The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
NY TIMES: OBAMA MISCALCULATED LEGAL CHALLENGES TO OBAMACARE
Poast new message in this thread
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:25 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/24/us/past-denials-of-vulnerability-raise-health-act-what-ifs.html?hp
In passing the law two years ago, Democrats entertained little doubt that it was constitutional. The White House held a conference call to tell reporters that any legal challenge, as one Obama aide put it, “will eventually fail and shouldn’t be given too much credence in the press.”
Congress held no hearing on the plan’s constitutionality until nearly a year after it was signed into law. Representative Nancy Pelosi, then the House speaker, scoffed when a reporter asked what part of the Constitution empowered Congress to force Americans to buy health insurance. “Are you serious?” she asked with disdain. “Are you serious?”
Opponents of the health plan were indeed serious, and so was the Supreme Court, which devoted more time to hearing the case than to any other in decades. A White House that had assumed any challenge would fail now fears that a centerpiece of Mr. Obama’s presidency may be partly or completely overturned on a theory that it gave little credence. The miscalculation left the administration on the defensive as its legal strategy evolved over the last two years. |
 |
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:45 AM Author: vigorous grizzly headpube what did she say after that (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947102) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:45 AM Author: transparent hospital Are you serious? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947188) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 2:06 PM Author: fragrant chocolate garrison doctorate (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20948201) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 10:07 PM Author: vigorous grizzly headpube (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20951596) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:47 AM Author: vigorous grizzly headpube chicago is out? chicago is OUT? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947105) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:59 AM Author: vivacious degenerate twinkling uncleanness Greetings, That's what came to mind immediately to me, too. |
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:46 AM Author: infuriating locale Shitlib here,
I think it is funny how scared the OBama Administration is now that the SCOTUS is deciding the case. 2 years ago they were cocky as fuck basically telling the Repubs, "Come at me, Bro!"
Now that Fed Judges on both sides of the aisle have attacked the constitutionality of it, they ain't feelin' so sure. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:43 AM Author: Gay orchestra pit Which non-reptile judges have struck the law down?
By my count, both Silberman and Sutton as well as a couple of district court judges found the Affordable Care Act perfectly constitutional. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 1:59 PM Author: infuriating locale 11th Circuit (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20948156) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 4:56 PM Author: disrespectful trip locus selfie Hull was part of a GOP compromise deal with Clinton; nominate some ppl we like (including Hull) and we'll confirm who you want. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949339) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 5:00 PM Author: Galvanic Wine Stage Foreskin you're a silly faggot. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949372) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:47 AM Author: brass main people rehab It's pretty amazing that those of us how we're questioning the constitutionality of the mandate at the time of passage were dismissed as crackpots and that the mandate was obviously constitutional, such that a challenge wouldn't even be granted cert or if it were it would go down 8-1.
In retrospect this is clearly an open question and a real dividing line for the court to consider...whatever happens, the claims of it being obviously constitutional are complete bunk.
