#Pubs, defeated in Congress, turn to courts
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
http://tinyurl.com/y9e5f3b
By Ben Pershing
Sunday, January 3, 2010; A03
Opponents of the health-care reform bill are not giving up the fight, and
some think their last, best hope to halt the legislation lies not in the
U.S. Capitol but in the court across the street.
A small but vocal contingent of legal scholars and many Republican
lawmakers argue that the measures passed by both chambers are
unconstitutional and will be ruled so by the Supreme Court. Their primary
target: the individual mandate, which requires people to get health
insurance or pay a financial penalty of at least 2 percent of their
income to the government.
Although it would affect only those who do not get insurance from their
employer, Medicare or Medicaid, the mandate is a central component of
Democrats' reform plans, which operate under the assumption that bringing
everyone into the national insurance pool -- particularly young, healthy
people who do not have coverage -- will reduce premiums across the board.
By adding millions of new customers, the mandate is also designed to make
reform more palatable for insurance companies, which will face new
restrictions and requirements.
But some critics dismiss the economic merits, saying the bills would
force people to buy a particular product. Laws requiring drivers to carry
auto insurance do the same thing, but people can choose not to own a car.
The health insurance mandate includes no such alternative.
"In the history of this country, the federal government has never
required every American to enter into a contract with a private company,"
said Randy Barnett, a professor of constitutional law at Georgetown
University Law Center.
Barnett and two co-authors made the case against the individual mandate
in a legal memorandum published by the conservative Heritage Foundation
in early December. To uphold the constitutionality of the individual
mandate, they argued, the Supreme Court would have to find that the
Constitution's Commerce Clause has "no limits."
"If Congress can mandate this, they can mandate anything," they wrote.
"Congress could require every American to buy a new Chevy Impala every
year, or pay a 'tax' equivalent to its blue book value, because such
purchases would stimulate commerce and repay government loans."
Democrats say the constitutionality argument is a stalking-horse for the
GOP's broader opposition to reform. On Dec. 23, the day before the Senate
passed its health-care bill, the chamber voted on a point of order raised
by Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.), who said the individual mandate made the
measure unconstitutional. His effort was rejected along party lines, 60
to 39.
During the floor debate, Sen. Orrin G. Hatch (R-Utah) said the Senate
"cannot ignore this question by simply punting it to the courts."
Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), a co-author of the bill,
responded, "We have looked at this question seriously and concluded that
the penalty is constitutional. And those who study constitutional law as
a line of work have drawn that same conclusion."
Indeed, a number of legal scholars have come forward to rebut
conservatives' arguments, saying the individual mandate easily passes
constitutional muster.
"There are many close constitutional questions. But this is not among
them," Erwin Chemerinsky, dean of the law school at the University of
California at Irvine, wrote in a recent online debate on the subject.
"Congress clearly has the legal authority to require individuals to have
health insurance."
Conservatives make two primary arguments against the mandate. The first
is that an individual's inactivity -- in this case, the failure to buy
health insurance -- does not qualify as interstate commerce, and thus
Congress does not have the power to regulate it under the Commerce
Clause. The second is that the financial penalty the law would impose
goes beyond Congress's ability to lay and collect taxes.
"All of these arguments don't work, but they're interesting to debate,"
said Jack M. Balkin, a constitutional law professor at Yale Law School.
Defenders of the mandate point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that
Congress may regulate "activities that 'substantially affect' interstate
commerce" and that individuals' purchasing (or not purchasing) health
insurance clearly falls within that category. Besides, Balkin added,
"it's a really easy argument to show that this is a tax designed to
promote the general welfare. . . . The Commerce Clause issue is
irrelevant."
Florida Attorney General Bill McCollum (R), a candidate for governor,
announced that his office will "conduct a review of the
constitutionality" of the individual mandate. Conservatives have advanced
other constitutional arguments against the reform plans, including that
regulating insurance companies represents the illegal seizure of private
property and that the Senate bill's excise tax on high-cost health plans
impermissibly affects some states more than others.
Both sides say that if a bill becomes law, it will quickly be challenged
in federal court.
"I don't think you'll be able to control the throng of test cases,"
Barnett said, adding that it is "unavoidable" the Supreme Court will
eventually take up the individual mandate issue.
Balkin agreed that the law will be challenged, but he said the Supreme
Court is unlikely to take the case; even if it does, it "will not
overturn the individual mandate."
The mandate has been a source of controversy not just on the right.
