Forum Settings
       
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
******
43,643 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
******
34,681 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.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

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
*****
14,045 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.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I'm biased against statistics

#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
******
43,643 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
******
43,643 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
******
31,548 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 pissed at how Souter turned out; he wasn't nominated because Bush thought "Damn, 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
******
31,548 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
******
31,548 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
*****
15,816 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:
Post and be happy!
#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
******
31,548 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
******
31,548 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
#27 Jun 30 2011 at 2:43 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
No. It makes no **** difference.

Smiley: lol It's great that you think so.
Quote:
Getting the other side to look inconsistent or hypocritical...

...was never my point. You're so hung up on crying about how poorly you're treated that you don't even understand what's being said.

Edited, Jun 30th 2011 3:44pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#28 Jun 30 2011 at 4:04 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
No. It makes no **** difference.

Smiley: lol It's great that you think so.


Yes it is! :)

Quote:
Quote:
Getting the other side to look inconsistent or hypocritical...

...was never my point. You're so hung up on crying about how poorly you're treated that you don't even understand what's being said.


Uh huh. In all the years we've posted here, I have never seen you miss the opportunity to make the "Even people on your own side don't agree!" argument. I suppose it's possible that you honestly aren't aware of this habit and are just repeating what you've heard other people talk about and don't realize *why* they think it's relevant. I assume you are more self aware than that, but it's possible I guess.


But on a side note, having now looked at the case itself, I'm still unsure why this is such a "hurray!" moment for anyone on the side of the Health Care Reform law. This particular case is one of the weakest of the lot. It's arguing purely on the idea that the mandate represents a financial hardship to the people. Cheering a barely won ruling on that case is like cheering when your professional football team just barely beats the local high school team.


The cases that will really matter from a constitutional perspective will be the ones based on states rights. The core argument is that the commerce clause does not grant Congress powers that broad and that such things should rightly be handled at the state level. You'll note that this differs dramatically from the case in question here (whether government can do this at all at any level), and is a vastly stronger case.


So this ruling *really* doesn't matter.

Edited, Jun 30th 2011 3:06pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#29 Jun 30 2011 at 4:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Uh huh. In all the years we've posted here, I have never seen you miss the opportunity...

Never seen you miss the chance to cry about how mean everyone is to you poo' widdle pubbies, even if it means you have to miss (or ignore) the point to get your cry on.

Quote:
Cheering a barely won ruling

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Seriously?

Quote:
This particular case is one of the weakest of the lot. [...] So this ruling *really* doesn't matter.

Any port in a storm. Another of your fine traits.


Edited, Jun 30th 2011 5:15pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#30 Jun 30 2011 at 5:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
Cheering a barely won ruling

Smiley: laughSmiley: laughSmiley: laugh

Seriously?


Yes. Seriously. WTF do you think you're making a big deal about? The unusualness of a Republican appointed judge known to be a constitutionalist who unexpectedly rules in favor of the health care reform giving it the one key opinion needed to change the decision from "lose" to "win" for HCR.

Yeah. That's "barely won". It's not like the ruling could have been closer, right?

Quote:
Quote:
This particular case is one of the weakest of the lot. [...] So this ruling *really* doesn't matter.

Any port in a storm. Another of your fine traits.


That's hysterical given that this entire story is basically a desperate attempt to find some positive news on this issue. Let's find the weakest out of 30ish cases, then make a huge deal about how we barely squeaked out a win! Hurray!


Lol.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#31 Jun 30 2011 at 5:58 PM Rating: Excellent
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#32 Jun 30 2011 at 6:36 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yeah. That's "barely won".

It was a 2-1 decision. I'm not sure what you think "barely won" means but, (A) it has no place in a discussion about court decisions where you either win or you don't and (B) it's not as though you can get 51% of the decision or something. Are you really so desperate that you need to tell yourself a 2-1 decision is "barely winning" it?

Quote:
That's hysterical

Coming from a guy who can't come up with anything better than to say it was "barely won", I'm feeling okay about that.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#33 Jun 30 2011 at 6:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Sir Xsarus wrote:
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.

I'm reminded of one of the **** marriage threads where Gbaji was trying to downplay a precedent setting court decision by saying it was "barely won". I can't think of a single other person I've heard someone claim that a court decision didn't really count because it was "barely won" but it seems to be an idea Gbaji holds near and dear to his heart. A bizarre coping mechanism.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#34 Jun 30 2011 at 7:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.


If it had been 2-1 against, there wouldn't be a thread about it. Which kinda highlights my point about how this is the left hyping one case they won, while downplaying/ignoring all of the one's they're losing and/or have lost. Despite Joph's attempts to argue that this is precedent setting and will have some kind of effect on the judicial outcome of this issue as a whole, the greater value and objective is purely about PR.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#35 Jun 30 2011 at 7:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Sir Xsarus wrote:
of course if it had been 2-1 against, you wouldn't be saying it barely lost.

I'm reminded of one of the **** marriage threads where Gbaji was trying to downplay a precedent setting court decision by saying it was "barely won". I can't think of a single other person I've heard someone claim that a court decision didn't really count because it was "barely won" but it seems to be an idea Gbaji holds near and dear to his heart. A bizarre coping mechanism.