Of course that was all before anyone was aware that Holder is a semi-functioning retard |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:55 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/constitutional-law/bad-news-for-mail-robbers:-the-obvious-constitutionality-of-health-care-reform/
Andrew Koppelman, Tuesday, 26 April 2011 [View as PDF] The Supreme Court may be headed for its most dramatic intervention in American politics—and most flagrant abuse of its power—since Bush v. Gore. Challenges to President Obama’s health care law have started to work their way toward the Court and have been sustained by two Republican-appointed district judges. The constitutional objections are silly. However, because constitutional law is abstract and technical and because almost no one reads Supreme Court opinions, the conservative majority on the Court may feel emboldened to adopt these silly objections in order to crush the most important progressive legislation in decades. One lesson of Bush v. Gore, which did no harm at all to the Court’s prestige in the eyes of the public, is that if there are any limits to the Justices’ power, those limits are political: absent a likelihood of public outrage, they can do anything they want. So the fate of health care reform may depend on the constitutional issues being understood at least well enough for shame to have some effect on the Court. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:58 AM Author: brass main people rehab Yeah, hardly anyone will actually read tis opinion...it won't come under a microscope at all (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947117) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:23 AM Author: comical spot Lol this article is one of the most arrogant pieces of shitlibery I've ever seen. As if this jackass could say 'silly' any more often. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947391) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:30 AM Author: Startled shrine stock car Read moar Koppelman, he's a complete hack who just uses adjectives to yell at opponents. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947419) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 12:10 PM Author: Insecure menage place of business I can't believe this partisan bullshit hackery passes as academic work. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947574) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 4:06 PM Author: blue federal mental disorder Yeah, the idea that the Commerce Clause might have limits is just so silly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949021) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 1:21 PM Author: rough-skinned theater Man, have you been keeping an eye on the jurisdiction over the last few decades? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20954473) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 5:08 PM Author: Gay orchestra pit Man, it's almost like being derided for pointing out that trillion dollar wars were stupid as fuck. Eat a dick if you think anyone should cry for you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949424) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 8:56 AM Author: Titillating boltzmann You mean to tell me libs are in a bit of an echo chamber? No wai. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947113) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:00 AM Author: Floppy Hominid Home Obama was an esteemed constitutional law professor at the University of Chicago, so if it gets overturned its pretty clear Roberts and Scalia were just playing politics with the court and are the most activist judges in the history of both activism and judging. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947118) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:01 AM Author: Primrose Magical Stead Rigpig your line of logic is irrefutable. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947119) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:02 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency Sarcasm aside, Scalia is absolutely ir8 Obama got elected in '08. He is also absolutely ir8 that a case has not presented itself since being on the bench in which he had a good shot at overturning Roe v. Wade. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947121) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:06 AM Author: underhanded toaster This, even if true, is irrelevant. It is a big fucking jump from preferring one pres over another to judicial activism. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947124) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:07 AM Author: Narrow-minded Den Athletic Conference Die in a fire (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947125) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:10 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency Explain in one clear sentence why you oppose Obamacare. And don't spew some recycled reptilian shit. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947129) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:11 AM Author: underhanded toaster Obamacare relies on the use of force and violence in order to operate (i.e. extract resources from individuals without their consent). I see this as immoral. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947131) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:13 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency Your exaggerating, aren't you? How is it employing the coercive functions of the State a la Weber? Also, distinguish this purported use of force from other widely perceived legitimate uses of force to extract shit from what u may see as non-consenting individuals, like tax? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947135) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:16 AM Author: underhanded toaster I see taxation as immoral aswell. The initiation of violence is wrong. Full stop. Unlike most people on this bort I have an actual set of clear principles that I apply consistently. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947143) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:17 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency Well, what is wrong with guaranteed issue and partial community rating portion of Obamacare? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947150) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:21 AM Author: underhanded toaster You are forcing people (owners of insurance companies) to engage in transactions that they would not otherwise engage in with the threat of prosecution and violence. You're joking right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947165) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:24 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency Guaranteed issue and partial community rating is basically requiring insurers to basically make sure that they apply a singular-across-the-board premium rate to all applicants of the same age and geographical location without regard to pre-existing conditions. That sounds like good public policy. So (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947168) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:28 AM Author: underhanded toaster The entire point of insurance is that you need to properly price and pool risk. Otherwise you get clear winners (the preexisting sick) and losers (healthy). The losers no longer participate in the pool and then the pool collapses and noone has insurance.
Even if you think it is alright for someone to initiate violence against another person, these policies are counter-productive. As is typical of libtards, you only think of the intention ("Yay lets get everyone health insurance") and fail to keep in the mind the actual results and implications (We are allowing the gov't to commit violence and will destroy health insurance). |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:31 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency Your exaggerating the role of violence. Well, let's move on: What do you think is wrong with the reformation provisions dealing with restructuring of Medicare reimbursement from "fee-for-service" to "bundled payments"? Doesn't that sound reasonable? Didn't the former create waste and incentivize massive fraud? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947172) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:34 AM Author: Dashing rebellious hell internal respiration Slim does not like your logical response - time to change issues. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947175) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:40 AM Author: underhanded toaster "Your exaggerating the role of violence."
