Activist Judges Protect Obama Care

[mandym]

A federal appeals court on Thursday rejected Virginia's challenge to President Obama's health care law, saying in a ruling that the state doesn't have a right to bring a lawsuit.

The unanimous decision from the three-judge panel of the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturns a lower court's decision to declare the law unconstitutional and is the second appellate court ruling in favor of the government's right to require individuals to buy health insurance or pay a penalty....

....All three judges on the Virginia panel were appointed by Democratic presidents -- two by Obama and one by Bill Clinton.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rginias-challenge-to-obamacare/#ixzz1XOq99O62

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...rginias-challenge-to-obamacare/#ixzz1XOpwBXLO

 

[Crabtownboy]

Currently the most activist judges are those appointed to the Supreme Court by G. Bush. They testified under oath that precedence is very important. But their rulings in several cases overturned precedence.

 

[Havensdad]

Currently the most activist judges are those appointed to the Supreme Court by G. Bush. They testified under oath that precedence is very important. But their rulings in several cases overturned precedence.

There is nothing wrong with the Supreme Court overturning precedent, when the activist judges before you ignored the constitution.

Do you think the Supreme Court should ignore the precedent of Roe vs. Wade, and overturn it? Or just say, "oh well, nothing we can do."?

 

[mandym]

Divided Court of Appeals Issues Ruling on ObamaCare Lawsuit

Today, the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a ruling on the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as “ObamaCare”) in the case of Liberty University v. Geithner

and issued a separate opinion on the case of Commonwealth of Virginia v. Sebelius

. Liberty Counsel represents Liberty University and two private individuals, challenging both the individual and the employer mandates in ObamaCare. .


In the case of Liberty University, the divided court ruled that the mandate is a “tax” under the Anti-Injunction Act (AIA), and thus the court does not have jurisdiction to rule on the merits until the “tax” is paid and a refund sought by the taxpayer. Thus, the case could not be brought until the mandate becomes effective in 2014. Every court which has considered this question has found that the mandate is a “penalty,” not a tax, and the AIA does not apply. Even the federal government defendants argued that the AIA does not apply and that the statutory intent clearly indicated that the AIA was inapplicable.

http://www.lc.org/index.cfm?PID=14100&PRID=1102

 

[Robert Snow]

...when the activist judges before you ignored the constitution.

Since they don't agree with you, they must be "activist" judges. :laugh:

 

[Havensdad]

Since they don't agree with you, they must be "activist" judges. :laugh:

No sir. When they don't agree with the Constitution, or throw out a law because of some ideology (or create a law out of thin air), they are "activist" judges.

Again, point in case: Roe V Wade.

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Currently the most activist judges are those appointed to the Supreme Court by G. Bush. They testified under oath that precedence is very important. But their rulings in several cases overturned precedence.

Please list them, and state where precedence was overturned. And no reading assignments. I would like you to back up your statement.

 

[Robert Snow]

No sir. When they don't agree with the Constitution, or throw out a law because of some ideology (or create a law out of thin air), they are "activist" judges.

And of course, you are the one to decide if they agree with the Constitution or not, right!

 

[targus]

Please list them, and state where precedence was overturned. And no reading assignments. I would like you to back up your statement.

Ain't gonna happen. :laugh:

And be careful, Curtis. Keep it up and Crabby will punish you by putting you on ignore if you keep insisting that he back up his claims instead of you doing your homework assignments. :laugh:

 

[Crabtownboy]

Please list them, and state where precedence was overturned. And no reading assignments. I would like you to back up your statement.

Thanks for the research assignment ... which you could have researched for yourself. :laugh: [Yes, I am being sarcastic.]

One quote of John Roberts testimony on precedence ..........

JUDGE JOHN ROBERTS: I do think that it is a jolt to the legal system when you overrule a precedent. Precedent plays an important role in promoting stability and even-handedness. It is not enough-- and the court has emphasized this on several occasions-- it is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided. That really doesn't answer the question. It just poses the question.

And you do look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments. All of those factors go into the determination of whether to revisit a precedent under the principles of stare decisis.
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/law/july-dec05/hearings_9-13.html

Both Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. assured their Senate questioners at their confirmation hearings that they, too, respected precedent. So why were they on the majority side of a 5-to-4 decision last week declaring that a 45-year-old doctrine excusing people whose “unique circumstances” prevented them from meeting court filing deadlines was now “illegitimate”?

It was the second time the Roberts court had overturned a precedent, and the first in a decision with a divided vote. It surely will not be the last.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/21/washington/21memo.html

“There was a first-timer’s clumsiness in the way the 5-to-4 majority finished off Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, a 20-year-old precedent that the Rehnquist court had invoked just over six years ago when it upheld the McCain-Feingold statute,” Greenhouse writes at the New York Times Opinionator blog.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...ecedent_roberts_court_has_lost_its_virginity/

In employment discrimination, the court dramatically limited the ability of workers to file employment discrimination claims.