When I'm arguing against someone attempting to claim that a court decision should influence what the public as a whole views as right or wrong with regard to an issue, then yes, it is absolutely relevant to point out that said decision was very close and split among partisan lines. You have this very strange approach to debate in some issues where you try to use past court cases, not just as an argument about the legality/constitutionality of something, but as some kind of moral compass. As though I should somehow abandon my own positions on an issue because a court decision came down the other way.


My positions on issues aren't based on court precedent Joph. They're based on the application of principles. If I've arrived at a position, why the **** do you think pointing to a court decision that disagrees with that position will sway me (or anyone for that matter)? A court decision I disagree with is one I disagree with. I just don't understand the approach. I mean, I get it from a PR perspective (as I mentioned above). You want people to think your position is "right", so anything that can reinforce that is beneficial. It serves both to strengthen the position among those who already hold it *and* can be used to suggest that if/when a decision comes down the other direction that it's some travesty of justice or something.


To you, this issue in particular should be decided based on the assumed overwhelming economic and social benefits of the government providing health care to everyone. To me, this issue should be decided based on whether the mechanism government is using is in violation of the principles of the constitution. That's why the left and the right rarely agrees on anything. We're literally judging issues with different yardsticks.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#36 Jun 30 2011 at 7:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If it had been 2-1 against, there wouldn't be a thread about it.

That's probably true, namely because it would have probably split along seemingly partisan lines and "the Democrat agreed but the Republicans didn't!" isn't very interesting.

If it split 0-3, it would have been worth a thread. If it split Dem/Rep against vs. Rep for, it would have definitely been worth a thread.

Quote:
the left hyping one case they won

Huh? There's been four lower court cases and they split 2-2 along "partisan" lines. This case, setting aside the partisan aspect, is notable because it's the first appellate court decision so it's the first time one of those lower court cases have hit Round Two. I've no idea what you think you mean by "are losing" in regards to the other cases. I know one of them has a appellate panel of three Democratic appointees so be sure to talk about how much the appointing party doesn't matter if they rule in favor Smiley: smile

The idea that one case or another is "more important" is some delusion you've either convinced yourself of or else the man on the AM radio/Freeper blog told you and you were naive enough to believe them. The reality is that the SCotUS will almost certainly bundle the appellate cases and rule on the constitutionality of the mandate based on all the lower court rulings since that's the grounds they're being contested on. Which is why this ruling is important, regardless of what you tell yourself; if the case is a 5-4 decision, the question will certainly be "What did Kennedy decide" and rulings in which constructionist judge(s) ruled in favor and wrote out reasoned pieces why the law is constitutional from that perspective may add weight to the defense's case.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#37 Jun 30 2011 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
You have this very strange approach to debate in some issues where you try to use past court cases, not just as an argument about the legality/constitutionality of something, but as some kind of moral compass. As though I should somehow abandon my own positions on an issue because a court decision came down the other way.

You have this charmingly naive approach where you think your precious snowflake opinions are worth more than the reality of precedent and settled law. You're entitled to those opinions but you give them far more weight in the real world than they'd ever deserve.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#38 Jun 30 2011 at 8:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
The idea that one case or another is "more important" is some delusion you've either convinced yourself of or else the man on the AM radio/Freeper blog told you and you were naive enough to believe them.


In the context of the whole of this legal question, some cases are more important than others. This case is basically arguing the far far right libertarian position. It's basically saying "government doesn't have the authority to make me do something which hurts me financially". It's right in there along with arguments that the income tax is unconstitutional. Surely you get this, right? This is by far the weakest of the arguments being brought in terms of the likelihood of the court ruling favorably.

It's in there because you want to examine every aspect, and you never know. Maybe they'll get a ruling which upholds some portion of that far right libertarian viewpoint. I doubt it, but it's worth trying.

Quote:
The reality is that the SCotUS will almost certainly bundle the appellate cases and rule on the constitutionality of the mandate based on all the lower court rulings since that's the grounds they're being contested on.


Yes. But you do understand that they'll lump all those questions into one case, but the case isn't "won" for the defense unless it wins every question. The court isn't going to decide that the "individual can't be inconvenienced by the government" isn't strong enough and rule the whole thing in favor of the government. What is going to happen is that on some questions in the case (like most likely this one) the court will rule that the government can do what it's doing, but on other questions (like states rights in general, or states rights in terms of a contradictory existing health care law), the federal law fails the constitutional test.


That's why this case really doesn't matter. Oh. It would matter if it went the other way, since it might indicate just how completely screwed the Health Care Reform law is. But this is basically the argument no one really expects to win, but you use it anyway just to see.



Quote:
Which is why this ruling is important, regardless of what you tell yourself; if the case is a 5-4 decision, the question will certainly be "What did Kennedy decide" and rulings in which constructionist judge(s) ruled in favor and wrote out reasoned pieces why the law is constitutional from that perspective may add weight to the defense's case.



