55 AM
Bryan - 04 April 2012 11:41 AM
TimB - 04 April 2012 11:23 AM

Brian: “Actually we don’t all need healthcare…”

We are all subject to the possibility of needing healthcare at any given moment.

Likewise with hammers, global positioning devices, mouthwash, toilet paper and shoes.

Things we might need at any given moment isn’t a particularly good limiting criterion.

Society does not feel obligated to provide you with a hammer, global positioning device, mouthwash, toilet paper and shoes whenever you happen to need it.  But if you don’t have medical insurance, and are suddenly struck by lightning and survive, you will be given healthcare at the expense of the rest of us

What society feels obligated to do doesn’t seem like a very good limiting criterion, either.  It seems very subjective.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:07 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 04 April 2012 12:02 PM

Brian: “Could you conclusion perhaps be colored by your political bias?”

Of course, as is yours, I would imagine.

I’ve been resting my argument on the law and the arguments.  If you can find a bias in either of those approaches then I’d appreciate having it pointed out.  Justice Breyer flubbed his exposition of the law.  Defense counsel offered a confused defense (tax?  penalty?  Whichever might work at the moment!) and drew a blank when asked for a limiting principle.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 04 April 2012 12:03 PM
TimB - 04 April 2012 11:55 AM
Bryan - 04 April 2012 11:41 AM
TimB - 04 April 2012 11:23 AM

Brian: “Actually we don’t all need healthcare…”

We are all subject to the possibility of needing healthcare at any given moment.

Likewise with hammers, global positioning devices, mouthwash, toilet paper and shoes.

Things we might need at any given moment isn’t a particularly good limiting criterion.

Society does not feel obligated to provide you with a hammer, global positioning device, mouthwash, toilet paper and shoes whenever you happen to need it.  But if you don’t have medical insurance, and are suddenly struck by lightning and survive, you will be given healthcare at the expense of the rest of us

What society feels obligated to do doesn’t seem like a very good limiting criterion, either.  It seems very subjective.

So like Justice Scalia, do you propose that we not provide emergency medical care to anyone in need?  Regardless of the wording “feel the need”, we do and will continue to provide emergency healthcare to persons who don’t have medical insurance. 

The B.S. about needing a principal to guide decisions on limiting federal power in the healthcare case is at odds with the decision that apparently no principal to limit police power is needed to do strip searches any time anyone is taken to jail.

Any 99%ers who engage in peaceful protests this summer should wear clean underwear and check their modesty at the jailhouse door.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 04 April 2012 12:19 PM

So like Justice Scalia, do you propose that we not provide emergency medical care to anyone in need?

Like Justice Scalia, I see no mandate for such in the Constitution.  Thus any decisions touching the provision of medical care to anyone who needs it fall to the states or to individuals, in accordance with the 10th Amendment.

Regardless of the wording “feel the need”, we do and will continue to provide emergency healthcare to persons who don’t have medical insurance.

Current law prohibits hospitals from refusing emergency care.  The problems with one law do not serve as a sufficient justification for ignoring constitutional restrictions on proposed solutions.  Every state, if it chose, could implement something like RomneyCare without running afoul of the Commerce Clause. 

The B.S. about needing a principal to guide decisions on limiting federal power in the healthcare case is at odds with the decision that apparently no principal to limit police power is needed to do strip searches any time anyone is taken to jail.

The limiting principle in the strip search case is obvious:  only those who are put in jail are affected.

Any 99%ers who engage in peaceful protests this summer should wear clean underwear and check their modesty at the jailhouse door.

Fat chance of the clean underwear.  The delousing is probably the big benefit for OWS protestors.
http://weaselzippers.us/2011/11/06/occupy-portland-suffers-from-head-and-body-lice-outbreak/

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04
Bryan - 04 April 2012 12:07 PM
TimB - 04 April 2012 12:02 PM

Brian: “Could you conclusion perhaps be colored by your political bias?”

Of course, as is yours, I would imagine.

I’ve been resting my argument on the law and the arguments.  If you can find a bias in either of those approaches then I’d appreciate having it pointed out.  Justice Breyer flubbed his exposition of the law.  Defense counsel offered a confused defense (tax?  penalty?  Whichever might work at the moment!) and drew a blank when asked for a limiting principle.

Your bias is not evidenced by basing your view on “the law and the arguments” of the case.  It is evidenced by your deciding to limit your perspective of the matter to those factors, as if that is what primarily motivates/influences this group of Supreme Court Justices in deciding what they want to decide.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04

Brian:  “The limiting principle in the strip search case is obvious:  only those who are put in jail are affected.”

Then the limiting principle in the healthcare case is just as obvious:  only persons who may ever need healthcare are subject to the mandate to pay a health insurance premium.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  472
Joined  2007-06-08
Bryan - 04 April 2012 12:31 PM

 
Current law prohibits hospitals from refusing emergency care.

Is that mandate unconstitutional too?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04

Brian: “...Every state, if it chose, could implement something like RomneyCare without running afoul of the Commerce Clause. “

The Court has had numerous previous instances of affirming Federal power under the interstate commerce clause.  If they use it now to justify striking down a law, they could as easily interpret it to support the law.  My over-riding point is that they are acting from a partisan stance.  Whenever there is a partisan issue for them to decide, we all know who the 4 Justices will be on each side of the issue, and who the conservative leaning deciding Justice will be.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 04 April 2012 12:34 PM

Your bias is not evidenced by basing your view on “the law and the arguments” of the case.  It is evidenced by your deciding to limit your perspective of the matter to those factors, as if that is what primarily motivates/influences this group of Supreme Court Justices in deciding what they want to decide.

