Health Care Reform is Not Unconstitutional

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]Funny, I see hospitals full of them every day.

Shame-usBlackley

Yup. Its the reason why your premiums go up. To recover the lost money.

Yet that wasn't the argument you were making a minute ago.

Which is funny because hospitals =/= insurers

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Yup. Its the reason why your premiums go up. To recover the lost money.

DroidPhysX

Yet that wasn't the argument you were making a minute ago.

Which is funny because hospitals =/= insurers

Are you saying the majority of the patients in hospitals are uninsured?

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Yet that wasn't the argument you were making a minute ago.

Shame-usBlackley

Which is funny because hospitals =/= insurers

Are you saying the majority of the patients in hospitals are uninsured?

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

Which is funny because hospitals =/= insurers

DroidPhysX

Are you saying the majority of the patients in hospitals are uninsured?

Yes, but you argued earlier that insurance companies don't insure healthy people, and a few minutes later implied that all the people who come and go from hospitals aren't necessarily insured, despite the number of Americans uninsured hovering somewhere around 40-50 million out of, what, 350-400 million?

So if the total number of uninsured os around 20 percent of the populace (a good many of which are young people who don't want it and don't care about it at that point in their lives), wouldn't it stand to reason that the vast majority of those in the hospital are insured?

Yes, but you argued earlier that insurance companies don't insure healthy people, and a few minutes later implied that all the people who come and go from hospitals aren't necessarily insured, despite the number of Americans uninsured hovering somewhere around 40-50 million out of, what, 350-400 million?

Shame-usBlackley

Uhhhh. No idea what your talking about but:

I never heard of an unhealthy person getting insurance. Oh yeah thats right, insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditions

DroidPhysX

They dont insure UNHEALTHY people

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Yes, but you argued earlier that insurance companies don't insure healthy people, and a few minutes later implied that all the people who come and go from hospitals aren't necessarily insured, despite the number of Americans uninsured hovering somewhere around 40-50 million out of, what, 350-400 million?

DroidPhysX

Uhhhh. No idea what your talking about but:

I never heard of an unhealthy person getting insurance. Oh yeah thats right, insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditions

DroidPhysX

They dont insure UNHEALTHY people

So anyone who takes out insurance is never going to get sick?

And SOME conditions are exempted, but not all. For example, I had asthma as a kid and never had (and never have had) any trouble obtaining insurance, either though work or my own private means. Making a blanket statement that anyone with a pre-existing condition is fallacious.

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

Do you have any reliable sources to back up your claims? Also I must mention the irony that is your icon. The image of "Why So Socialist" with Obama as the joker is a huge logical fail. The Joker was an anarchist, something that is polar opposite of socialism. :|

Shame-usBlackley

I want some sources for those statements.

This'll get you started (sorry, I'm having trouble with HTML on the site right now):

http://www.chicagonow.com/blogs/publius-forum/2011/02/obama-gives-obamacare-waivers-to-28-unions-his-big-donors.html

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/01/26/obamacare-waivers-jump-from-222-to-729-covering-2-2-million-employees/

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/teachers_union_gets_pass_on_obamacare_dhoJQgXRKLwbYtp6Nam7LK

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/17/dude_wheres_my_obamacare_waiver_107978.html

http://nation.foxnews.com/health-care-reform/2011/01/20/house-launches-investigation-obamacare-waivers

Chicagonow is not a reliable source for accurate news, her is a quote from Chicagonow about what it is:

"ChicagoNow is an online community created by Chicagoans for Chicagoans.

More than 10 million of us call ourselves Chicagoans. Some of us live in the city proper, many of us live in the suburbs and more than a few live a plane ride away. Our stories vary, but all of us are connected to Chicago. ChicagoNow is where we connect to each other online and share our interests.

Every day, our bloggers post more than 100 entries about all things Chicago. One day you might read about CTA fare cuts, see photos of a new bar in Pilsen or watch an interview with Jay Cutler. The next day you might read about Blago's latest stunt, listen to a podcast streaming live from Boystown or watch Miss Illinois work out.

It's our bloggers' job to lead the conversation on Chicago. We encourage you to join the conversation by commenting on their posts. Many of our bloggers are also on Twitter and host their own meet-ups offline. To find out more about our bloggers, including how to contact them directly, please see their individual about pages.

