Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Another HRC Ruling - But Different!Follow

#1 Jun 29 2011 at 11:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The health care bill survived its first appellate legal battle today, with all three two judges ruling that it was constitutional. With ruling in the lower courts going both ways, what makes this one different (besides it being an appellate court)?
New York Times wrote:
The Obama administration won the first appellate review of the 2010 health care law on Wednesday as a three-judge panel from the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit in Cincinnati held that it was constitutional for Congress to require that Americans obtain health insurance.
[...]
The Sixth Circuit opinion was the first on the merits that has not broken down strictly along seemingly partisan lines. Two of the judges on the panel were appointed by Republican presidents and one was appointed by a Democrat. At the lower District Court level, five judges have divided on the question, with three Democratic appointees ruling in favor of the law and two Republican appointees rejecting it.

In a series of battles that seemed predetermined based on the party of the president who appointed the judge, having two a Republican appointees side with the administration is a definite bit of encouragement. Add in all the usual "Doesn't matter until it hits the Supreme Court" yadda yadda here.

Edit: Whoops, it was a 2-1 ruling. The NYT article didn't specify and I just assumed. Shame on me.
The Hill wrote:
The 6th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the coverage mandate in a 2-1 decision that directly validates the federal government’s primary argument. Although the mandate's supporters thought a procedural ruling might be their best chance for a win in the 6th Circuit, the court said clearly that the mandate falls within Congress’ power to regulate economic activity.

Judge Jeffrey Sutton, one of the two judges on the three-judge panel who ruled in favor of the mandate, was appointed by President George W. Bush. He is the first judge appointed by a Republican president to uphold the healthcare law.


Edited, Jun 29th 2011 1:01pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#2 Jun 29 2011 at 11:58 AM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Obviously they lied on their resumes and are actually covert **** pinko liberals.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#3 Jun 29 2011 at 12:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,374 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Obviously they lied on their resumes and are actually covert **** pinko liberals.
Agreed. They even spent all of their careers leading up to this point acting as Republicans, only to show their true colours when it finally mattered to push communism onto America.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#4 Jun 29 2011 at 12:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I believe the stock reply here is that, when a Republican appointee goes against what the GOP wanted, it's "The appointing party has nothing at all do with the judge's ideologies!"

Of course, if a Democratic appointee makes the same ruling, it's all liberal judicial activism and legislating from the bench.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#5varusword75, Posted: Jun 29 2011 at 12:43 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Jophed,
#6 Jun 29 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
They can rule in judgments against the party line though regardless of how they vote!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#7 Jun 29 2011 at 1:44 PM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,567 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I believe the stock reply here is that, when a Republican appointee goes against what the GOP wanted, it's "The appointing party has nothing at all do with the judge's ideologies!"

You forgot about RINO.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#8varusword75, Posted: Jun 29 2011 at 1:56 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#9 Jun 29 2011 at 1:57 PM Rating: Good
******
49,744 posts
Ah, witty banter.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Jun 29 2011 at 2:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
But they don't.

Guess you're all screwed then Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#11varusword75, Posted: Jun 29 2011 at 2:19 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Joph,
#12 Jun 29 2011 at 2:35 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
Not until it gets to the scrotus.

You spelled SCotUS incorrectly. And you're displaying a bit of ignorance about why this case would be significant in the SC case.

That case... heh... I started to type something but, really, have fun with that Smiley: lol
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#13 Jun 29 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,744 posts
Jophiel wrote:
varusword75 wrote:
Not until it gets to the scrotus.
You spelled SCotUS incorrectly.
Probably a Freudian Slip and he was thinking about a hot date for the weekend.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#14 Jun 29 2011 at 2:51 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,481 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Ah, witty banter.

Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#15 Jun 29 2011 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
I don't know any specifics of the judges involved, but the party of the president who nominated a judge does not always have anything at all to do with the political slant (if any) of that judges opinions.

George H.W. Bush nominated Justice Souter, after all. Yet I don't think anyone here (or anywhere) would try to make a huge deal about a "republican nominated justice" ruling in a very liberal way when referring to him.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Jun 29 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I don't know any specifics of the judges involved, but the party of the president who nominated a judge does not always have anything at all to do with the political slant (if any) of that judges opinions.

Nailed it!

Quote:
George H.W. Bush nominated Justice Souter, after all.

