Obamacare is here to stay

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

I guess I was not shocked to see it ruled as perfectly fine and basically redefine what 'the states' means in law. Roberts had to invent a fairy tale the 1st time that was so ludicrous and absurd to the point it being literally insulting and plain that it was no mistake, so its not a surprise he would repeat his take on it. Some thought he would correct his previous mistake, but he is all in, a progressive agent its plain to see.

I can hardly wait until insurance rates supersede any mitigating subsidy and you are forced to fork over your living money to the govt mandated insurance for healthcare you still can't afford to use. Oh but not to worry, our stalwart reps have plans 'that are much better than Obamacare', they are just waiting for GOP unicorns to fart super majority rainbows before they actually reveal one, much less introduce one to be voted on.

I say lets roll the clock back to 1812, and let the Canadians burn DC, and NOT rebuild it again.

[HiTemp]

Hard to argue with that logic.

SCOTUS just announced their decision on gay marriage - what a surprise


Mr. Chief Justice filed a dissenting opinion in which he wrote the following:

But this Court is not a legislature. Whether same-sex marriage is a good idea should
be of no concern to us. Under the Constitution, judges have power to say what
the law is, not what it should be. The people who ratified the Constitution authorized
courts to exercise “neither force nor will but merely judgment.”
The Federalist No.
78, p. 465 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton)

Well where the fig was THIS little tidbit in BOTH of his Obamacare decisions? In this case the guy is saying that courts can either say the law is right or the law is wrong and that's it. No deciding what the law means, how the law should be employed, or how the law ought to read.

Just two days ago his decision was that "state" obviously must mean "state OR federal" because interpreting it strictly in terms of legal definition renders the act essentially meaningless BECAUSE only a few states established exchanges. So if all the states went along, the law means one thing; if they don't, "in this one instance," the law means something else and the effect of that interpretation is the exact same as Congress changing the law by adding two more words.

Roberts knows full well the courts don't work like the Federalist Papers promised they would. Abortion would not be "a right" if that was so, because nothing in the law AS WRITTEN allows for such a right. The infamous Doe v. Bolton decision that breathed all the life into Roe v. Wade is based on the SCOTUS majority determining as a court that the 14th Amendment prohibits states from making their own decisions on when or if an abortion is medically sound. Is that voting yea/nay on the law as written, or is that a court deciding whole hog the science of the issue (when life begins, what role a doctor plays in the decision) and applying that narrow viewpoint across the entire spectrum such that Georgia's law banning abortions now means it would ban the termination of something that wasn't alive in the first place, thus isn't banning any illegal activity.


Just when I thought I was over my low opinion of lawyers as a whole along comes this nitwit Roberts who seems to have a legal compass that moves with the slightest breeze like a windsock.

Here's what we need:

TERM LIMITS on Congess AND SCOTUS. Two terms and you're done. 2yrs for House, 4 yrs for Senate, 4 years for SCOTUS.
No more life appointments to ANY federal judiciary. One appointment, then you run for retention (second term) in office in a yes/no vote. Two terms and you're done.

I hope that some Second Amendment group seizes the legal principles of the gay marriage/14th Amendment application here and starts challenging some of these states like NY/NJ/MD on those principles of unequal application of law. This is the problem these courts cause.. they want to twist the law like a pretzel to conform to something they want, then bend it back into a straight stick when something they don't want seeks to apply their same logic to itself. Oh no, we can only tell you how a law ought to work in SOME cases... in others, we have to hide behind what Alexander Hamilton said about the courts only have so much power.

Ya gotta love it when the idiot curtain parts to reveal the idiot!

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Of course the court would be irrelevant in the case of obamacare if there was any political opposition to it, but now that its been implemented, its another entitlement and the GOP weasels don't dare take way anything, or they may get bad press.

I agree, at one time the courts were set up as such to prevent being politicized, but they were anyway, so let treat it political and term limit everyone in govt.

[HiTemp]

I have an idea... how about a law that makes any decision of the SCOTUS that results in at least two dissenting opinions citing the majority opinion as unconstitutional go before the legislature again for final review and the President for signature or not.

Basically, if it's the job of the legislature to pass a law, they do that, it's challenged - then the courts should not have final say on what the legislature meant. They might say, it appears like the legislature meant this (like Roberts with Obamacare Rescue II), but it's possible they DIDN'T mean that at all. The only appropriate thing to do in that case is to remand the law back to the legislature for clarification, just as they remand cases where a lower court erred back to them for reconsideration in light of the SCOTUS' interpretation of law.

When a case is before them concerning an evidentiary issue, they don't say the lower court messed up therefore the guy is guilty or not; they say the lower court erred in allowing this particular evidence and order it back to that court where the prosecution has the option to try another prosecution with the new, modified evidence ruling in hand.

I had to laugh when I read a headline today about 2016 prez candidates hitting the trail harping on Obamacare. Another loser. NOBODY believes the R's are going to do a damn thing about it; they had plenty of time if they were serious and we've now seen their true colors. Just like the Dems, they are in it knee deep for special interest money, power, and influence and screw the common man.

Town hall meetings around here are growing frostier by the day. Used to be maybe one guy would stand up and really let the congresscritter have it. Polite smiles and he was quietly escorted to the margins. Now it's ten or fiften of them and they really have support from most of the audience, especially when they press for an answer to why you (or your party) promised X and pursued Y. The last one I went to, a perfectly good rant was ended by the timing bell just as the guy was getting good. His last question was, "If you don't have any answers for us then maybe you shouldn't be there representing us. (DINGDINGDINGDINGDING)

During the short presser after the public exchange, not one reporter followed up on that. They were more concerned with if he's supporting Jeb or Mario, and what kind of chances did he think Hillary has.

Voting. It used to be a right worth dying for. Now it's as useless as signing both copies of the dinner check - theirs and yours.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

No need to make a new law, if the legislature would exercise its power and duty, the court would not have had to rule. The only one with credibility on this is Ted Cruz who actually bucked the GOP and filibustered the cromibus that funded Obamacare.

[HiTemp]

Or the Congress could merely take up the Defense of Marriage Act again and pass it with language expressing that, in spite of the SCOTUS attempting to put into their mouths what they never said, clearly define the limits of the 14th Amendment as it applies to that law. The effect would be to have a law that renders the SCOTUS decision completely useless as a newer, legislated law would then apply. But it would take sand to do that and the only 10lb sack of it in Washington is in Cruz's office. The rest of them would only get off their ass if there was campaign money in it for them.

I'm rethinking my term limit proposal. I'm thinking it would be better serving ONE term only and then they're out. And no retirement, as legislating was never meant to be a career, just an opportunity for the government to "borrow" well educated (and supposedly honorable) men from throughout society that would work together for everyone's mutual benefit. This partisan hack sandwich we have up there now is about useless far as I can see.

[Grug - American Neanderthal]

Honestly the system is so corrupt I doubt even that would fix it. They would just empower themselves further to get rich quicker, they already can use insider trading. But at least it would limit the decade long dynasties built by these senators and congressmen.

[HiTemp]

I think it would take a lot of the money out of the equation and it would certainly put an end to the dynastic thing that has infected the Senate long ago. One term Senator, that's all you get. No more of this senority equals key committee posts etc. Divide them up among a whole group of Freshman Senators, cast lots if they have to, then get on with it. No cushy lifetime 100% salary b.s. You work there 6 years then go home, back to what you were doing. Reps the same thing only 2 years.

If all that money couldn't buy reelections, where would it go? How would it buy favors?

Imagine a Senate with no McCain, no Boxer, no McConnell, no Schumer, etc. Maybe when the sacred cows don't have a locked in power position, more good people might take a stab at it, knowing they wouldn't have to oppose an entrenched fixture like a McCain in an election. They'd basically be running against a field of others who've never held the office.

And no, Hillary can't go finish out her 6 year term.