People tend to label just about anything they disagree with as "unconstitutional". I think it's incredibly stupid to use that phrase no matter what the context, because times change, so something that would have been considered moral back then might be considered immoral today. Technically women having the same rights as men isn't "constitutional", but obviously we're not going to just blindly obey that. yabbicoke

Until an amendment is passed, a new provision that states otherwise WOULD be unconstitutional.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

Yes, but you argued earlier that insurance companies don't insure healthy people, and a few minutes later implied that all the people who come and go from hospitals aren't necessarily insured, despite the number of Americans uninsured hovering somewhere around 40-50 million out of, what, 350-400 million?

DroidPhysX

Uhhhh. No idea what your talking about but:

I never heard of an unhealthy person getting insurance. Oh yeah thats right, insurance companies reject people with pre-existing conditions

DroidPhysX

They dont insure UNHEALTHY people

[QUOTE="yabbicoke"]People tend to label just about anything they disagree with as "unconstitutional". I think it's incredibly stupid to use that phrase no matter what the context, because times change, so something that would have been considered moral back then might be considered immoral today. Technically women having the same rights as men isn't "constitutional", but obviously we're not going to just blindly obey that. Shame-usBlackley

Until an amendment is passed, a new provision that states otherwise WOULD be unconstitutional.

So lets look at this statement shall we? At the end of Decemeber there were 729 Waviers approved, you said he was handing out "thousands of waviers" 729 waviers is not "thousands" and more over, again all these waviers are temporary and become irrelavent in 2014. Now these waviers cover just under 2.2 Million people which may seem like a lot but compared to the population of the United States (308,745,538 according to the 2010 Census) only 0.71% of the population's employers are exempt from annual dollar limits.So far the only link you presented that gave any insite on to why corporations would want to become exempt from the annual dollar limit is the RealClearPolitics and Hotair link which had this to say "But Jay Blumenthal, financial vice president of the Local 802 Musicians Health Fund in New York, did explain to me: "We got grandfathered in" (his description for getting a pass) because "things were moving so fast" and "we need time now to prepare for the law." and Hotair said this "This ever-expanding list of waivers is the direct result of ObamaCare raising the annual benefit caps on certain health plans. Obviously, a plan with higher annual limits is potentially more costly than one without them. The money to cover the difference in premiums has to come from somewhere. Without the waivers, it will come from the employer who are forced by law to upgrade to the more expensive plan."DarkGamer007

If you want to argue whether it's factual or not, do it alone with the birthers and the truthers. Everyone knows it's the truth, the administration hasn't contested it, and a google search turns up TONS of different sources on it.

The rest of your argument is void. The bottom line is that ObamaCare has been marketed as something ALL Americans are to partake in, yet the waivers continue to mount -- many from corporations and entities friendly to Obama. The bi-polar attitude coming from the Obama administration shows a serious lack of credibility in its claims, or at least, its belief in them. Which means this deserves a serious second look and at face value, doesn't appear to be uniformly applied, which I'd argue is unconstitutional in and of itself.

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

So lets look at this statement shall we? At the end of Decemeber there were 729 Waviers approved, you said he was handing out "thousands of waviers" 729 waviers is not "thousands" and more over, again all these waviers are temporary and become irrelavent in 2014. Now these waviers cover just under 2.2 Million people which may seem like a lot but compared to the population of the United States (308,745,538 according to the 2010 Census) only 0.71% of the population's employers are exempt from annual dollar limits.So far the only link you presented that gave any insite on to why corporations would want to become exempt from the annual dollar limit is the RealClearPolitics and Hotair link which had this to say "But Jay Blumenthal, financial vice president of the Local 802 Musicians Health Fund in New York, did explain to me: "We got grandfathered in" (his description for getting a pass) because "things were moving so fast" and "we need time now to prepare for the law." and Hotair said this "This ever-expanding list of waivers is the direct result of ObamaCare raising the annual benefit caps on certain health plans. Obviously, a plan with higher annual limits is potentially more costly than one without them. The money to cover the difference in premiums has to come from somewhere. Without the waivers, it will come from the employer who are forced by law to upgrade to the more expensive plan."Shame-usBlackley

If you want to argue whether it's factual or not, do it alone with the birthers and the truthers. Everyone knows it's the truth, the administration hasn't contested it, and a google search turns up TONS of different sources on it.

The rest of your argument is void. The bottom line is that ObamaCare has been marketed as something ALL Americans are to partake in, yet the waivers continue to mount -- many from corporations and entities friendly to Obama.

Makes me wonder why conservatives dont rip Romney for RomneyCare in Massachusetts.