Fun fact: Conservatives were [u]********** at how Souter turned out; he wasn't nominated because Bush thought **********, we need more liberals on the bench!", he was nominated because they were sure he'd be a champion of their ideology.
Wiki wrote:
At the time of Souter's appointment, John Sununu assured President Bush and conservatives that Souter would be a "home run" for conservatism. In his testimony before the Senate, he was thought by conservatives to be a strict constructionist on constitutional matters; however, he portrayed himself as moderate who disliked radical change and who attached a high importance to precedent.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#17 Jun 29 2011 at 7:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
So there is some support for the idea that liberals might hide out for decades, pretending to be conservatives, hoping to get nominated to a high court where they can then unleash their true Manchurian Candidate like liberal agenda? Crazy, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#18 Jun 29 2011 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Yes, and yet still one of the least crazy things you've said so far this year.

But at least we both agree that he was appointed by Bush Sr. and the GOP because of his (perceived) conservative views, not despite his liberal ones.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Jun 29 2011 at 7:45 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Yes, and yet still one of the least crazy things you've said so far this year.

But at least we both agree that he was appointed by Bush Sr. and the GOP because of his (perceived) conservative views, not despite his liberal ones.


I'm not sure why you thought that was an issue either way. The issue is just over whether it's possible for a judge appointed/nominated/whatever by a Republican to end out ruling in lock step with liberals. Clearly, that is possible, right?


Given the suggested implication in the OP that a Republican appointed judge ruling that the insurance mandate is constitutional represented some sort of crossing of partisan lines, it's kinda relevant. You were going in the "even guys on your own side don't agree with you!" direction on this one (again!), weren't you? It's not like I was sleeping for 8 years while you found every opportunity to post about any conservative out there who criticized Bush, so this isn't exactly a new tactic.

Edited, Jun 29th 2011 6:46pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#20 Jun 29 2011 at 8:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The issue is just over whether it's possible for a judge appointed/nominated/whatever by a Republican to end out ruling in lock step with liberals. Clearly, that is possible, right?

Sure, just very unlikely (hence the one example you use every time). If it's the best you can come up with every time a Republican appointed judge breaks ranks, I don't know what to tell you. Maybe Republicans are just idiots or something.

Quote:
You were going in the "even guys on your own side don't agree with you!" direction on this one (again!), weren't you?

Not really. More of a "a record of people who agree that it's constitutional which isn't broken entirely along partisan lines will be good to have going into the inevitable SCotUS case since the SC bases its case largely off the lower court findings."

Edit: A little brief reading shows that Judge Sutton has no tradition of being "lockstep" with liberal ideals and conservatives who were watching the case were shocked at his decision:
Cato Institute wrote:
While a progressive like Judge Martin could be expected to accept any exercise of federal power, it is shocking that an avowed constitutionalist like Judge Sutton requires Congress to show only a rational basis behind what it does—a “reasonable fit” between the means it chooses and the ends of regulating interstate commerce—to survive constitutional scrutiny


Edited, Jun 29th 2011 9:22pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#21 Jun 29 2011 at 8:29 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
6,481 posts
gbaji wrote:
So there is some support for the idea that liberals might hide out for decades, pretending to be conservatives, hoping to get nominated to a high court where they can then unleash their true Manchurian Candidate like liberal agenda? Crazy, right?

That was well played (like watching someone slow-play trips) I am somewhat impressed. Smiley: clap

Doesn't really disprove a larger trend (people, even judges, are dynamic after all), but still.
____________________________
Quote:
I don't believe in good guys versus bad guys anymore… I only see a plethora of states acting in self interest… with varying ethics and moral standards of course, but self-interest nonetheless
Winston Churchill wrote:
Criticism may not be agreeable, but it is necessary. It fulfills the same function as pain in the human body. It calls attention to an unhealthy state of things
#22 Jun 30 2011 at 7:59 AM Rating: Decent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,594 posts
Could it be that this judicial decision is neither conservative nor liberal, but simply a factual interpretation of the constitution?

Could the judge that made such a ruling also then vote for or otherwise support a governmental representative that was against government mandated healthcare and not be contridictory in their actions?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#23 Jun 30 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Decent
Edited by bsphil
******
21,739 posts
Elinda wrote:
Could it be that this judicial decision is neither conservative nor liberal, but simply a factual interpretation of the constitution?

Could the judge that made such a ruling also then vote for or otherwise support a governmental representative that was against government mandated healthcare and not be contridictory in their actions?
lol no, only conservative interpretations are factual ones, amirite?
____________________________
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
Take the hint guys, please take the hint.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
#24 Jun 30 2011 at 1:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The issue is just over whether it's possible for a judge appointed/nominated/whatever by a Republican to end out ruling in lock step with liberals. Clearly, that is possible, right?

Sure, just very unlikely (hence the one example you use every time).


