Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Bad_Daddy

Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law

21 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

http://news.yahoo.com/judge-upset-obamas-comments-health-care-law-010429840.html

By JUAN A. LOZANO | Associated Press – 3 hrs ago

HOUSTON (AP) — A federal appeals court judge on Tuesday seemed to take offense to comments President Barack Obama made earlier this week in which he warned that if the Supreme Court overturned his signature health care overhaul it would amount to overreach by an "unelected" court.

The Supreme Court is set to issue a ruling later this year on whether to strike down some or all of the historic health care law.

During oral arguments in Houston in a separate challenge to another aspect of the federal health care law, U.S. 5th Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Jerry Smith said Obama's comments troubled a number of people who have read them as a challenge to the authority of federal courts.

"I'm referring to statements by the president in the past few days to the effect, I'm sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed unelected judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed, he was referring of course to Obamacare, to what he termed a broad consensus and majorities in both houses of Congress," Smith told Dana Kaersvang, an attorney with the Justice Department in Washington, D.C.

On Monday, Obama issued a direct challenge to the Supreme Court, saying he didn't believe the high court would take the "unprecedented" step of overturning a law passed by a strong majority of Congress.

"I want to be sure that you are telling us that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts through unelected judges to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases," Smith said.

A somewhat surprised Kaersvang told Smith the Justice Department does recognize this power by the courts and made reference to a landmark 1803 case that formed the basis for judicial review.

However, Smith ordered Kaersvang to submit a letter to the appeals court by Thursday stating the position of U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department on the concept of judicial review.

"The letter needs to be at least three pages, single spaced, no less and it needs to be specific. It needs to make specific reference to the president's statements," Smith said.

The case before the appeals court was brought in part by a spine and joint hospital in East Texas that is challenging the constitutionality of a portion of the health care law that restricts physician-owned hospitals from expanding or building new facilities.

The Justice Department did not immediately return a telephone call late Tuesday seeking comment.

White House officials had no comment on Smith's statements, instead referring to comments Obama made earlier Tuesday at the annual meeting of The Associated Press in Washington.

At the meeting, Obama said the Supreme Court "is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it. ... I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has."


sigbet.jpg

"I want to take this opportunity to mention how thankful I am for an Obama re-election. The choice was clear. We cannot live in a country that treats homosexuals and women as second class citizens. Homosexuals deserve all of the rights and benefits of marriage that heterosexuals receive. Women deserve to be treated with respect and their salaries should not depend on their gender, but their quality of work. I am also thankful that the great, progressive state of California once again voted for the correct President. America is moving forward, and the direction is a positive one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Citizen (apr) Country: Ecuador
Timeline

We might be headed for a full-blown Constitutional crisis (complete with race-riots) by June.

If it's this bad now, start a mind-movie of what will happen if s0mebody is re-elected.


06-04-2007 = TSC stamps postal return-receipt for I-129f.

06-11-2007 = NOA1 date (unknown to me).

07-20-2007 = Phoned Immigration Officer; got WAC#; where's NOA1?

09-25-2007 = Touch (first-ever).

09-28-2007 = NOA1, 23 days after their 45-day promise to send it (grrrr).

10-20 & 11-14-2007 = Phoned ImmOffs; "still pending."

12-11-2007 = 180 days; file is "between workstations, may be early Jan."; touches 12/11 & 12/12.

12-18-2007 = Call; file is with Division 9 ofcr. (bckgrnd check); e-prompt to shake it; touch.

12-19-2007 = NOA2 by e-mail & web, dated 12-18-07 (187 days; 201 per VJ); in mail 12/24/07.

01-09-2008 = File from USCIS to NVC, 1-4-08; NVC creates file, 1/15/08; to consulate 1/16/08.

01-23-2008 = Consulate gets file; outdated Packet 4 mailed to fiancee 1/27/08; rec'd 3/3/08.

04-29-2008 = Fiancee's 4-min. consular interview, 8:30 a.m.; much evidence brought but not allowed to be presented (consul: "More proof! Second interview! Bring your fiance!").

05-05-2008 = Infuriating $12 call to non-English-speaking consulate appointment-setter.

05-06-2008 = Better $12 call to English-speaker; "joint" interview date 6/30/08 (my selection).

06-30-2008 = Stokes Interrogations w/Ecuadorian (not USC); "wait 2 weeks; we'll mail her."

07-2008 = Daily calls to DOS: "currently processing"; 8/05 = Phoned consulate, got Section Chief; wrote him.

08-07-08 = E-mail from consulate, promising to issue visa "as soon as we get her passport" (on 8/12, per DHL).

08-27-08 = Phoned consulate (they "couldn't find" our file); visa DHL'd 8/28; in hand 9/1; through POE on 10/9 with NO hassles(!).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We might be headed for a full-blown Constitutional crisis (complete with race-riots) by June.

If it's this bad now, start a mind-movie of what will happen if s0mebody is re-elected.

It's coming to that, it's just a matter of when. You can only load so much straw on a camels back before it breaks.


sigbet.jpg

"I want to take this opportunity to mention how thankful I am for an Obama re-election. The choice was clear. We cannot live in a country that treats homosexuals and women as second class citizens. Homosexuals deserve all of the rights and benefits of marriage that heterosexuals receive. Women deserve to be treated with respect and their salaries should not depend on their gender, but their quality of work. I am also thankful that the great, progressive state of California once again voted for the correct President. America is moving forward, and the direction is a positive one."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

We're definitely seeing wingnuttism coming from the right and their selective memory. Google 1993—the Consumer Choice Health Security Act and the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

We're definitely seeing wingnuttism coming from the right and their selective memory. Google 1993—the Consumer Choice Health Security Act and the Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act.

just because a few morons support tyranny with a mandate, doesn't mean the majority of people do.