On school desegregation, the court limited the ability of school boards to adopt voluntary desegregation plans that use race as a factor in assigning some students to schools.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11688820

Supreme Court Overturns Precedent and Hangs “For Sale” Sign on Democracy
Posted: January 25, 2010, at 1:42 pm

The recent Citizens United case (“CU”) has gotten a lot of attention of course as it will have a profound impact on the future of American politics. To summarize this very complicated case is not easy, but I will try: Before CU campaign finance reform laws set limits on the amounts that corporations could spend in support of a candidate. To get around that as much as possible, they had to set up political action committees (PACS) and work through multiple PACS which had their own limits. Then Hillary Clinton decided to run for president. That set in motion the formation of a non-profit corporation called Citizens United which created a movie that was essentially an attack ad against Hillary. When the Federal Elections Commission ruled that the CU was subject to spending limits and that the movie was corporate electioneering and clearly exceeded those spending limits, CU appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. The Court ruled (5-4 of course) that the First Amendment protected the speech rights of corporations as much as it did individuals and that since the money was not given directly to a candidate the limits did not and should not apply. The decision went further to state that it was unconstitutional to limit this form of corporate speech.

At the announcement of the decision, many voices from both sides of the aisle decried it as “radical” and “game-changing” and as Sen. John McCain said in the NY Times: “This decision kills campaign finance reform and puts and end to the McCain-Feingold Law.” Corporations can now spend as much money as they want in favor or against a candidate for office. Who can compete with this if a large company is against you? How will a lesser known candidate with an agenda that may be anti-corporate on some issue (environment, labor, healthcare, civil liability) be able to combat limitless spending against his position?
http://www.courtroomstrategy.com/2010/01/supreme-court-hangs-for-sale-sign-on-democracy/

Roberts and Alito show an alarming lack of respect for precedent. As Breyer argues persuasively in dissent, Roberts’ opinion refuses to follow a “longstanding and unbroken line of legal authority tells us that the Equal Protection Clause permits local school boards to use race-conscious criteria to achieve positive race-related goals, even when the Constitution does not compel it.”

Roberts and Alito fail to respect the democratic process. The plurality portions of their opinion, in particular, would overturn decisions made by elected officials in communities in communities across the country. As Breyer puts it in dissent, the “Constitution allows democratically elected school boards to make up their own minds as to how best to include people of all races in one America.”

Roberts and Alito disregard constitutional history. Some conservatives, notably Scalia and Thomas, purport to be bound by the original understanding or the Constitution. But there is no evidence that anyone alive at the time the 14th Amendment was passed thought it would ban race-conscious efforts to promote integrated schools. Indeed, as Breyer demonstrates, historical research shows that the generation of Americans who enacted the Equal Protection Clause also used race-conscious measures to promote school integration. Roberts’ opinion ignores this constitutional history.
http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/2007/06/supreme_court.html

That should be enough on this post. It appears that Roberts and Alito are more driven politically than in following the Constitution and and certainly precedence seems to mean little to them.

They swore under oath to Congress and the American people that precedence was very important. They decisions have not lived up to their words.

 

[Havensdad]

And of course, you are the one to decide if they agree with the Constitution or not, right!

Of course. Let me quote...

"We the people, of these United States..."

You do remember that we rejected the idea of kings, right? A ruling class? When something is so plain, it cannot be ignored.

Again, what is your view of Roe v Wade? Did they make a mistake, or should we just trust our overlords?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Thanks for the research assignment ... which you could have researched for yourself. :laugh: [Yes, I am being sarcastic.]

One quote of John Roberts testimony on precedence ..........

Sorry, those OPINION pieces do not count. Each case, the constitutionality of the original law could be called into question. How something official ?

They swore under oath to Congress and the American people that precedence was very important. They decisions have not lived up to their words.

Hasd Obama lived up to his ?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

Anyway, I know judges who further the leftist commie agenda will be praised by people like C.T.Boy, and the judges who actually care about the constitution, and overturn bad law will be called "activist". It is one of the bullets they use.

 

[Crabtownboy]

Anyway, I know judges who further the leftist commie agenda will be praised by people like C.T.Boy, and the judges who actually care about the constitution, and overturn bad law will be called "activist". It is one of the bullets they use.

What judges are you speaking of? Back up your belief with credible links and information. I did for you.

I see you do not disagree with my statement that Roberts and Alito do not follow their testimony about precedence by their decisions.

 

[Havensdad]

What judges are you speaking of? Back up your belief with credible links and information. I did for you.

I see you do not disagree with my statement that Roberts and Alito do not follow their testimony about precedence by their decisions.