Violence is violence. Even if it only involved punching/threatening to punch someone against their will in the shoulder, it would still be wrong.
Fee for service is how most of our economy operates. When you go out and buy food or cell phones it is fee-for-service. The mechanism is not inherently wasteful, rather having a third-party payment system is what creates the waste (imagine having food insurance; we would all eat steak). Allow people to spend their own money (i.e. things like HSA's) and you see prices plummet.
Bundled payments is horrible. By tying the revenue to the hospital/doctor to the condition, you are going to fuck people up. Two people with bladder infections walk into your hospital: One is 20 years old and otherwise healthy, the other is an 80 year old diabetic. Any rational profit-seeking hospital (Since they are now forced into bundle-payment) is going to take the 20 year old and kick the 80 year old out the door. Remeber: the hospital gets paid the same for either. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:39 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency How is it allowing the government to commit violence and destroy health insurance by ensuring everyone has adequate access to health care? You sound like an utter hack at Cato Institute. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947177) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:42 AM Author: underhanded toaster Do you not understand that if you force Health insurance companies into charging similar rates for the old and sick as the young and healthy, the young and healthy will leave the risk pool because they will be losing money hand over fist? How hard is this to understand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUgLUgw-O-U&t=0m5s |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:44 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency What is wrong with expanding Medicaid eligibility to include all individuals and families with incomes that are essentially close if not at poverty levels? Explain what libertarians want to do with poors who don't have health care access? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947187) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 9:48 AM Author: underhanded toaster ___________________________________________________________
Get rid of tax incentives for 3rd party HC payment (i.e. employer health insurance payment) and AMA licensing which is basically a monopoly, and then tell me that people at the poverty line don't have access to HC. Hell, I'll provide HC to poor people right now. I know a lot about muscle, tendon and bone issues thanks to personal experience. I could go now and charge $15 for a 15 minute visit with someone who has back problems. I will make it clear I don't have formal training in the area, but have a fair amount of experience. What is wrong with that? Oh, yea, the AMA wants to protect its monopoly status and would get the gov't to throw me in jail.
But, even if it was the case that certain people do not have access to modern HC, how do you justify violence against others in order to provide that for them? Poor people don't have TVs, is it right for you to break into my house and take one of my two TVs to give to the poor family down the block? |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 10:06 AM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency If I can remember, Obamacare also creates insurance exchanges which will provide what u love: markets in which folks and businesses can look at different insurance policies and premiums, and exchange (with the possibility of government subsidies). Are you against insurance exchanges
|
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 10:02 AM Author: Bright Cruise Ship jesus catfucking christ. i guess the less here is never underestimate the tenacity of a retard who thinks he has a point. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947200) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 10:15 AM Author: fiercely-loyal bespoke philosopher-king weed whacker lol. typical libertarian pseduo-intellectual babble.
diaf. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:48 AM Author: Mewling autistic background story sounds like typical libertarian retard. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947475) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 1:22 PM Author: rough-skinned theater So you're against criminal laws and the death penalty? Fucking moron. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20954480) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 12:02 PM Author: irradiated cheese-eating crotch parlour To be fair,
"It is a big fucking jump from preferring one pres over another to judicial activism"
But enough about Bush v. Gore... |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:45 AM Author: Aphrodisiac nudist antidepressant drug useless brakes (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947464) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:47 AM Author: Jet passionate property digit ratio *forces you to buy a playstation* (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947469) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 12:10 PM Author: rambunctious friendly grandma Cracks me up every time (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947578) |
|
Date: June 27th, 2012 9:41 PM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20971298) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:42 AM Author: Jet passionate property digit ratio Shitlibs simply don't believe in limited government power. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947452) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:52 AM Author: Flesh center The notion that the Constitution - which its Framers meant to limit federal power, not increase it - permits the federal government to force people to buy health insurance is preposterous and tyrannical, except to the pseudo-intellectual snobs who monopolize the media and the law school faculties. Liberals can cite New Deal-era case law of Roosevelt's cronies all they want. The Supreme Court's coming decision in Obamacare v. America will be a humiliating defeat for the the liberal wet dream of a government-centered society. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947493) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:55 AM Author: Hyperactive institution kitty cat what about forcing people to pay for something they already pay for in a different way?