DroidPhysX

Real conservatives do. Romney is a failed candidate just on that alone, and if the repubs nominate him, they'll lose -- no question. On top of that, RomneyCare was an abject failure. Running a liberal dressed as a republican will fail miserably. We've already seen what happened when Uncle Fester ran.

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

So lets look at this statement shall we? At the end of Decemeber there were 729 Waviers approved, you said he was handing out "thousands of waviers" 729 waviers is not "thousands" and more over, again all these waviers are temporary and become irrelavent in 2014. Now these waviers cover just under 2.2 Million people which may seem like a lot but compared to the population of the United States (308,745,538 according to the 2010 Census) only 0.71% of the population's employers are exempt from annual dollar limits.So far the only link you presented that gave any insite on to why corporations would want to become exempt from the annual dollar limit is the RealClearPolitics and Hotair link which had this to say "But Jay Blumenthal, financial vice president of the Local 802 Musicians Health Fund in New York, did explain to me: "We got grandfathered in" (his description for getting a pass) because "things were moving so fast" and "we need time now to prepare for the law." and Hotair said this "This ever-expanding list of waivers is the direct result of ObamaCare raising the annual benefit caps on certain health plans. Obviously, a plan with higher annual limits is potentially more costly than one without them. The money to cover the difference in premiums has to come from somewhere. Without the waivers, it will come from the employer who are forced by law to upgrade to the more expensive plan."Shame-usBlackley

If you want to argue whether it's factual or not, do it alone with the birthers and the truthers. Everyone knows it's the truth, the administration hasn't contested it, and a google search turns up TONS of different sources on it.

The rest of your argument is void. The bottom line is that ObamaCare has been marketed as something ALL Americans are to partake in, yet the waivers continue to mount -- many from corporations and entities friendly to Obama.

I think 99.29% of the population is pretty significant, and once 2014 roles around these waviers will be void, in fact they will be void next year unless they are renewed but the bottom line is that by 2014 the 729 unions/employers/corparations with waivers will no longer be exempt from having an annual dollar limit on the cost of health care benefits for their employees and will have to take part in "ObamaCare".

I think 99.29% of the population is pretty significant, and once 2014 roles around these waviers will be void, in fact they will be void next year unless they are renewed but the bottom line is that by 2014 the 729 unions/employers/corparations with waivers will no longer be exempt from having an annual dollar limit on the cost of health care benefits for their employees and will have to take part in "ObamaCare".

DarkGamer007

You're still arguing that it's fair to exempt SOME from what is being called a MANDATE, and not others, which is destroys the whole argument ObamaCare is based on.

Further, do you have any proof that:

A) The Obama admin will honor its word any differently than it did this time with the waivers in 2014?

And B) That we've seen ALL the waivers they're going to allow?

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

I think 99.29% of the population is pretty significant, and once 2014 roles around these waviers will be void, in fact they will be void next year unless they are renewed but the bottom line is that by 2014 the 729 unions/employers/corparations with waivers will no longer be exempt from having an annual dollar limit on the cost of health care benefits for their employees and will have to take part in "ObamaCare".

Shame-usBlackley

You're still arguing that it's fair to exempt SOME from what is being called a MANDATE, and not others, which is destroys the whole argument ObamaCare is based on.

To answer letter A and B (Well B for atleast this year) Yes I do, it is right....here.

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

I think 99.29% of the population is pretty significant, and once 2014 roles around these waviers will be void, in fact they will be void next year unless they are renewed but the bottom line is that by 2014 the 729 unions/employers/corparations with waivers will no longer be exempt from having an annual dollar limit on the cost of health care benefits for their employees and will have to take part in "ObamaCare".

Shame-usBlackley

You're still arguing that it's fair to exempt SOME from what is being called a MANDATE, and not others, which is destroys the whole argument ObamaCare is based on.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

I think 99.29% of the population is pretty significant, and once 2014 roles around these waviers will be void, in fact they will be void next year unless they are renewed but the bottom line is that by 2014 the 729 unions/employers/corparations with waivers will no longer be exempt from having an annual dollar limit on the cost of health care benefits for their employees and will have to take part in "ObamaCare".

DarkGamer007

You're still arguing that it's fair to exempt SOME from what is being called a MANDATE, and not others, which is destroys the whole argument ObamaCare is based on.

And you are still missing the even bigger picture that what the Obama administration says, and what it does are two completely different things many times. Obama himself said in 2008 that he didn't support an individual mandate, yet once elected, he reneged on that.