Barack Obama criticized the idea during the 2008 Democratic presidential
primaries, leaving it out of his reform proposal while Hillary Rodham
Clinton included it in her campaign's health-care plan. More recently,
influential liberal blogger Markos Moulitsas argued that it was
"unconscionable to force people to buy a product from a private insurer
that enjoys sanctioned monopoly status."
But conservatives have focused on the constitutionality question. In
October, a reporter from a conservative Web site asked House Speaker
Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.): "Where specifically does the Constitution grant
Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate?"
Pelosi responded: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"
edi...@netpath.net
gun control in Congress, you liberals tried suing gunmakers broke.
When you just didn't want a power plant in your rich neighborhood, you
sued over its (alleged) environmental effects.
Now, we're going to do exactly the same thing!
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
> Why not? You liberals taught us this strategy. When you couldn't win
> gun control in Congress, you liberals tried suing gunmakers broke. When
> you just didn't want a power plant in your rich neighborhood, you sued
> over its (alleged) environmental effects. Now, we're going to do exactly
> the same thing!
Oh, good. So we don't have to listen to any more whines from you about
how evil the courts are...
Catfish Hunter
wrote:
> Some foes of health-care bill hope courts will stop legislation
Clearly, Zepp is worried that this bill will be struck down by the
courts. Poor baby is now whining about the courts. Typical.
The fact is, liberals are the same as dicators, they just hate the
fact that we have Constitution. The hate the fact that the court may
FORCE them to follow rules..
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
> On Jan 3, 9:37 am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>> Some foes of health-care bill hope courts will stop legislation
>
> Clearly, Zepp is worried that this bill will be struck down by the
> courts. Poor baby is now whining about the courts. Typical.
Just laughing at the whiny Republicans who can't BELIEVE the country
doesn't want them to rule.
Since we don't know what the finished law is yet, they don't really have
any grounds for a suit yet. The courts can't address legislation that
still in process, you know.
>
> The fact is, liberals are the same as dicators, they just hate the fact
> that we have Constitution. The hate the fact that the court may FORCE
> them to follow rules..
>
Like that a bill passed by the House and Senate and signed by the
President is law unless found in violation of the constitution? Thought
you right wingers didn't like courts interpreting the constitution.
Gandalf Grey
"5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:XNudndH1XPX-Sd3W...@posted.carinet...
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:14:40 -0800, Catfish Hunter wrote:
>
>> On Jan 3, 9:37 am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
>>> Some foes of health-care bill hope courts will stop legislation
>>
>> Clearly, Zepp is worried that this bill will be struck down by the
>> courts. Poor baby is now whining about the courts. Typical.
>
> Just laughing at the whiny Republicans who can't BELIEVE the country
> doesn't want them to rule.
>
> Since we don't know what the finished law is yet, they don't really have
> any grounds for a suit yet. The courts can't address legislation that
> still in process, you know.
Shhh! The neoconfederates haven't had that one explained to them yet.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
Oh, it's all right. They won't believe it because a liberal said it.
Catfish Hunter
wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:14:40 -0800, Catfish Hunter wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:37 am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
> >> Some foes of health-care bill hope courts will stop legislation
>
> > Clearly, Zepp is worried that this bill will be struck down by the
> > courts. Poor baby is now whining about the courts. Typical.
>
> Just laughing at the whiny Republicans who can't BELIEVE the country
> doesn't want them to rule.
We are laughing at you ignorant liberals who are in the process of
passing a bill that America doesn't want, and the CRYING the law may
end up being challenged in the Supreme Court.
> Since we don't know what the finished law is yet, they don't really have
> any grounds for a suit yet. The courts can't address legislation that
> still in process, you know.
Notice that Zepp can't name the suit.
> > The fact is, liberals are the same as dicators, they just hate the fact
> > that we have Constitution. The hate the fact that the court may FORCE
> > them to follow rules..
>
> Like that a bill passed by the House and Senate and signed by the
> President is law unless found in violation of the constitution? Thought
> you right wingers didn't like courts interpreting the constitution.
We Americans don't like dicators telling us what to do.
> >> Pelosi responded: "Are you serious? Are you serious?"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Gandalf Grey
"Catfish Hunter" <workisafou...@hushmail.com> wrote in message
news:140b54a3-28f2-4e43...@o28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 3, 11:31 am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:14:40 -0800, Catfish Hunter wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:37 am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com> wrote:
> >> Some foes of health-care bill hope courts will stop legislation
>
> > Clearly, Zepp is worried that this bill will be struck down by the
> > courts. Poor baby is now whining about the courts. Typical.
>
> Just laughing at the whiny Republicans who can't BELIEVE the country
> doesn't want them to rule.
^ We are laughing at you ignorant liberals
While clapping yourself on the back at losing control of the country.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
On Jan 3, 11:31 am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:14:40 -0800, Catfish Hunter wrote:
> > On Jan 3, 9:37 am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
wrote:
> >> Some foes of health-care bill hope courts will stop legislation
>
> > Clearly, Zepp is worried that this bill will be struck down by the
> > courts. Poor baby is now whining about the courts. Typical.
>
> Just laughing at the whiny Republicans who can't BELIEVE the country
> doesn't want them to rule.
We are laughing at you ignorant liberals who are in the process of
passing a bill that America doesn't want, and the CRYING the law may
end up being challenged in the Supreme Court.
z-Poor Catty. The polls show that more people oppose the Senate bill
because it doesn't go far enough than oppose it because they are
Republican arm-crossers. A large majority of people want single-payer.
> Since we don't know what the finished law is yet, they don't really have
> any grounds for a suit yet. The courts can't address legislation that
> still in process, you know.
Notice that Zepp can't name the suit.
z-You mean, the suit that the Republicans are threatening to file and
have yet to discover they can't? That suit? You're right, bubbles: I
can't name it. Gosh, but you're a clever fellow.
> > The fact is, liberals are the same as dicators, they just hate the
fact
> > that we have Constitution. The hate the fact that the court may FORCE
> > them to follow rules..
>
> Like that a bill passed by the House and Senate and signed by the
> President is law unless found in violation of the constitution? Thought
> you right wingers didn't like courts interpreting the constitution.
We Americans don't like dicators telling us what to do.
Yes, you would much rather be one of the dictators. W made that clear
while he was president.
Mitchell Holman
a428-695...@j5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> Why not? You liberals taught us this strategy.
Modern Conservative: Someone who can take time out
from complaining about "frivilous lawsuits" (car rollovers,
toxins in food, exploding Pintos) to deluge the courts
with lawsuits over lunchboxes and Obamas birth certificate.
"Curtis Blain Storey was a security guard employed by Burns
International Security Services and assigned to a Sony plant
in Pennsylvania. He carried his lunchbox to work with a
Confederate flag sticker on it; he had two on his pickup
truck. One bumper sticker included the slogan, The South Was
Right, and the other proclaimed, Heritage Not Hate. These
stickers violated Sony's and Burns' zero tolerance policy
that prohibited displaying Confederate symbols as part of a
diversified hiring program. Storey, of course, refused to
remove the stickers and was terminated the next day. He filed
a discrimination complaint with the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission that alleged he was terminated based
on his national origin of Confederate Southern-American."
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4181/is_20050105/ai_n10066524/
nobody
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 10:32:50 -0800, Catfish Hunter wrote:
>
>On Jan 3, 11:31�am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>wrote:
>> On Sun, 03 Jan 2010 09:14:40 -0800, Catfish Hunter wrote:
>> > On Jan 3, 9:37�am, "5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>wrote:
>> >> Some foes of health-care bill hope courts will stop legislation
>>
>> > Clearly, Zepp is worried that this bill will be struck down by the
>> > courts. Poor baby is now whining about the courts. Typical.
>>
>> Just laughing at the whiny Republicans who can't BELIEVE the country
>> doesn't want them to rule.
>
>We are laughing at you ignorant liberals who are in the process of
>passing a bill that America doesn't want, and the CRYING the law may
>end up being challenged in the Supreme Court.
>
>z-Poor Catty. The polls show that more people oppose the Senate bill
>because it doesn't go far enough than oppose it because they are
>Republican arm-crossers. A large majority of people want single-payer.
"Large majority" 53% favor 46% oppose? Hardly a large majority. That
question is always asked as theoretical. Whenever the details of
specific plans are polled, support drops dramatically as people learn
how much it will hurt them. The current plan is 36% favor and 61%
oppose. Pretty sure you can that "a large majority"...
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/12/10/rel18h.pdf
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
Well, let's see what we have here bubbles: 53% is the LOWEST you could
find, and it's for a proposal that is considerably more radical than the
House bill.
You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the don't
want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it because it
doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
dacato
So you admit this is not about Health Care? This is about payback,
isn't it? Talk about America-hating!
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
It works for me... it works for everyone in my family and my circle
of friends... Just because the sysatem doesn't provide free health
care for lazy, irresponsible losers like Zepp doesn't mean that it
doesn't work....
nobody
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
It's based on a theoretical question with no specific plan. When
people learn the details of specific plans, the support is not that
high. BTW, you forgot to note that support for government-run health
care has dropped in the last six months.
>You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
>bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the don't
>want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it because it
>doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
And when we get it, it will be thanks to libs loons as yourself...
