Jump to content
270soft Forum

Obamacare


Guest

Recommended Posts

2 minutes ago, falk said:

No, with all due respect, the Court's application of the commerce clause was restricted significantly in scope to only a few questions in NFIB. In NFIB the main point of contention behind the individual mandate was actually standing, with provided the court a sufficient reason to maintain its application in the ACA. I agreed with you to an extent about the individual mandate, however the reasoning that you provided is not particularly correct with respect to the greater application of the commerce clause

And I agree that it's unclear that it follows that the rest of the ACA needs to be tossed out because the mandate was ruled unconstitutional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 87
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

And I agree that it's unclear that it follows that the rest of the ACA needs to be tossed out because the mandate was ruled unconstitutional.

Sounds like the kind of absolutist, "all-or-nothing" type of thinking to jurisprudence typical of theocratic law, not national law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

And I agree that it's unclear that it follows that the rest of the ACA needs to be tossed out because the mandate was ruled unconstitutional.

Okay, I think we can agree with the select application of severability in this case, but that's not my main argument. I am suggesting that your interpretation of the Supreme Court's view on the individual mandate was not particularly correct, and as a result severability is not even relevant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, falk said:

Okay, I think we can agree with the select application of severability in this case, but that's not my main argument. I am suggesting that your interpretation of the Supreme Court's view on the individual mandate was not particularly correct, and as a result severability is not even relevant.

May I please have some more details on how I'm mistaken in my interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Please elaborate.

There's no profit motive because there's no Capitalism in Cuba. In Cuba you don't have to pay for healthcare, the government assumes all responsibility, there's no private clinics or hospitals, there's no profit motive if you're sick you visit the hospital, you don't need to worry about how you'll afford it. Of course it has it's hiccups thank's in no small part (in fact in majority party due to) to the U.S. embargo, yet it's in many respects world class healthcare. The vast majority of people support the revolution, and this is one of the reasons.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

May I please have some more details on how I'm mistaken in my interpretation of the Supreme Court's decision in National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius.

Okay, so basically you are primarily arguing that the Court found the individual mandate to be constitutional based on the fact that it was a tax. This being the case because of the constitutional theory that while the government can regulate interstate commerce, it may not force it. 

I am arguing that the court's argument was more based on standing. Now, was what you reference part of the court's decision? Sure. But primarily the court found issue with the application of the Anti-Injunction Act and, subsequently, standing for the challenge. This makes sense as well in an abstract sense: remember that Roberts used to be a member of the defense bar, defending corporate interests, and a significant amount of cases that he tried before his time on the bench were oriented around arguments of standing. So it makes sense that he would have based his defense of the provision around an issue of standing, or lack thereof.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

There's no profit motive because there's no Capitalism in Cuba. In Cuba you don't have to pay for healthcare, the government assumes all responsibility, there's no private clinics or hospitals, there's no profit motive if you're sick you visit the hospital, you don't need to worry about how you'll afford it. Of course it has it's hiccups thank's in no small part (in fact in majority party due to) to the U.S. embargo, yet it's in many respects world class healthcare. The vast majority of people support the revolution, and this is one of the reasons.

That being said even in the absence of a  profit motive I'd probably chose a history-related job.(Which I'll probably choose if possible)

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, falk said:

Okay, so basically you are primarily arguing that the Court found the individual mandate to be constitutional based on the fact that it was a tax. This being the case because of the constitutional theory that while the government can regulate interstate commerce, it may not force it. 

I am arguing that the court's argument was more based on standing. Now, was what you reference part of the court's decision? Sure. But primarily the court found issue with the application of the Anti-Injunction Act and, subsequently, standing for the challenge. This makes sense as well in an abstract sense: remember that Roberts used to be a member of the defense bar, defending corporate interests, and a significant amount of cases that he tried before his time on the bench were oriented around arguments of standing. So it makes sense that he would have based his defense of the provision around an issue of standing, or lack thereof.

I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I get it. Thanks for the clarification.