It sounds like you’re suggesting that the law and the arguments about the law are minor aspects of ruling on the law.  That seems counterintuitive.  I hope you’ll clarify.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 01:01 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 04 April 2012 12:39 PM

Brian:  “The limiting principle in the strip search case is obvious:  only those who are put in jail are affected.”

Then the limiting principle in the healthcare case is just as obvious:  only persons who may ever need healthcare are subject to the mandate to pay a health insurance premium.

Great.  It’s about time we started forcing the Chinese to buy American health insurance.

Seriously, don’t you think it’s important at all to consider what part of the Constitution provides the relevant authority in each case?  Or the nature of the government power involved?  Ruling as you wish on the search issue increases federal government power over the states.  Ruling as you wish on health care likewise increases federal government power over the states.  No state is forced to search detainees on the basis of the ruling.  The Commerce Clause ruling would make federal government power effectively unlimited on the basis of what you’ve written.  Food affects people’s health.  So it follows that the federal governement should have power over what you eat and every other activity that affects the cost of health care to society.  Your attempts to find a limiting principle simply aren’t serious (I don’t mean that you don’t offer them sincerely, just that they can’t stand up to scrutiny).  If coming up with a limiting principle was as easy as you seem to think then why didn’t defense counsel offer an example?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 01:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
Pragmatic Naturalist - 04 April 2012 12:41 PM
Bryan - 04 April 2012 12:31 PM

 
Current law prohibits hospitals from refusing emergency care.

Is that mandate unconstitutional too?

EMTALA is apparently an issue of federal government strings attached to federal government funding (Medicare, Medicaid).  That’s not to say it’s automatically constitutional (as it resembles an unlawful taking of property); but what’s clear is the lack of any attempt to justify EMTALA under the Commerce Clause.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04

Brian: ” ...Food affects people’s health.  So it follows that the federal governement should have power over what you eat and every other activity that affects the cost of health care to society… “

The government already has some power over what we eat.  There are regulations in place, that, hopefully, protect us from unhealthy pracitices by food producers and distributors.  But the argument that the healthcare bill will lead to the federal government mandating that we eat brocolli is specious, as Congress would not pass such a law.  Congress will not pass a law that all citizens must eat right and exercise.

And OTOH there are already laws in place that have been passed against drugs of abuse that can influence the cost of healthcare to society.  Where is the “limiting principle” on these laws?

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 01:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  3349
Joined  2007-11-21
TimB - 04 April 2012 01:25 PM

Brian: ” ...Food affects people’s health.  So it follows that the federal governement should have power over what you eat and every other activity that affects the cost of health care to society… “

The government already has some power over what we eat.  There are regulations in place, that, hopefully, protect us from unhealthy pracitices by food producers and distributors.  But the argument that the healthcare bill will lead to the federal government mandating that we eat brocolli is specious,

That argument is specious—but that’s not the argument.  It isn’t that the health care law leads to those things.  It is that the Constitutional justification for the health care law serves as a broad justification for just about anything the government wants.  And if the Constitution was designed to create a limited federal government then the Court will have completed a reversal of the intent of the document with its systematic interpretation in favor of expanded federal power.

as Congress would not pass such a law.  Congress will not pass a law that all citizens must eat right and exercise.

It’s important whether the Congress has the power to write such a law and have it enforced by the executive branch whether or not the government would actually do such a thing.  It is the difference between being a nation of laws and a nation under an autocratic system of government.

And OTOH there are already laws in place that have been passed against drugs of abuse that can influence the cost of healthcare to society.  Where is the “limiting principle” on these laws?

If any of those laws are justified based on the cost of health care (and the Commerce Clause) then please identify them (along with the justification).  Otherwise I’ll take the challenge as a red herring.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 02:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04

...And OTOH there are already laws in place that have been passed against drugs of abuse that can influence the cost of healthcare to society.  Where is the “limiting principle” on these laws?

Brian: “If any of those laws are justified based on the cost of health care (and the Commerce Clause) then please identify them (along with the justification).  Otherwise I’ll take the challenge as a red herring.”

The federal enforcement of the drug laws are justified by the Fed power over interstate commerce.  Hence the feds bust medical marijuana distributors in California, despite state law allowing it.

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 April 2012 02:29 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2740
Joined  2011-11-04

Brian: “...It (the argument) is that the Constitutional justification for the health care law serves as a broad justification for just about anything the government wants…”

Only if the Supreme Court decides to interpret thusly in any given case that comes before it.  Where I believe that you are deluding yourself is in believing that the Justices are motivated by philosophical concepts such as the Constitution limiting the power of the government, moreso than by their personal partisan proclivities. Otherwise, how is it that of the 9 justices, each of whom we can assume are extraordinarily intelligent (some more than others), can so consistently be adamantly split in partisan decisions with the same 4 on one side, and the same 5 on the other?

 Signature 

“Our lives are not our own. From womb to tomb… We are bound to others, past and present… And by each crime and every kindness… We birth our future.”  Sonmi, 2144.

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 5
3