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
Actually, it's the opposite. When given specifics, such as public option,
or single-payer, support goes up. Your 53% was an exception.
>
>>You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
>>bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the don't
>>want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it because it
>>doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
>
> And when we get it, it will be thanks to libs loons as yourself...
That's like blaming Michaelangelo for making the Pieta just because some
nutcase took a hammer to it 400 years later.
nobody
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
I've provided proof, you've provided bluster...
>>
>>>You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
>>>bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the don't
>>>want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it because it
>>>doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
>>
>> And when we get it, it will be thanks to libs loons as yourself...
>
>That's like blaming Michaelangelo for making the Pieta just because some
>nutcase took a hammer to it 400 years later.
Libs such as you who voted these back-room dealing Dems are *directly*
responsible for what will happen to our healthcare system.
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
Oh, it's PROOF you want! Well, here you go: dozens of polls, most of
which back me up. Rasmussen doesn't, of course, but they're just a
nipple for right wingers.
>
>
>>>>You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
>>>>bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the
>>>>don't want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it because
>>>>it doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
>>>
>>> And when we get it, it will be thanks to libs loons as yourself...
>>
>>That's like blaming Michaelangelo for making the Pieta just because some
>>nutcase took a hammer to it 400 years later.
>
> Libs such as you who voted these back-room dealing Dems are *directly*
> responsible for what will happen to our healthcare system.
We can only hope.
nobody
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
It says "not found"....
>>
>>
>>>>>You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
>>>>>bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the
>>>>>don't want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it because
>>>>>it doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
>>>>
>>>> And when we get it, it will be thanks to libs loons as yourself...
>>>
>>>That's like blaming Michaelangelo for making the Pieta just because some
>>>nutcase took a hammer to it 400 years later.
>>
>> Libs such as you who voted these back-room dealing Dems are *directly*
>> responsible for what will happen to our healthcare system.
>
>We can only hope.
The truth comes out. You are in favor of taxing the hell out of the
average working person, cutting care to the elderly, and not fixing a
damn thing (cause that's pretty much what has been proposed).
5321 Dead, 454 since 1/20/09
So I see. Tiny Url. When it works, it's great...
OK, here:
www.wpasinglepayer.org/PollResults.html
www.healthcare-now.org/another-poll-shows-majority-support-for-single-
payer/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-
show_n_217175.html
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
>>>>>>bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the
>>>>>>don't want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it
>>>>>>because it doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
>>>>>
>>>>> And when we get it, it will be thanks to libs loons as yourself...
>>>>
>>>>That's like blaming Michaelangelo for making the Pieta just because
>>>>some nutcase took a hammer to it 400 years later.
>>>
>>> Libs such as you who voted these back-room dealing Dems are *directly*
>>> responsible for what will happen to our healthcare system.
>>
>>We can only hope.
>
> The truth comes out. You are in favor of taxing the hell out of the
> average working person, cutting care to the elderly, and not fixing a
> damn thing (cause that's pretty much what has been proposed).
Actually, that's what the Baucus bill wants. What I want is a
progressive tax, increased care to the elderly, and fixing a system that
has become an absolute disgrace.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
What Zepp really wants is a system that pays flor his health care
before the inevitable coronary hits him.
nobody
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
Nope. Not found.
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-
>show_n_217175.html
>>
Your cite proves exactly what I said. There is no specific plan being
asked about, just the theoretical question.
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>You're right when you say people don't want the Senate bill. It's a
>>>>>>>bunch of corporate garbage served up by corporate whores. But the
>>>>>>>don't want it for the reasons you imagine: they don't want it
>>>>>>>because it doesn't reform a fucked-up system that doesn't work.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And when we get it, it will be thanks to libs loons as yourself...
>>>>>
>>>>>That's like blaming Michaelangelo for making the Pieta just because
>>>>>some nutcase took a hammer to it 400 years later.
>>>>
>>>> Libs such as you who voted these back-room dealing Dems are *directly*
>>>> responsible for what will happen to our healthcare system.
>>>
>>>We can only hope.
>>
>> The truth comes out. You are in favor of taxing the hell out of the
>> average working person, cutting care to the elderly, and not fixing a
>> damn thing (cause that's pretty much what has been proposed).
>
>Actually, that's what the Baucus bill wants. What I want is a
>progressive tax, increased care to the elderly, and fixing a system that
>has become an absolute disgrace.
None of which will be accomplished by the mess that will come out and
be passed. Again, libs like you will be directly responsible for this
mess.
>
nobody
<yet even more Zippy-crickets.wav>