If we agree that the primary issue was one of standing and not the heated epistemological jurisprudential debate around federalism and the commerce clause, then surely we can agree that any sort of appeal to the highest court would result in  a reversal of this sweeping decision made in Texas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, falk said:

 If we agree that the primary issue was one of standing and not the heated epistemological jurisprudential debate around federalism and the commerce clause, then surely we can agree that any sort of appeal to the highest court would result in  a reversal of this sweeping decision made in Texas.

Well,yes. But, if this turns into a jurisprudential debate about the commerce clause which I have a feeling it will then the decision may be upheld.(Assuming the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

Well,yes. But, if this turns into a jurisprudential debate about the commerce clause which I have a feeling it will then the decision may be upheld.(Assuming the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case)

A few questions: Under what context would the debate change to one about the commerce clause? Even if it does turn into a debate about the commerce clause, can you explain why the decision would then be upheld? Asking out of curiosity seeing as how I still don't necessarily understand that argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, falk said:

A few questions: Under what context would the debate change to one about the commerce clause? Even if it does turn into a debate about the commerce clause, can you explain why the decision would then be upheld? Asking out of curiosity seeing as how I still don't necessarily understand that argument.

It depends if everyone just pays more attention to it or not. That being said I've thought about it and you convinced me that this decision probably won't be upheld in full.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NYrepublican said:

It depends if everyone just pays more attention to it or not. That being said I've thought about it and you convinced me that this decision probably won't be upheld in full.

On a more conceptual sense, do you think that even if the bill was reviewed specifically under the lens of commerce-clause application, that the individual mandate would be found unconstitutional?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, falk said:

 On a more conceptual sense, do you think that even if the bill was reviewed specifically under the lens of commerce-clause application, that the individual mandate would be found unconstitutional?

I'd be inclined to say not for the reason that most states don't allow purchasing health insurance across state lines hence there isn't much inter-state commerce on the health insurance market to even regulate. If most or all states allowed such purchases it'd be a different story.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

I'd be inclined to say not for the reason that most states don't allow purchasing health insurance across state lines hence there isn't much inter-state commerce on the health insurance market to even regulate. If most or all states allowed such purchases it'd be a different story.

Interesting, do you not think that the enormity of the insurance market -- especially the health care sector -- in the economy warrants Court deference to Congress to interfere, citing the broad scope of the commerce clause in interstate commerce? For one, we can agree surely that everyone is in the insurance "market", whether one actually buys insurance or not. The practical considerations by the Court should then logically conclude that  -- because the commerce clause doesn't only allow for the regulation of active, transactional commerce -- Congress is merely trying to rectify the issue of a high number of uninsured Americans that individual states cannot address on their own. We should be able to agree that the movement of millions from uninsured to insured would dramatically affect interstate commerce. The decision of you or I to not purchase health insurance is a decision that has dramatic consequences on interstate commerce, so of course the Courts must defer to Congress on the regulatory scope of the matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Well,yes. But, if this turns into a jurisprudential debate about the commerce clause which I have a feeling it will then the decision may be upheld.(Assuming the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case)

Honestly if it does come down to the Supreme Court, I think the decision will be upheld, not really because the ruling is right but because it's Obamacare,  the republicans have been dedicate to repealing it since 2010, I don't think they'd let "truth" or "facts" get in the way of that, I think it'll be a highly partisan event, with Bart, Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and whoever the other asshole on the court is, voting to uphold, while Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan voting against it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, WVProgressive said:

Honestly if it does come down to the Supreme Court, I think the decision will be upheld, not really because the ruling is right but because it's Obamacare,  the republicans have been dedicate to repealing it since 2010, I don't think they'd let "truth" or "facts" get in the way of that, I think it'll be a highly partisan event, with Bart, Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and whoever the other asshole on the court is, voting to uphold, while Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan voting against it.

That's actually a really interesting take on it because I agree with you that the process will likely be politicized and that's exactly why I think Chief Justice Roberts will side with the liberals on the court to reverse this decision. If you look at Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation hearings, he talks a lot about the reputation of the Court and, in essence, its relevance and respect as an institution. His time on the bench has been marked by an uptick in unanimous decisions and a lack of sweeping decisions on core political doctrines relating to legislation, a indication that Roberts isn't somebody who looks to use the Court as a vehicle to drive his personal policy ambitions.

