How to Protect Yourself From Obamacare

[heironymouspasparagus]

I disagree.  I think it serves to highlight the ridiculousness of 2700 page bills.  

Why didn't the Solicitor General point out this was incorrect?  Dereliction of duty?  Why aren't you as hard on him?

I love Scalia's humor.  If you think the justices are supposed to be humorless or less human than the rest of us, no idea what to tell you.

From your source:

Yeah...I like the way he cuts through the BS and is very blunt much of the time.

Absolutely ridiculous to have 2700 pages, but that is the bill they have to work with.  (Kind of like when Rumsfeld said that was the army he had to fight with....)

Congress has the luxury of not really having to know anything much at all (i.e. Jim Inhofe), but no matter what kind of nonsense they put into a bill, it IS the law of the land - by definition.  And there is ONE entity that is charged with the responsibility of interpreting whether those laws are consistent with the US Constitution - by definition.  And if they are going to make the decision one way or the other that the law is valid, then I submit they cannot do that without knowing what is in the law.  Which means someone up there is gonna have to know how to read....

Maybe the best way for them to approach it would be to look at the sum total of all laws passed in say, the first 50 years of the Republic, and make the determination that any law that exceeds the average size of those from that time is invalid because it is bigger than the founders intended, so reject completely and force Congress to pass shorter bills.  Could use the average number of pages, or average number of words, or whatever metric they choose.

[Conan71]

I honestly don't think a judge should crack jokes in a trial.  In fact, I am pretty sure if that happened in a murder trial they would get a new trial.  I don't think I should hold all Supreme Court Justices to a lesser standard.  And yes, NOBODY corrected him.

Not true.  Happens in many court rooms.  If the joke were about the defendant or victim then I'm sure it would result in a re-trial.  Otherwise, humor helps break up the tension.

[Conan71]

Yeah...I like the way he cuts through the BS and is very blunt much of the time.

Absolutely ridiculous to have 2700 pages, but that is the bill they have to work with.  (Kind of like when Rumsfeld said that was the army he had to fight with....)

Congress has the luxury of not really having to know anything much at all (i.e. Jim Inhofe), but no matter what kind of nonsense they put into a bill, it IS the law of the land - by definition.  And there is ONE entity that is charged with the responsibility of interpreting whether those laws are consistent with the US Constitution - by definition.  And if they are going to make the decision one way or the other that the law is valid, then I submit they cannot do that without knowing what is in the law.  Which means someone up there is gonna have to know how to read....

Maybe the best way for them to approach it would be to look at the sum total of all laws passed in say, the first 50 years of the Republic, and make the determination that any law that exceeds the average size of those from that time is invalid because it is bigger than the founders intended, so reject completely and force Congress to pass shorter bills.  Could use the average number of pages, or average number of words, or whatever metric they choose.

I really didn't have a problem with the idea that the law clerks would read the content.  How many Congresspeople read the entire original 2700 pages?  They left that to their clerks as well.

Unfortunately, I don't think SCOTUS can mandate limits on bill size, it would be something Congress needs to pass to limit bill sizes.  You and I know self-policing by Congress is always self-serving.  With the exception of related laws, I don't think we should have sausage bills.  Every bill should stand alone and be voted up or down on one single act's merits, not a bunch of "gotcha" crap fleas attached that completely politicizes a bill.

[Townsend]

Apparently this is not being taken as seriously as other cases...

[Gaspar]

The Supremes like to have a good time.

[nathanm]

Unfortunately, I don't think SCOTUS can mandate limits on bill size, it would be something Congress needs to pass to limit bill sizes.  You and I know self-policing by Congress is always self-serving.  With the exception of related laws, I don't think we should have sausage bills.  Every bill should stand alone and be voted up or down on one single act's merits, not a bunch of "gotcha" crap fleas attached that completely politicizes a bill.

I agree. Unfortunately, I haven't seen a reasonable metric yet. We seem to be (a bit) too strict here in Oklahoma.

[guido911]

Not true.  Happens in many court rooms....Otherwise, humor helps break up the tension.

Yep. No comment on the deleted part. I remember being tapped to read part of a deposition transcript into evidence once from the witness chair. The deponent was FEMALE with lots of interesting questions I had to answer as that person. The court room, including the judge, got lots of laughs over it. I laughed too--during a recess.

Let the jokes on this fly...

[Teatownclown]

[guido911]

The Fifth CCA had an interesting day.

A federal appeals court is striking back after President Obama cautioned the Supreme Court against overturning the health care overhaul and warned that such an act would be "unprecedented."

A three-judge panel for the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals on Tuesday ordered the Justice Department to explain by Thursday whether the administration believes judges have the power to strike down a federal law.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/#ixzz1r2zfVHG5

Homework's due on Thursday...