Your ability to generalize is astounding.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

just because a few morons support tyranny with a mandate, doesn't mean the majority of people do.

Your ability to generalize is astounding.

A few? Um, how about 'nope.'

Nov. 20, 1993 Consumer Choice Health Security Act (SB 1743) Sponsored by Senator Don Nickles (R-OK) & 24 Republican cosponsors

"Subtitle C: Employer Provisions - Requires employers to: (1) withhold health insurance premiums from employee wages and remit such premiums to the employee's chosen insurer; and (2) notify employees of their right to claim an advance refundable tax credit for such premiums."

Nov. 23, 1993 Health Equity and Access Reform Today Act (SB 1770) Sponsored by Senator John H. Chafee (R-RI) & 20 cosponsors (2-D, 18-R)

"Subtitle F: Universal Coverage - Requires each citizen or lawful permanent resident to be covered under a qualified health plan or equivalent health care program by January 1, 2005. Provides an exception for any individual who is opposed for religious reasons to health plan coverage, including those who rely on healing using spiritual means through prayer alone."

Jan. 18, 2007 Healthy Americans Act (SB 334) Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 17 cosponsors (7-D, 1-I, 9-R)

"Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI). Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."

Feb. 5, 2009 Healthy Americans Act (SB 391) Sponsored by Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) & 14 cosponsors (8-D, 1-I, 5-R)

"Healthy Americans Act - Requires each adult individual to have the opportunity to purchase a Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plan (HAPI), which is: (1) a plan offered by a state; or (2) an employer-sponsored health coverage plan. Makes individuals who are not enrolled in another specified health plan and who are not opposed to coverage for religious reasons responsible for enrolling themselves and their dependent children in a HAPI plan offered through their state of residence. Sets forth penalties for failure to enroll."

........

One notable beacon of philosophic consistency in this fear-mongering fray is the CATO Institute, which denounced the individual mandate as unconstitutional back in 1993 when it was a Republican-backed idea, saying “the mandate it imposes on all Americans undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against an all-intrusive government control of healthcare.”

But while some libertarians can claim philosophic consistency in their opposition, there is no question that the individual mandate was once considered a workable solution by conservatives back when the core debates in Congress were about different approaches to solving common problems.

[/url]Among the many ironies amid the ruins of that era is the current contortions of the Republican frontrunner. Because when Mitt Romney defended the individual mandate as “ultimate conservatism” back in 2007, he was actually telling the truth. What’s changed is the politics, not the policy or the principle.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/27/why-the-right-turned-its-back-on-the-individual-mandate.print.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

Fancypants, quit it. It doesn't matter anymore. SCOTUS will decide and that's that. The political part of this debate has ended. Now it's either constitutional or not.

If they decide to rip it up and leave part of it standing, then the political jockeying will commence again. But until then, it's time to talk about more important things like the Republican War On Women or the Falklands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

Yes, a few...

How do you get more than a few people from that?


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

Fancypants, quit it. It doesn't matter anymore. SCOTUS will decide and that's that. The political part of this debate has ended. Now it's either constitutional or not.

If they decide to rip it up and leave part of it standing, then the political jockeying will commence again. But until then, it's time to talk about more important things like the Republican War On Women or the Falklands.

I don't see how it can be considered unconstitutional. How would Chief Justice Roberts explain it? And then what happens to all future attempts by the GOP to privatize Medicare and Social Security, both of which require mandatory participation? The Right are in a precarious situation as they stand to lose whether the mandate is struck down or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

I don't see how it can be considered unconstitutional. How would Chief Justice Roberts explain it?

It's a penalty, not a tax so the taxing power doesn't apply. It can quite easily be seen as an overreach of their powers under the commerce clause. Why are you pretending the case is clear cut when it clearly is not? It's new... it's novel. Let the SCOTUS figure it out and when they do, we take it from there.

And then what happens to all future attempts by the GOP to privatize Medicare and Social Security, both of which require mandatory participation?

They die too.

BTW - had Dem senators not been such a rowdy bunch of morons and listened to the progressive base and stuck a public option in there, we'd not be having this conversation. If they throw out PPACA, single payer will be reality (in a few decades).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

I don't see how it can be considered unconstitutional. How would Chief Justice Roberts explain it? And then what happens to all future attempts by the GOP to privatize Medicare and Social Security, both of which require mandatory participation? The Right are in a precarious situation as they stand to lose whether the mandate is struck down or not.

You don't see how tyranny can be found unconstitutional?

Good god. So many things to say to that. 99% of which would get me tossed off these forums so quick...


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Timeline

You don't see how tyranny can be found unconstitutional?

Good god. So many things to say to that. 99% of which would get me tossed off these forums so quick...

Be a brave american and say it anyway. What do you care about something as trivial as site TOS when there are larger issues like life and liberty at stake?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

You don't see how tyranny can be found unconstitutional?

Good god. So many things to say to that. 99% of which would get me tossed off these forums so quick...

The Heritage Foundation is where the individual mandate was born. Individual mandates would not have even seen the light of day among Conservative think tanks if there was any question about the constitutionality of it. Look at their plans to privatize Medicare and Social Security. Of course, libtards think Medicare and Social Security are also unconstitutional, which explains why Ayn Randian cultists can't wrap their tiny brains around the constitutionality of individual mandates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...