That's why Roberts -- with NFIB v. Sebelius when this exact issue came into consideration -- pulled an almost Marshall-esque political maneuver by being the only justice who thought the law was constitutional under one provision and not the other. That doesn't symbolize a lack of fidelity to his jurisprudential doctrine as much as it symbolizes his fidelity to the institution of the court, making sure that it garners the respect and credibility of Washington as an impartial institution that works as somewhat of an incrementalist entity. So if anything, I would suggest the political nature of the case would make Roberts side with the liberal half of the Court, reversing the decision and upholding the law. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, WVProgressive said:

Honestly if it does come down to the Supreme Court, I think the decision will be upheld, not really because the ruling is right but because it's Obamacare,  the republicans have been dedicate to repealing it since 2010, I don't think they'd let "truth" or "facts" get in the way of that, I think it'll be a highly partisan event, with Bart, Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and whoever the other asshole on the court is, voting to uphold, while Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan voting against it.

The other "asshole" on the court is Clinton-appointee and noted liberal Stephen Breyer. Classy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

The other "asshole" on the court is Clinton-appointee and noted liberal Stephen Breyer. Classy.

Yeah that was an oops on my part, I rescind calling him an asshole and apologize for lumping him in with the ghouls known as Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch. Thanks for catching me on that by the way.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, WVProgressive said:

Honestly if it does come down to the Supreme Court, I think the decision will be upheld, not really because the ruling is right but because it's Obamacare,  the republicans have been dedicate to repealing it since 2010, I don't think they'd let "truth" or "facts" get in the way of that, I think it'll be a highly partisan event, with Bart, Roberts, Gorsuch, Alito, Thomas, and whoever the other asshole on the court is, voting to uphold, while Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan voting against it.

 

3 hours ago, falk said:

That's actually a really interesting take on it because I agree with you that the process will likely be politicized and that's exactly why I think Chief Justice Roberts will side with the liberals on the court to reverse this decision. If you look at Chief Justice Roberts' confirmation hearings, he talks a lot about the reputation of the Court and, in essence, its relevance and respect as an institution. His time on the bench has been marked by an uptick in unanimous decisions and a lack of sweeping decisions on core political doctrines relating to legislation, a indication that Roberts isn't somebody who looks to use the Court as a vehicle to drive his personal policy ambitions.

That's why Roberts -- with NFIB v. Sebelius when this exact issue came into consideration -- pulled an almost Marshall-esque political maneuver by being the only justice who thought the law was constitutional under one provision and not the other. That doesn't symbolize a lack of fidelity to his jurisprudential doctrine as much as it symbolizes his fidelity to the institution of the court, making sure that it garners the respect and credibility of Washington as an impartial institution that works as somewhat of an incrementalist entity. So if anything, I would suggest the political nature of the case would make Roberts side with the liberal half of the Court, reversing the decision and upholding the law. 

Which is a sad state of affairs that EVERYTHING in the U.S. today, with only a few exceptions MUST divide firmly on party lines. This further makes me detest the U.S. party-system, as it stands, more and more, and view it ever more as not serving it's own people so much as it's own ideological politicking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

Which is a sad state of affairs that EVERYTHING in the U.S. today, with only a few exceptions MUST divide firmly on party lines. This further makes me detest the U.S. party-system, as it stands, more and more, and view it ever more as not serving it's own people so much as it's own ideological politicking.

I feel like I have to come in and defend the work of the court as not necessarily divided "firmly on party lines." The appointment process certainly has, but I do not believe that the actual Court itself has. Unless you were suggesting that everything but the Court divides firmly on party lines, I think the core intent of what I had said was more primarily oriented around saying that I believed Roberts to be a political figure oriented more around the institution of the Court than party lines; similar to how a First Lady may be a political figure in traditionally being entrusted to keep the prestige of the White House in maintenance and decoration, work that is rarely divided firmly on party lines.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, falk said:

I feel like I have to come in and defend the work of the court as not necessarily divided "firmly on party lines." The appointment process certainly has, but I do not believe that the actual Court itself has. Unless you were suggesting that everything but the Court divides firmly on party lines, I think the core intent of what I had said was more primarily oriented around saying that I believed Roberts to be a political figure oriented more around the institution of the Court than party lines; similar to how a First Lady may be a political figure in traditionally being entrusted to keep the prestige of the White House in maintenance and decoration, work that is rarely divided firmly on party lines.