One example out of a relatively small number of Justices though. Over the last 30ish years, Republicans have appointed like 8 Justices to the Supreme Court. Even one is a significant number out of that small a pool.

Quote:
If it's the best you can come up with every time a Republican appointed judge breaks ranks, I don't know what to tell you.


You were the one making it seem like this was some monumental event Joph, not me.

Quote:
Not really. More of a "a record of people who agree that it's constitutional which isn't broken entirely along partisan lines will be good to have going into the inevitable SCotUS case since the SC bases its case largely off the lower court findings."


You really think that's a valid criteria for a judge to use when deciding a case? What party the person was who appointed the judges who made various rulings at lower court levels? I don't think the justices care about that one bit Joph. I think media pundits do because it lets them make the "See! This isn't really a partisan issue", when we all know **** well that it is.

[quote][quote]Edit: A little brief reading shows that Judge Sutton has no tradition of being "lockstep" with liberal ideals and conservatives who were watching the case were shocked at his decision:
Cato Institute wrote:
While a progressive like Judge Martin could be expected to accept any exercise of federal power, it is shocking that an avowed constitutionalist like Judge Sutton requires Congress to show only a rational basis behind what it does—a “reasonable fit” between the means it chooses and the ends of regulating interstate commerce—to survive constitutional scrutiny



Which would make most people wonder who got something over the judge to make him rule in such a non-typical manner. I certainly would not look at his ruling and think "Oh! Well then this really must not be an issue at odds with a constitutionalist viewpoint". At best I'd be scrutinizing his opinion to see why the **** he ruled the way he did.


But that's not how the left wants to view this at all.

Edited, Jun 30th 2011 12:39pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jun 30 2011 at 2:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
One example out of a relatively small number of Justices though.

We're not discussing only justices. Any time any GOP appointed judge breaks orthodoxy, you run to the "Souter!" defense.

Quote:
You were the one making it seem like this was some monumental event Joph, not me.

Monumental in the HRC debate, sure. Not so much for the nation's judiciary history but you seem to insist that every time is some bizarre outlier explained only by secret liberal judges.

Quote:
You really think that's a valid criteria for a judge to use when deciding a case?

Doesn't matter what I think, it's simply true that SCotUS cases are judged based primarily on the lower court(s) findings and cross-partisan rulings of this nature will only benefit the defense, just as Democratically appointed judges ruling against it will help the prosecution. If for no other reason than because each will frame their findings in a manner to make them consistent with their beliefs, just as Sutton did in his ruling. This doesn't mean it's the only thing that matters or will decide the whole case or whatever extremes you need to try to take it to to discredit it, but if you think it makes no difference then that's awfully cute of you but amazingly naive and I assume born more from trying to cheer yourself up than a realistic view of things. Denial is the first stage.

Your closing remarks made me laugh though, so thanks. "He must have been tricked!" Smiley: laugh

Edited, Jun 30th 2011 3:18pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#26 Jun 30 2011 at 2:40 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,933 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
One example out of a relatively small number of Justices though.

We're not discussing only justices.


We were discussing the frequency with which this happens though, right?

Quote:
Any time any GOP appointed judge breaks orthodoxy, you run to the "Souter!" defense.


And this apparently happens frequently enough that you've noticed one pattern, but somehow failed to notice the other. Do you see it yet?

Quote:
Quote:
You were the one making it seem like this was some monumental event Joph, not me.

Monumental in the HRC debate, sure.


Among people who have no say in it, sure.

Quote:
Not so much for the nation's judiciary history but you seem to insist that every time is some bizarre outlier explained only by secret liberal judges.


Every single time, huh? Still don't see it?

Quote:
Doesn't matter what I think, it's simply true that SCotUS cases are judged based primarily on the lower court(s) findings...


But not really about who appointed the judges involved. If you restricted your post to "Yay! We won one", you'd have a point. But you didn't.


Quote:
... and cross-partisan rulings of this nature will only benefit the defense, just as Democratically appointed judges ruling against it will help the prosecution.


No. It makes no **** difference. It makes a difference to you (and others on the Left) because you've been taught to view issues in the context of "gotcha" politics. Getting the other side to look inconsistent or hypocritical is a wonderful debating technique, but it isn't (or shouldn't be) relevant at all to a judicial decision.

This isn't about the likelihood or legitimacy of any given future court ruling. It's purely about generating political rhetoric.


Um... Which makes it perfectly legitimate fodder for a topic on this forum. But it also makes my pointing it out equally legitimate. What's strange is you seem to want to deny this and pretend that your only interest is the impact this has on some future ruling. It's about making hay "now", not assessing some future result.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 74 All times are in CDT
Anonymous Guests (74)