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

I think 99.29% of the population is pretty significant, and once 2014 roles around these waviers will be void, in fact they will be void next year unless they are renewed but the bottom line is that by 2014 the 729 unions/employers/corparations with waivers will no longer be exempt from having an annual dollar limit on the cost of health care benefits for their employees and will have to take part in "ObamaCare".

DroidPhysX

You're still arguing that it's fair to exempt SOME from what is being called a MANDATE, and not others, which is destroys the whole argument ObamaCare is based on.

You shouldn't. I just called it RomneyCare a few posts back, and HillaryCare back in the 90s. It's not a derogatory statement, it just is what it is -- and goes with the person who pushed the bill.

EDIT: Although I guess technically this should be called PelosiCare since she's the one Obama let write the bill. But honestly, do you want to hear that witch's name on anything? :P

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

You're still arguing that it's fair to exempt SOME from what is being called a MANDATE, and not others, which is destroys the whole argument ObamaCare is based on.

Shame-usBlackley

And you are still missing the even bigger picture that what the Obama administration says, and what it does are two completely different things many times. Obama himself said in 2008 that he didn't support an individual mandate, yet once elected, he reneged on that.

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

You're still arguing that it's fair to exempt SOME from what is being called a MANDATE, and not others, which is destroys the whole argument ObamaCare is based on.

Shame-usBlackley

And you are still missing the even bigger picture that what the Obama administration says, and what it does are two completely different things many times. Obama himself said in 2008 that he didn't support an individual mandate, yet once elected, he reneged on that.

You have a link for that?

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"] You are still missing the bigger picture that come 2014, these unions/employers/corparations can no longer be exempt. Thus it is completely fair. :|

DarkGamer007

And you are still missing the even bigger picture that what the Obama administration says, and what it does are two completely different things many times. Obama himself said in 2008 that he didn't support an individual mandate, yet once elected, he reneged on that.

You have a link for that?

I already gave you one in the last post. The federal judge cited Obama's own words right from the campaign trail in his ruling. I even quoted it for you.

Here:

"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obamasupported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, 'If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'" JudgeVinsonwrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page rulingMonday."

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"] You are still missing the bigger picture that come 2014, these unions/employers/corparations can no longer be exempt. Thus it is completely fair. :|

DroidPhysX

And you are still missing the even bigger picture that what the Obama administration says, and what it does are two completely different things many times. Obama himself said in 2008 that he didn't support an individual mandate, yet once elected, he reneged on that.

So why is he asking that I trust him?

Who cares what the constitution says? Surely what matters is whether the reform is for the good of America... If it is, do it. If not, don't.SolidSnake35

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"]

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

And you are still missing the even bigger picture that what the Obama administration says, and what it does are two completely different things many times. Obama himself said in 2008 that he didn't support an individual mandate, yet once elected, he reneged on that.

Shame-usBlackley

You have a link for that?

I already gave you one in the last post. The federal judge cited Obama's own words right from the campaign trail in his ruling. I even quoted it for you.

Here:

"I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obamasupported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that, 'If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,'" JudgeVinsonwrote in a footnote toward the end of his 78-page rulingMonday."

There was no link in the last post you gave me, but the quote sounds legitamite.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Who cares what the constitution says? Surely what matters is whether the reform is for the good of America... If it is, do it. If not, don't.ToastRider11

Person A: "I want to pass law x" Person B: "Law x is not constitutional" A: "Yes, it is" B: "No" A: "Fine, I want an amendment passing such that law x is constitutional" B: "Done" A: "Why didn't you just pass the law in the first place?" B: "Dunno" It's just a guideline of what should typically work for America. Just pass the good laws and ban the stupid ones and cut out the middle ground. There must be reasons why things are "unconstitutional", right? Whatever reasons those are, they should be given. You can't just say... it's unconstitutional so stuff you. And if reasons exist, why mask them?SolidSnake35

Huh?

In terms of hypotheticals

Person A: "Passes law X"

Person B: "The law is unconstitutional - I'm going to appeal to the courts"

Court A: "The law is unconstitutional"

Person A: "I appeal your decision"

Court B: "The law is constitutional"

Person B: "I appeal your decision" (and so on)

SCOTUS: "the law is unconstitutional"

Person A: "I want to ammend the constitution"

SCOTUS: "Then draft an ammendment, propose it, and ratify it."