It wont come down that way though. You're naive if you think it will. It'll be more like the Wal-Mart case, with a majority (or even unanimous) decision on the question of violation of states rights, and perhaps a 5-4 split on other aspects like individual protection from federal action.


The point you seem to keep missing is that no amount of a lower court ruling on the idea of individuals being constitutionally protected from the federal mandate on the grounds that it might hurt them financially has any bearing at all on the much much much stronger states rights aspect of this case. There is no precedent set. Despite what you seem to think, precedent isn't some simple "for or against" a given ideological position on an issue. It's about how the law interacts with specific elements of an issue.


This case asked the question: Does the health care reform mandate's potential to negatively impact people financially represent an unconstitutional infringement of their rights? That has absolutely nothing to do with the question: Does the health care reform mandate represent an unconstitutional infringement of the federal government into an aspect of governance reserved for the states?


You're making the mistake of looking at this as a blanket "is the law ok, or not?". That's not how the courts rule these cases. They look at each specific argument being made against the law. In this case, that argument is a relatively weak one. I wouldn't put too much weight on it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jun 30 2011 at 8:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You have this very strange approach to debate in some issues where you try to use past court cases, not just as an argument about the legality/constitutionality of something, but as some kind of moral compass. As though I should somehow abandon my own positions on an issue because a court decision came down the other way.

You have this charmingly naive approach where you think your precious snowflake opinions are worth more than the reality of precedent and settled law. You're entitled to those opinions but you give them far more weight in the real world than they'd ever deserve.


The case isn't about whether a given judge likes the health care law or not Joph. That's where you (and most liberals) fail to get it. Oh, you do attempt to stack courts with judges who do rule that way, but that's not how they're supposed to rule, and thankfully most of the time the Supreme Court actually does this right. You think that because one ruling found the law constitutional, this has weight. But it doesn't. Because it's not about the law. Judges don't rule on the whole of a law. They rule on legal challenges made against that law.


That's where you're going wrong here. This case sets no precedent with regard to the more important challenges being made. It's why pretty much no one outside the liberal blogosphere is paying it much mind.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Jun 30 2011 at 8:28 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
The case isn't about whether a given judge likes the health care law or not Joph.

No, it's not. It's ultimately about how nine Justices feel about it. Your own opinions on the matter aren't relevant at all but things that influence or help indicate how they'll see it are very important, no matter how desperate you are to downplay them. Smiley: smile
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Aug 12 2011 at 12:32 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
An update!

In a 2-1 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional. This time, it was a Republican appointed and Democratic appointed judge ruling against and a Democratic appointee ruling for. Not much in the way of details yet except that they overturned the lower court ruling that the entire law must be thrown out -- removing the mandate would leave the rest of the law constitutional in their opinion. There's one more Appeals case pending, I believe.

As they used to say on the news: "Further updates as events warrant" and onward towards the Supreme Court.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Necro Warning: This post occurred more than thirty days after the prior, and may be a necropost.
#42 Aug 12 2011 at 12:36 PM Rating: Good
******
43,643 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Further updates as events warrant"
"Until then, here are twenty four hours of coverage over five channels with opinions on this turn of events until further updates."
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#43 Aug 12 2011 at 3:05 PM Rating: Default
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,816 posts
It could be that the ruling (R)judge was making a statement for the times that the judicial system isn't totally under the sway of congress. It could be the (R)judge is looking for his/her 15 minutes in the spotlight. Or maybe the judge just thought it constitutional for congress to mandate healthcare. It doesn't necessarily make a statement about whether or not they personally think it should be.

Edit: I missed the necro post part... Smiley: bah

Funny, i missed this thread, or ignored it, or spaced it out..hah!

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 11:11pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#44 Aug 12 2011 at 3:11 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're running a bit late there. This was bumped in regards to today's ruling where it was (R)(D) against and (D) for.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#45 Aug 12 2011 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
15,816 posts
Jophiel wrote:
You're running a bit late there. This was bumped in regards to today's ruling where it was (R)(D) against and (D) for.

In that case my late-comment still applies...sort of.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 11:15pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#46 Aug 12 2011 at 4:05 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,548 posts
Jophiel wrote:
An update!

In a 2-1 ruling, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled the law unconstitutional. This time, it was a Republican appointed and Democratic appointed judge ruling against and a Democratic appointee ruling for. Not much in the way of details yet except that they overturned the lower court ruling that the entire law must be thrown out -- removing the mandate would leave the rest of the law constitutional in their opinion. There's one more Appeals case pending, I believe.


Was this an appeal of the same case we discussed earlier? Or one of the other ones? Kinda head deep in code at work and don't have time to look anything up.


I'll repeat something I'm reasonably sure I said earlier (if not in this thread, than another): The party of the executive who nominated a judge isn't a 100% determinant of that judge's position on even hot button political issues. Doubly so the farther down you go in the judicial system. I guess I'm still not sure what the point of focusing on the judge mix in terms of Dem or GOP appointments is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Aug 12 2011 at 4:09 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Different case.

1-1 in the Appeals level now with one more case to get ruled.

Edited, Aug 12th 2011 5:09pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 38 All times are in CDT
Elinda, Anonymous Guests (37)