 

Well, I suppose it depends on the individual judge and case. I mean, the late Scalia was a hardcore social conservative, and that affected his every opinion, even in conflict with certain seemingly obvious Constitutional intentions, whereas I believe Thomas and Kennedy acceded that a religiously conceived and restricted view of marriage may not be Constitutionally sustainable, as examples on one particular recent case I just pulled out of my hat. But on fiscal matters (like the core issue being discussed here), party lines do tend to be tighter, even in the Supreme Court, that I've noticed.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Well, I suppose it depends on the individual judge and case. I mean, the late Scalia was a hardcore social conservative, and that affected his every opinion, even in conflict with certain seemingly obvious Constitutional intentions, whereas I believe Thomas and Kennedy acceded that a religiously conceived and restricted view of marriage may not be Constitutionally sustainable, as examples on one particular recent case I just pulled out of my hat. But on fiscal matters (like the core issue being discussed here), party lines do tend to be tighter, even in the Supreme Court, that I've noticed.

I see what you're saying, the only thing that I would raise an issue with is the phrasing of the particular term "party lines." However, I think we can both agree -- because you also seem to have strong opinions on the court, many of which I respect greatly -- that the court, in closer and more controversial decisions, tends to be divided on more doctrinal lines. Judges rarely leave their professions, so you have defense bar/trial bar type lawyers turned judges, both of whom practice and excel in very different things as a result (Defense bar lawyers tend to refer to standing of a case, thus leaning towards a more textual, originalist approach while trial bar lawyers often pursue more aggressive, open interpretations of legal text etc.) I think background and jurisprudential record should be considered more important, and I think it dangerous to amalgamate the two into one, because then we accept the premise that the execution and assessment of the law are inherently motivated by politics.

I think there's similarly a good case to make that Scalia and many of the more maybe ideological judges were conveniently doctrinal -- which I believe you are referring to -- willingly dropping the pretense of their judicial ideology when inapplicable. I get that. I just want to acknowledge that the good, if not overwhelming, majority of cases do not fall on these lines.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, falk said:

I see what you're saying, the only thing that I would raise an issue with is the phrasing of the particular term "party lines." However, I think we can both agree -- because you also seem to have strong opinions on the court, many of which I respect greatly -- that the court, in closer and more controversial decisions, tends to be divided on more doctrinal lines. Judges rarely leave their professions, so you have defense bar/trial bar type lawyers turned judges, both of whom practice and excel in very different things as a result (Defense bar lawyers tend to refer to standing of a case, thus leaning towards a more textual, originalist approach while trial bar lawyers often pursue more aggressive, open interpretations of legal text etc.) I think background and jurisprudential record should be considered more important, and I think it dangerous to amalgamate the two into one, because then we accept the premise that the execution and assessment of the law are inherently motivated by politics.

I think there's similarly a good case to make that Scalia and many of the more maybe ideological judges were conveniently doctrinal -- which I believe you are referring to -- willingly dropping the pretense of their judicial ideology when inapplicable. I get that. I just want to acknowledge that the good, if not overwhelming, majority of cases do not fall on these lines.

I will have to have a look over the full voting records. Usually the news focuses on the more "vocal" justices (of which Scalia was definitely one for a lone time), or the "tipping" judges (of which Kennedy was in a few cases), but didn't always give a full voting record by names in a simple report (just numbers). You may well have a point there that becomes more apparent once names, and not just votes, are examined more closely. I'll look into this!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I will have to have a look over the full voting records. Usually the news focuses on the more "vocal" justices (of which Scalia was definitely one for a lone time), or the "tipping" judges (of which Kennedy was in a few cases), but didn't always give a full voting record by names in a simple report (just numbers). You may well have a point there that becomes more apparent once names, and not just votes, are examined more closely. I'll look into this!

Sounds good, please let me know what you find! As you might be able to tell, I have a deep and professionally vested interest in the law and the court; I'm sure anything you find on the matter would be of similar interest to me as much as it would be to you!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...