Person A: *drafts ammendment and proposes it. A proposal requires either a two-thirds vote in both houses of congress, or a demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The proposal succeeds and must now be ratified by three-fourths of the states for the proposal to be amended into the Constitution.*

This is just a rough idea of what is required, but it sure as heck is more substantial than what you proposed... person A wants it, DONE!

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

ChaelaMcchubble

[QUOTE="Shame-usBlackley"]

[QUOTE="DarkGamer007"] You are still missing the bigger picture that come 2014, these unions/employers/corparations can no longer be exempt. Thus it is completely fair. :|

DarkGamer007

And you are still missing the even bigger picture that what the Obama administration says, and what it does are two completely different things many times. Obama himself said in 2008 that he didn't support an individual mandate, yet once elected, he reneged on that.

You have a link for that?

The health insurance industry practically forced it. There's a PBS documentary about the grueling process of passing that bill and all of the backroom deals that went on.

[QUOTE="SolidSnake35"]Person A: "I want to pass law x" Person B: "Law x is not constitutional" A: "Yes, it is" B: "No" A: "Fine, I want an amendment passing such that law x is constitutional" B: "Done" A: "Why didn't you just pass the law in the first place?" B: "Dunno" It's just a guideline of what should typically work for America. Just pass the good laws and ban the stupid ones and cut out the middle ground. There must be reasons why things are "unconstitutional", right? Whatever reasons those are, they should be given. You can't just say... it's unconstitutional so stuff you. And if reasons exist, why mask them?raynimrod

Huh?

In terms of hypotheticals

Person A: "Passes law X"

Person B: "The law is unconstitutional - I'm going to appeal to the courts"

Court A: "The law is unconstitutional"

Person A: "I appeal your decision"

Court B: "The law is constitutional"

Person B: "I appeal your decision" (and so on)

SCOTUS: "the law is unconstitutional"

Person A: "I want to ammend the constitution"

SCOTUS: "Then draft an ammendment, propose it, and ratify it."

Person A: *drafts ammendment and proposes it. A proposal requires either a two-thirds vote in both houses of congress, or a demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures. The proposal succeeds and must now be ratified by three-fourths of the states for the proposal to be amended into the Constitution.*

This is just a rough idea of what is required, but it sure as heck is more substantial than what you proposed... person A wants it, DONE!

Or one of the conservatives on the court could step down and a 5 judge majority could revisit the case.

That's complete and utter absurdity. I work in a law office, a regulation is a law. The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act was "signed into law" by Obama. Here is a link to a dictionary that makes the exact connection: "A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern conduct." I can find more if you like.superfluidity

It may be a law for an organisation or the European Union, but as far as the US goes, that's not what a regulation is.

http://www.ehow.com/facts_6063130_difference-between-federal-law-regulation_.html

I can provide more examples if you'd like.

I provided a short qote that by itself proves what I was trying to get across. I'll provide it again:superfluidity

That was not in your original post - you edited it after I'd started replying to your post.

Your example only relates to interstate commerce or commerce affecting more than one state, I haven't denied that this is covered by the commerce clause. That would fall under "among the several states".

What you haven't provided an example of where the SCOTUS has said that commerce within a state (not among states) can be regulated and/or mandated by the federal government. Regulating interstate commerce or commerce that affects more than one state isn't the issue at hand here.

[QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

MgamerBD

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="weezyfb"] car insurance /threadweezyfb

One of the unenumerated powers reserved for the states as addressed in the constituion.

/thread.

Cars aren't a right, and it is optional to own one.

The problem with that argument is that I could say that I shouldn't have to pay taxes because I don't want to and the government would just give me a giant middle finger and tell to pay up anyway. Universal healthcare is gonna happen sooner or later and it probably should happen.BreakTheseLinks

If by "taxes", you instead meant, "premiums paid to for-profit, private corporations", then you might have a point.

Comparing people being forced to hand over their money to corporations to people paying taxes to their government is a terrible place to start your argument.

Do you really want to give the madmen in charge of Wall Street the power to tax you and force you to buy their worthless products?

People tend to label just about anything they disagree with as "unconstitutional". I think it's incredibly stupid to use that phrase no matter what the context, because times change, so something that would have been considered moral back then might be considered immoral today. Technically women having the same rights as men isn't "constitutional", but obviously we're not going to just blindly obey that. yabbicoke

The Constitution is the ABSOLUTELY HIGHEST LAW OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. No law can surpass the US Constitution, be it local or international.

Framing issues around whether they are constitutional or unconstitutional is vital to American governance. The Constitution is the source for ALL authority in this nation.

