[QUOTE="lx_theo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Do you understand my point? Either something is constitutional or it isn't, and believe it or not, the SCOTUS justices are human beings and can err. One can recognize that the SCOTUS has the constitutional authority to determine the the legality of a law, but that doesn't mean that they're applying the constitution as it's meant to be applied, or in the way that was intended by the drafters of the document. Your invocation of the changes in public attitudes that can occur over time suggests you subscribe to this "living and breathing" attitude towards the constitution, which is an absurd leftist position. kraychik

There are very little freedoms "guaranteed" to individuals under the Constitution. Most freedoms you enjoy "under the Constitution" come from society evolving (Brown [the right to education], Griswold [reproductive and privacy rights], right not to be sterilized [Skinner] ). None of those things are the Constituion. Fact is it doesn't say anywhere that state governments can't infringe upon one's rights under the Bill of Rights but SCOTUS interpreted the 14th Amendment to mean that the BOR does apply to states as well.

Of course the Constituion is meant to evolve, doesn't Congress have the power to amend it? And considering the three branches are equal (all three branches consider constitutionality, its just the judicial branch gets the last word) why shouldn't the judicial branch be able to treat the Constitution as an evolving document?

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"] The Supreme Court upheld segregation laws in the past, which were blatantly unconstitutional. SCOTUS consensus doesn't have to be seen as an accurate decision in line with the values of the constitution. From Joel Pollack - "According to Chief Justice John Roberts and his liberal colleagues on the Supreme Court, Congress does not have to call a tax a tax in order for it to be a tax. Congress can, in fact, create a penalty instead of a tax, and the President can tell the nation it is not a tax, but the courts can later decide Congress meant otherwise."kraychik

I know what you're trying to say, kray, but if the Supreme Court says it is constitutional it is constitutional. The end. You and Rand are still welcome to your opinions tho. :)

The analogy of the ACA to segregation is flawed since one has to do with an individual's private liberties versus what power the Consitution gives Congress to pass laws.

Its rare that SCOTUS overrules a former case upholding Congress' power under the Consitution.

Our perceptions of individual liberties change (they are not actually listed and are read into the Constituion so that is why you have cases like Brown, Casey, Griswold, etc).

What "commerce clause" or "tax power" means to the Court rarely changes, and Roberts did not want to be known as the Chief Justice that said "this is not what the commerce clause means."

Perfect outcome: another rung in the recent CC reducing trend, while allowing for the healthcare plan to be executed. On the other hand, there is now another 100+ page caselaw for con. and admin. law students to read. Think i'll just read the nexis brief and Scalia's dissent (god, I love that guy).pie-junior

I also can't wait to see if Scalia brings up how Rowe was wrongly decided in his dissent (I feel he's brought it up in every dissent since). Personally his VMI dissent is my favorite.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="GreySeal9"]

Not at all. Everybody and their grandma knows that the major battle was over whether the law would stand or not. I mean, conservatives can go ahead and pat themselves on the back for a philosophical victory, but the admistration got the outcome they wanted and conservatives didn't.

GreySeal9

That doesn't change the fact that we still won with regards to the commerce clause.

Well, if pyrrhic victories are your thing...

Also while it may be highly persuasive, the ruling that its unconsitutional under the commerce clause is dicta. Its not binding to a future court that Congress can't expand its power under the clause, in this case Roberts refused to expand the power and gave his opinion (not binding) that the commerce clause does not give such a power. (The Court isn't united on the judgment, see the concurring opinions)

I enjoy my name, Brice, I don't think other names would fit me.

Well seeing as all article III judges (Supreme Court, Circuit Judges, District Judges) are all appointed for life because that's how the constitution is interpreted, its not going to change unless Congress amends it.

Truth is I like that they are for life as it helps the court not be subject to democratic whims and brings a certain stability to constitutional interpretation.

If justices were elected every XX amount of years interpretation would change for re-election and you would have justices campaigning and backed by corporations and what not. Since right now they sit outside of the direct democratic process, it allows the court to interpret the constitution with minimal influence so the can balance the powers and rights of States, Federal Government, and Individuals more easily.

It's not that patents are bad, it's just that the system is completely broken and was recently made even worse. (first to file) There needs to be drastic reforms in terms of what can be patented. The idea that someone can patent a programming language or a piece of software is ludicrous.

Though I suppose a serious case could be made to end copyrights or drastically reduce the amount of years that a copyright can exist.

QuistisTrepe_

Truth is first to file really won't change anything. Mainly because the rest of the world is already first to file and the main reason behind (to reduce the amount of interference filings) weren't a problem anyway. And even though its first to file now if there is a question if the idea was stolen then they will have a derivation proceeding to prove who invented it.

Copyrights I won't touch on because I do believe the amount of time they are good for are too long.

But patents?

They're not just there to protect larger companies, but also start-ups and independent inventors. Without a patent on your item what is the point of inventing if you can't make any money on it? For smaller companies, a larger company will just copy your product and use superior brand name or the fact they have a faster/cheaper manufacture rate to drive the start up (who had the original idea) out of business. Also what is the point in employing more engineers if they aren't going to make you more money without patent revenue?

Patents also only last 20 years before they go into the public domain (in the US anyway), I don't think thats too long as it helps promote new, better, and cheaper ways of solving a problem rather than being able to take a known solution and let the best advertisors win.

[QUOTE="Jandurin"][QUOTE="sonicare"]If I am worried about juries being smart enough to interpret complex data?sonicare

Just a note on this, in professional negligence trials the plaintiff is required to establish the duty of care by bringing in an expert in that field to tell the jury what the standard of care is. After they have provided adequate evidence so that the jury could find that there was a duty that was breached they judge will allow them to do so. If the plaintiff fails to meet the burden of proving the standard of care then the case will be dismissed as the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action.

While its not the same as having a jury full of that profession (which runs into other problems such as people refusing to punish others in their profession) the jury is only required to know what the layman knows, and if the parties in the case fail to educate the jury then there is no case. Plus most neligence causes are settled or re ruled in favor of the defendants.

And since I was an engineer before being a lawyer hah, usually neglience comes from things that normal people understand like someone ignoring a warning in a spec, sub par testing, or using crappy parts.

Definitely a lurker, posting is just so scary:cry: