Skip to main content

View Diary: The contorted contours of Congressional power according to the radical Roberts Court (197 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  No (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    It is a point of law.

    A basic point.

    Am important point.

    Of course, some people really do not care about the constitution, just the result.

    •  Which people don't care? (0+ / 0-)

      That's a double edged sword so you might want to be careful with it while we are still having a civil discussion.  

      The new precedent required to survive this review seems straightforward enough to me.  (Which way the notoriously fickle court will go with it I have no idea.)  The private mandate raises disturbing constitutional questions as well as some basic moral ones.  The only way I don't see this as worthy of a Supreme Court ruling is if one assumes the Commerce Clause permits any new regs.  That is overly broad for most.

      After the eminent domain ruling (again business friendly thing), there was a strong backlash and a rush by states to eliminate the new power.  This has a similar odor about it.  In both cases whether or not the new power is deemed constitutional, there could very well be a majority of us who see the issue that ended up in court itself as basically wrongheaded and rife for abuse.

      "Money is like manure. You have to spread it around or it smells." J. Paul Getty

      by Celtic Pugilist on Sun Apr 15, 2012 at 07:46:26 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  What new precedent? (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        The one where Congressional acts are presumed tobe constitutional?

        Look, you were wrong in what you wrote.

        Look it up if you want.

        It's not disputed  by anyone. Not even Thomas.

        •  Your evasiveness isn't working (0+ / 0-)

          The precedent being discussed is the private mandate.

          You can play silly semantic games forever, but it won't help your legal argument.  The claim that no precedent is necessary doesn't seem to have passed muster since the very issue is before the Court on an accelerated schedule.  Actually, even if they were to rule that existing precedent covers it, the fact that they took it up is proof that this was not settled as you are claiming.

          And if the ruling comes out tomorrow that the mandate is unconstitutional you will be retroactively wrong as well.  That's the silliness of the semantic argument you are making.  For example, one can claim that since something was passed by congress it is constitutional even if it was a virtual certainty that it would be stricken down by the court.  

          Now it is time to turn the sword on its former master.  Of course, some people really do not care about the constitution, just the result. <==  From here it looks like that charge could better be leveled at you since this seems to be about saving ACA by allowing a constitutionally undecided private mandate.  The private mandate is a tool that business conservatives can use against the interests of consumers.  By supporting it you are playing into the hands of conservatives who make the charge that the left plays fast and loose with the constitution by waving their hands and saying the Commerce clause will allow anything.  It never ceases to amaze me how frequently Democrats carry the water for business conservatives and don't even realize they are doing it.  

          Obviously those keen legal minds and constitutional law professors leading the party did not factor in the relative plasticity of interpreting the Commerce clause...and that it would be done by a conservative Court that might take this as excuse to narrow the limits--something that is within their authority to do.  No, the "we-passed-a-law-therefore-it-is-constitutional, because-we-say-it-is" mindset seems to have prevailed.  From the snippets I saw posted at dKos of the questions and responses in court, that doesn't appear to be too far off.

          The private mandate may very well open Pandora's box.  The Court is presently jiggling the key in the lock but we aren't yet sure if it will open the box or what awaits inside.

          "Money is like manure. You have to spread it around or it smells." J. Paul Getty

          by Celtic Pugilist on Mon Apr 16, 2012 at 02:36:32 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site