Judge upset by Obama's comments on health care law

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

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."

[TBoneTX 43,057]

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.

[luckytxn 2,263]

Posted already.

[Bad_Daddy 2,209]

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.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

[^_^ 5,021]

Haha, race riots if the black guy wins again. That's just pathetic.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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

[^_^ 5,021]

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.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

A few? Um, how about 'nope.'

[/b]

........

[/b]

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

Yes, a few...

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

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.

[^_^ 5,021]

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).

[Obama 2012 1,714]

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...

[^_^ 5,021]

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?

[one...two...tree 2,762]

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.