First, he did not say that any judges have done this, so there is nothing to back up. He was just stating a principle.

Second, your previous post regarding Roberts and Alito ABSOLUTELY honor precedent. They have the right view, which is that the only thing that trumps precedent is the Constitution.

I keep asking: let me ask again, and see if you will answer. DO YOU THINK THAT ROE V. WADE SHOULD BE OVERTURNED? Or do you think that judges should just "honor precedent'?

I await your answer, though I won't be holding my breath..

 

[Crabtownboy]

First, he did not say that any judges have done this, so there is nothing to back up. He was just stating a principle.

I'd say it is opinion, but he should be able to back it up.

What principle are you speaking of?

Second, your previous post regarding Roberts and Alito ABSOLUTELY honor precedent. They have the right view, which is that the only thing that trumps precedent is the Constitution.

How is precedence respected if it is overturned?

I keep asking: let me ask again, and see if you will answer. DO YOU THINK THAT ROE V. WADE SHOULD BE OVERTURNED? Or do you think that judges should just "honor precedent'?

1. I am against abortion.

2. It will not be overturned for reasons I have stated in numerous times in the past. There is no court decision with more precedence than Roe v. Wade. [No, I will not do that research again for you. You are intelligent and you surely know how to research such topics on your own.] If the SC does not overturn Roe v. Wade the only other way is a constitutional amendment and that just is not going to happen.

3. Because of #2 my personal view is of little or no consequence. So, don't push it. It is a fruitless discussion.

Did you agree with the SC ruling that corporations are individuals and thus are exempt from being limited in their political contributions?

I await your answer, though I won't be holding my breath.

Will you apologize for the left-handed slap?

 

[mandym]

3. Because of #2 my personal view is of little or no consequence. So, don't push it. It is a fruitless discussion.

It is very much germain to the discussion. If you say you are against abortion but do not want it over turned then it puts you in a contradictory place as far as your stance on abortion.

If you want it overturned then again, it puts you in a contradictory place with regards to your stated view of how judges should make decisions.

Your avoidance of the question only works to appear as if you want to avoid one or the other.

 

[Crabtownboy]

It is very much germain to the discussion. If you say you are against abortion but do not want it over turned then it puts you in a contradictory place as far as your stance on abortion.

If you want it overturned then again, it puts you in a contradictory place with regards to your stated view of how judges should make decisions.

It is a fruitless discussion. It might be an interesting academic discussion, but it is of absolutely no consequence.

What aspects of morality do you want the courts making decisions on and which ones do you want them to keep their nose out of?

Also if they rule Roe v. Wade unconstitutional it will not stop abortions. It will increase the number of young women who die in back alley abortion mills as was the case before Roe v. Wade.

My wife's secretary lost her mother in the 1930's in this way. Do you want that? Or are you one of those who say "She deserved it."

Should the young man who impregnated the woman be held responsible for helping her and the baby, at least economically, even if they are not married?

Would you support the SC making such a decision holding the father responsible?

Your avoidance of the question only works to appear as if you want to avoid one or the other.

ROFL. You have yet to answer my very simple question in another thread. Did or have you read the essay about Bush?

 

[mandym]

It is a fruitless discussion. It might be an interesting academic discussion, but it is of absolutely no consequence.

I have shown it is very fruitful

What aspects of morality do you want the courts making decisions on and which ones do you want them to keep their nose out of?

All laws are based on morality

Also if they rule Roe v. Wade unconstitutional it will not stop abortions. It will increase the number of young women who die in back alley abortion mills as was the case before Roe v. Wade.

This statement is contradictory to your earlier statement that you are against abortion. Would you clear this up for us?

My wife's secretary lost her mother in the 1930's in this way. Do you want that? Or are you one of those who say "She deserved it."

I do not know what you mean by "she deserved it" but engaging in illegal and highly risky activity in order to take an innocent human life is tragic.

Should the young man who impregnated the woman be held responsible for helping her and the baby, at least economically, even if they are not married?

Of course so long as it has nothing to do with taking an innocent human life.

Would you support the SC making such a decision holding the father responsible?

They are already held responsible. Not sure where you are coming from

ROFL. You have yet to answer my very simple question in another thread. Did or have you read the essay about Bush?

Yea it got sidetracked by an exaggerated accusation so I bowed out. But yes I read it. However, after seeing you make several statements to others about being off topic I am surprised you would do this yourself.

Now, do you want R v. W overturned?

 

[Bro. Curtis]

What judges are you speaking of? Back up your belief with credible links and information. I did for you.

You posted opinion pieces from leftist idealogues. I do not consider them credible sources of information.

I see you do not disagree with my statement that Roberts and Alito do not follow their testimony about precedence by their decisions.

Then you truly don't know how to read.