[QUOTE="MgamerBD"][QUOTE="ChaelaMcchubble"]

People should not be forced to get health care if they do not want it.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] But objectively they operate in the same manner. What you're focusing on is a nominal difference that isn't in any way substantive. -Sun_Tzu-

Yes, they operate in the same manner. In both cases people are required to spend money - I'm not disputing that.

The constituion provides power for the congress to levy taxes. It does not provide power for congress to mandate the purchase of goods and services from private companies.

This is the only issue here.

It is not superficial.

Mandating the purchase of products from private, for-profit corporations is absolutely beyond the scope of the commerce clause and certainly unconstitutional.

Tell us, where, EXACTLY and EXPLICITLY, does the Constitution give Congress the power to mandate the purchase of products from private, for-profit corporations?

Florida is challenging this to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. That Circuit Court is conservative, so we can begin bracing for the Supreme Court.

It is unconstitutional, but, the problem is, thinking we have a choice in private businesses is an illusion to begin with.magicalclick

Wow, it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out when it inevitably falls to the SCOTUS to decide; I'm thinking it's going to depend on the views of the individual justices.

Must be tough a lot of the time to get anything done in the USA if so often competing interpretations of the Constitution can impede reforms like this. On the other hand, that document helps to protect several critical rights and procedures.

But should the Constitution be this sacrosanct, or is it just an appeal to authority argument?

Wow, it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out when it inevitably falls to the SCOTUS to decide; I'm thinking it's going to depend on the views of the individual justices.Danm_999

• Roberts: No (Conservative)
• Scalia: No (Conservative)
• Thomas: No (Conservative)
• Alito: No (Conservative)
• Breyer: Yes (Liberal)
• Gingsburg: Yes (Liberal)
• Sotomayor: Yes (Liberal)
• Kagan: Yes (Liberal)
• Kennedy: Y/N (Center-Right)

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Wow, it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out when it inevitably falls to the SCOTUS to decide; I'm thinking it's going to depend on the views of the individual justices.DroidPhysX

• Roberts: No (Conservative)
• Scalia: No (Conservative)
• Thomas: No (Conservative)
• Alito: No (Conservative)
• Breyer: Yes (Liberal)
• Gingsburg: Yes (Liberal)
• Sotomayor: Yes (Liberal)
• Kagan: Yes (Liberal)
• Kennedy: Y/N (Center-Right)

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Wow, it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out when it inevitably falls to the SCOTUS to decide; I'm thinking it's going to depend on the views of the individual justices.DroidPhysX

• Roberts: No (Conservative)
• Scalia: No (Conservative)
• Thomas: No (Conservative)
• Alito: No (Conservative)
• Breyer: Yes (Liberal)
• Gingsburg: Yes (Liberal)
• Sotomayor: Yes (Liberal)
• Kagan: Yes (Liberal)
• Kennedy: Y/N (Center-Right)

Well you never know, we could all be surprised.

It really bothers me that while the three branches of the US government should be completely separate, they clash when it comes to selecting the highest court in the country. It almost seems like a conflict of interest and fairness due to known political affiliations.

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

[QUOTE="Danm_999"]Wow, it's going to be interesting to see how this pans out when it inevitably falls to the SCOTUS to decide; I'm thinking it's going to depend on the views of the individual justices.raynimrod

• Roberts: No (Conservative)
• Scalia: No (Conservative)
• Thomas: No (Conservative)
• Alito: No (Conservative)
• Breyer: Yes (Liberal)
• Gingsburg: Yes (Liberal)
• Sotomayor: Yes (Liberal)
• Kagan: Yes (Liberal)
• Kennedy: Y/N (Center-Right)

Well you never know, we could all be surprised.

It really bothers me that while the three branches of the US government should be completely separate, they clash when it comes to selecting the highest court in the country. It almost seems like a conflict of interest and fairness due to known political affiliations.

[QUOTE="raynimrod"]

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]

• Roberts: No (Conservative)
• Scalia: No (Conservative)
• Thomas: No (Conservative)
• Alito: No (Conservative)
• Breyer: Yes (Liberal)
• Gingsburg: Yes (Liberal)
• Sotomayor: Yes (Liberal)
• Kagan: Yes (Liberal)
• Kennedy: Y/N (Center-Right)

Hemmaroids

Well you never know, we could all be surprised.

It really bothers me that while the three branches of the US government should be completely separate, they clash when it comes to selecting the highest court in the country. It almost seems like a conflict of interest and fairness due to known political affiliations.