surely everyone buys something related to the interstate commerce of health care. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:56 AM Author: Jet passionate property digit ratio Obama could've legally used his taxing power; he didn't. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947512) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:59 AM Author: Flesh center That's because it's not a tax. It's a fine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947524) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 12:01 PM Author: brass main people rehab It's the mandate that's the issue, the fine is just the enforcement mechanism (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947537) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 11:29 PM Author: Racy fear-inspiring affirmative action (Is not the chief justice) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20980773) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 10:21 PM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20980064) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 11:59 AM Author: offensive swashbuckling field "The notion that the Constitution - which its Framers meant to limit federal power, not increase it -"
LOL you idiot. The constitution actually was intended to "increase" federal prior in comparison with what existed before it, the articles of confederation. |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 12:04 PM Author: irradiated cheese-eating crotch parlour To be fair,
Just like revolvers were intended to increase firepower over flintlocks.
Guess it's only a matter of time before we all get to have rocket launchers! |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 4:53 PM Author: Flesh center You're an idiot for thinking the Constitution empowers Congress to force people to buy health insurance. The Founding Fathers would've puked at the thought that current Supreme Court Injustices and a United States President believe in such tyranny. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949319) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 5:18 PM Author: ocher razzle-dazzle range You don't know what you are talking about. In 1792 George Washington passed the Militia Act a law mandating that all males in the US buy and own a gun. The SCOTUS has upheld legislation mandating the purchase of vaccines by hospitals and doctors. Legislation mandating consumption is as old as the US. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949479) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 5:52 PM Author: Flesh center YOU don't know what you're talking about.
The 1792 Militia Act was pursuant to an enumerated congressional power. The health insurance mandate is not. The commerce clause was not meant to allow Congress to regulate non-commerce.
As for what the liberal Injustices of the Supreme Court think, screw them.
|
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 1:25 PM Author: rough-skinned theater *Grows pot for personal consumption.* *Gets arrested by the DEA.* *Argues Commerce Clause doesn't regulate non-commerce.* |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 1:23 PM Author: rough-skinned theater There is no doubt that the government can raise taxes by $750 and then provide a tax rebate of $750 for everyone who bought health insurance. Do you think there's any doubt that the Constitution would empower Congress to enact such a law?! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20954488) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 12:11 PM Author: Titillating boltzmann (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20947590) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 4:00 PM Author: stirring step-uncle's house international law enforcement agency You sound dumb. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20948981) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 4:07 PM Author: Aromatic Goyim bump this thread when you are living under the mandate in 2 years (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949030) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 4:59 PM Author: Galvanic Wine Stage Foreskin didnt the NYT come out against obama in 2008? LOL at them and their biased, liberal racist faggotry. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20949365) |
|
Date: June 24th, 2012 6:11 PM Author: Dull domesticated set jewess As soon as someone described the law's individual mandate, I saw a constitutional issue. I mean its doctrinal wheelhouse shit-distinctions without any substantive meaning. Obviously the Sp. Ct. is gonna eat that shit up.
Told a liberal non-profit JD co-worker that I foresaw constitutional problems - she was like "THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS EXCEPT FOR RACIST TEAPARTIERS." |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 1:27 PM Author: At-the-ready electric elastic band casino (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20954508) |
|
Date: June 25th, 2012 1:26 PM Author: At-the-ready electric elastic band casino This whole thing is so 180. Pelosi should get hit by a bus. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20954499) |
|
Date: June 28th, 2012 9:48 PM Author: Twinkling Sinister Death Wish (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=1978231&forum_id=2#20979837) |