Obama's Crowning Moment?

[Alien Allen]

Here's a nice development. Several of the states' attorneys general are suing about the new law. Here's a radio interview with the Texas Attorney General.


http://www.ktsa.com/play_window.php?audioType=Episode&audioId=4498677

I heard a local law school professor say that there is no chance the cases will even be heard by the supreme court and even it they did it would be a slam dunk loss. No chance of it being over turned in court. If you note all they AG's are republicans. It is a feel good measure for their base and will be a waste of time and money

 

[Accountable]

I heard a local law school professor say that there is no chance the cases will even be heard by the supreme court and even it they did it would be a slam dunk loss. No chance of it being over turned in court. If you note all they AG's are republicans. It is a feel good measure for their base and will be a waste of time and money

Did the professor say why? Also did you catch a whiff of political bias in the interview? It would've been nice to see a variety of political parties to lend credence, but I really don't see how this can be twisted into a constitutional argument short of everyone having an Edgray moment.

 

[Alien Allen]

Did the professor say why? Also did you catch a whiff of political bias in the interview? It would've been nice to see a variety of political parties to lend credence, but I really don't see how this can be twisted into a constitutional argument short of everyone having an Edgray moment.

Hopefully this works as it is a link to the interview

easier than for me to explain. I did not think it was biased.



http://wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1742874&spid=6551

 

[Tim]

Hopefully this works as it is a link to the interview

easier than for me to explain. I did not think it was biased.



http://wjr.com/Article.asp?id=1742874&spid=6551

Good piece of audio. Do you listen to this guy on the radio? I like his style. I also like when the host brings on experts who are really experts and not some shill for either party.

 

[dt3]

I didn't listen to the audio, but the Constitutionality of it is based on how the Commerce Clause is interpreted. The Commerce Clause is the ONLY part of the Constitution I've heard used to justify this bill.

It says that Congress has the power ""To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes"

Now, can anybody please explain: If one of the biggest problems with the current healthcare situation is the inability to buy insurance across state lines...
How could that POSSIBLY fall under the Commerce Clause, which clearly only applies to commerce across state lines???

 

[Accountable]

I heard a local law school professor say that there is no chance the cases will even be heard by the supreme court and even it they did it would be a slam dunk loss. No chance of it being over turned in court. If you note all they AG's are republicans. It is a feel good measure for their base and will be a waste of time and money

The prof explained about how activist SC justices in the past allowed Congress to stretch the commerce clause into a fucking all-encompassing blanket to give them control over literally anything they damn well please. Given the American courts tradition of looking to precedent to assist in making decisions, it's understandable that the SC would do the same, but if they did they would be wrong wrong wrong. Their job is to interpret law and the Constitution, not law and the interpretation of how others have interpreted the Constitution. The current Supreme Court is not a body under previous Supreme Courts, it is Supreme.

The part that really gets to me that he points out is that the state can't sue on behalf of its citizens, that only someone actually damaged by a fucked up unconstitutional law can bring suit to change it. Damn good thing that precedent didn't exist during slave times, eh? "I want to sue." "For what?" "Because I'm a slave and slavery goes against the Constitution." "Well you can't sue." "Why not?" "Because you're a slave. Now get back to work" "Yassuh massuh."

I disagree that it's a waste of time and money. IMO the SC should be watching such important and far-reaching legislation and reviewing it even without someone bringing it to them. Forcing them to weigh in with an official opinion is hardly a waste.

 

[Alien Allen]

Good piece of audio. Do you listen to this guy on the radio? I like his style. I also like when the host brings on experts who are really experts and not some shill for either party.

I listen to Paul W. Smith every day on the way to work. He gets a lot of interesting people on his show. If you look at his site on that website you can see all the people he interviews. He has some major people come on regularly

He is real conservative although you would not know it from that interview.

If you get bored he is on the morning drive at wjr.com

you can stream it live

 

[Alien Allen]

I wish they would over turn the ruling on the commerce clause

IMO it is what gave the feds far over reaching powers

I don't see that happening though. It would really upset the apple cart

we are sheep being herded

baah.

 

[Accountable]

The repubs have given up their pretense of opposing this. This columnist sums it up about right:

It is still, of course, an enormous achievement, and it alters the political terrain in ways that are favorable to Democrats. By creating new facts on the ground, health reform complicates the Republicans' task.



Already, the GOP's early calls to repeal the bill look problematic. The insurance reforms in the bill are widely popular, and even its tax increases (a large share of which hit the very wealthy) are tied to benefits that would flow to middle- or lower-middle income Americans.


In addition, Republicans concede a great deal when they say they would "replace" the plan and not simply return to the pre-reform status quo. Their slogan makes clear that all future arguments about health care will be premised on a more active government role. The debate will never be the same again.
​

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...04/04/AR2010040402722.html?wpisrc=nl_opinions

 

[Alien Allen]

Going back to the status quo would never happen. It is rare to get a 60 seat majority in the senate and even so look at the problems the democrats had.

It can be tweaked though. In time we will get a single payer. Which is what the democrats were gaming for from the get go and they knew this would be one way as this will be a failure leaving single payer as the only option.

 

[Accountable]

Going back to the status quo would never happen. It is rare to get a 60 seat majority in the senate and even so look at the problems the democrats had.

Hehe ... you seem to think the Republicans would go back to status quo if they could. I'd bet that we'd keep gov't insurance control, auto industry control, and bank control even if we had 100% republican membership in both houses of congress. Giving up political power is as foreign a concept as cutting spending.

 

[Alien Allen]

Hehe ... you seem to think the Republicans would go back to status quo if they could. I'd bet that we'd keep gov't insurance control, auto industry control, and bank control even if we had 100% republican membership in both houses of congress. Giving up political power is as foreign a concept as cutting spending.

I agree

I was just commenting that it could not happen even if they wanted it because of the numbers