[Teatownclown]

The Fifth CCA had an interesting day.

Homework's due on Thursday...

BFD....POTUS OBAMA should ignore that turd.

[Gaspar]

BFD....POTUS OBAMA should ignore that turd.

Why?  He's not a King.

[we vs us]

Useful commentary by Jeffrey Toobin on what, exactly, Obama was saying.  Turns out there's a strong precedent (more than 75 years) for the SC to allow things like Obamacare to stand:

"Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government."

Without that precedent, the SC becomes a sort of super-legislature, and can subvert the elected authority of Congress.  And that's an important point to be made, too . . . while this is popularly known as Obamacare, and it has become a handy political cudgel against the President, it is not solely his bill.  And arguably, by the time it was passed, it was more Congress's bill than anyone's.

[Gaspar]

Useful commentary by Jeffrey Toobin on what, exactly, Obama was saying.  Turns out there's a strong precedent (more than 75 years) for the SC to allow things like Obamacare to stand:

"Acts of Congress, like the health-care law, are presumed to be constitutional, and it is—or should be—a grave and unusual step for unelected, unaccountable, life-tenured judges to overrule the work of the democratically elected branches of government."

Without that precedent, the SC becomes a sort of super-legislature, and can subvert the elected authority of Congress.  And that's an important point to be made, too . . . while this is popularly known as Obamacare, and it has become a handy political cudgel against the President, it is not solely his bill.  And arguably, by the time it was passed, it was more Congress's bill than anyone's.

This has only been the exercised duty of the Suprime Court since about 1803.  Even President Obama's former Constitutional Law students are alarmed at his statements.

http://truthonthemarket.com/

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to "overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."  Putting aside the "strong majority" nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas.  Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who "famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago":  "[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?"

I actually know the answer to that question.  It's no (well, technically yes...he didn't).  President Obama taught "Con Law III" at Chicago.  Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old "structural Constitution" stuff — is covered in "Con Law I" (or at least it was when I was a student).  Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.  (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn't seem too concerned about "an unelected group of people" overturning a "duly constituted and passed law" when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.)  Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President's "unprecedented, extraordinary" remarks.

[we vs us]

This has only been the exercised duty of the Suprime Court since about 1803.  Even President Obama's former Constitutional Law students are alarmed at his statements.

http://truthonthemarket.com/

Now you know how I felt this morning when I read in the Wall Street Journal that my own constitutional law professor had stated that it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" for the Supreme Court to "overturn[] a law [i.e., the Affordable Care Act] that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."  Putting aside the "strong majority" nonsense (the deeply unpopular Affordable Care Act got through the Senate with the minimum number of votes needed to survive a filibuster and passed 219-212 in the House), saying that it would be "unprecedented" and "extraordinary" for the Supreme Court to strike down a law that violates the Constitution is like saying that Kansas City is the capital of Kansas.  Thus, a Wall Street Journal editorial queried this about the President who "famously taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago":  "[D]id he somehow not teach the historic case of Marbury v. Madison?"

I actually know the answer to that question.  It's no (well, technically yes...he didn't).  President Obama taught "Con Law III" at Chicago.  Judicial review, federalism, the separation of powers — the old "structural Constitution" stuff — is covered in "Con Law I" (or at least it was when I was a student).  Con Law III covers the Fourteenth Amendment.  (Oddly enough, Prof. Obama didn't seem too concerned about "an unelected group of people" overturning a "duly constituted and passed law" when we were discussing all those famous Fourteenth Amendment cases – Roe v. Wade, Griswold v. Connecticut, Romer v. Evans, etc.)  Of course, even a Con Law professor focusing on the Bill of Rights should know that the principle of judicial review has been alive and well since 1803, so I still feel like my educational credentials have been tarnished a bit by the President's "unprecedented, extraordinary" remarks.

A law isn't somehow less of a law if it passes with a simple majority.  It's still a law.  Vote counts are irrelevant.  But it's worth noting that a filibuster proof majority in the Senate actually goes against his case.  60 out of 100 affirmative votes is a major achievement and absolutely counts as a "strong majority".

I found Toobin explained Obama's statement well, and put it in a specific context where it actually made sense.  It's not a blind powergrab, it has historical reasoning behind it.   

[Gaspar]

A law isn't somehow less of a law if it passes with a simple majority.  It's still a law.  Vote counts are irrelevant.  But it's worth noting that a filibuster proof majority in the Senate actually goes against his case.  60 out of 100 affirmative votes is a major achievement and absolutely counts as a "strong majority".

I found Toobin explained Obama's statement well, and put it in a specific context where it actually made sense.  It's not a blind powergrab, it has historical reasoning behind it.   

Again, it has nothing to do with "majority, simple majority" it has everything to do with constitutionality.  That's what the SC is there for.