oops, sorry, it was your link, not strangesox's

Edit: This is all nonsense. According to the link provided by strangesox, he's an INVESTOR in the firm, not a consultant. And his decision didn't completely kill the bill. It killed one aspect of it. How does this make any sense that he's benefiting from the decision? If anything he just closed a door on what the firm is trying to accomplish.

It doesn't officially benefit him...however, it's close enough that I'd be damn uncomfortable if it was a ruling on my side. Judges who get salaries from consulting firms that they are part-owners of, who consult on bills for people who later appear before them, who then rule on that same bill?

 

It's not illegal, but it's not exactly anything I'd call clean, and it's not something I'd want to be defending as a great thing for democracy.

It doesn't officially benefit him...however, it's close enough that I'd be damn uncomfortable if it was a ruling on my side. Judges who get salaries from consulting firms that they are part-owners of, who consult on bills for people who later appear before them, who then rule on that same bill?

 

It's not illegal, but it's not exactly anything I'd call clean, and it's not something I'd want to be defending as a great thing for democracy.

 

Well it's a good thing the Canons of Judicial Ethics are written for the real world. Based on your concerns, Judges should never be able to invest in anything because of the potential that their decisions might impact their portfolios. The reality is that unless there's a direct connection that impacts their decision making (still not sure how interpreting that one provision in the health care bill does that), there's not an issue.

Well it's a good thing the Canons of Judicial Ethics are written for the real world. Based on your concerns, Judges should never be able to invest in anything because of the potential that their decisions might impact their portfolios. The reality is that unless there's a direct connection that impacts their decision making (still not sure how interpreting that one provision in the health care bill does that), there's not an issue.

Then you know what? Someone from Organizing for America ought to go out and get Anthony Kennedy under a 6-figure consulting gig. After all, it's just a campaign organization, there's no direct benefit to the group if he happens to rule in favor of a policy that the President also favors.

Thread has devolved into pointlessness.

Then you know what? Someone from Organizing for America ought to go out and get Anthony Kennedy under a 6-figure consulting gig. After all, it's just a campaign organization, there's no direct benefit to the group if he happens to rule in favor of a policy that the President also favors.

 

Every judge has some investment interest, and it's only a problem when they disagree with you.

 

You see, the issues should be based on constutitionality and law, not some living and breathing ever changing standard. Otherwise, what is law besides baseless? At what point does it stop? For your line of thinking, never, the appetite is insatiable to the point where nothing is ever good enough but more government intervention.

Every judge has some investment interest, and it's only a problem when they disagree with you.

I disagree. I think that any time a judge has an investment interest in a case, it's a possible corrupting influence. If a judge is going to have investments, then they ought to be holding them in blind accounts, not actively working for an outside consulting firm. If there's some reason they can't do that, I don't see why they shouldn't recuse themself.

 

Note how Jenks asked it earlier...he asked (to paraphrase) why is it that every time there's a ruling I disagree with I immediately point out the judge's conflict of interest?

 

There's another way to ask that same question. Why is it that 17 judges have heard a similar case, and the only 1 who ruled the way you like also has remote but reasonable conflict of interest.

I disagree. I think that any time a judge has an investment interest in a case, it's a possible corrupting influence. If a judge is going to have investments, then they ought to be holding them in blind accounts, not actively working for an outside consulting firm. If there's some reason they can't do that, I don't see why they shouldn't recuse themself.

 

Note how Jenks asked it earlier...he asked (to paraphrase) why is it that every time there's a ruling I disagree with I immediately point out the judge's conflict of interest?

 

There's another way to ask that same question. Why is it that 17 judges have heard a similar case, and the only 1 who ruled the way you like also has remote but reasonable conflict of interest.

 

So what to the judges who ruled for this have in their portolios?

So what to the judges who ruled for this have in their portolios?

You don't get to ask that, your side told me it's ok.

You don't get to ask that, your side told me it's ok.

 

You have to ask that because your side said it wasn't.

You have to ask that because your side said it wasn't.

In all seriousness, it's an entirely valid question, and I'd be unhappy if the people ruling against it had consulting gigs for HCAN, for example.

 

With 16 judges, it's hard to imagine that they're all on the union take, but I guess the country could be that corrupt.

 

If I were a republican consulting firm, in fact, one of the things I might do is make sure I publicized every potential conflict of interest of every judge who rules against an ACA challenge.

I realize it can get tiresome to see folks like me say "imagine if a Democrat had done this," but once in a while, I think these comparisons have real merit.

 

Consider a hypothetical. Imagine if an important court case came before a federal judge nominated by President Obama and confirmed by a Democratic-led Senate. Then imagine we learned that this same judge owns part of a political operation that attacks the same law about which he/she was hearing arguments.

 

Making matters worse, that Democratic judge admits to having campaigned for the seat on the bench, earning it through 20 years of active service to the Democratic Party, helping the various campaigns of Democratic candidates.

 

And then to top it off, imagine if that judge's ruling, an obvious example of judicial activism, was premised on a bizarre legal analysis that no one of any ideology was prepared to defend.

 

Is there any doubt at all that, if this scenario actually happened, the right would be apoplectic? That the judge's name would be on every Fox News broadcast as an example of courts run amok? That we'd hear some congressional Republicans raising the specter of impeachment against that judge?

Link to commentary from a blog so Republicans should ignore this post.

Link to commentary from a blog so Republicans should ignore this post.

 

If we want to continue to ignore the obvious here - he didn't strike the whole bill. He struck one portion of it, which IMO is the part that most fundamentally attacks a persons freedom (the right to not have the government tell them what they have to buy/not buy when it involves no one else but themselves). It's absolutely mind-boggling to me that liberals defend that portion of the bill, something they should be against 100% of the time. This just proves yet again that liberals will argue ANYTHING, including the opposite of their beliefs, when someone doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

 

And I love that simply because he describes it as "obvious judicial activism" that it MUST be true. GMAFB.

 

Let's call this what it is - someone is questioning the almighty Obama's agenda to have the government save society, so they're automatically part of a grand conspiracy of self-interested rich white republicans who have no concern for people but only for their pocketbook.

 

 

And I love that simply because he describes it as "obvious judicial activism" that it MUST be true. GMAFB.

Pretty much the definition of judicial activism is stepping out of precedent to overturn the will of Congress. This point of view, if adopted, would be an enormous overhaul of precedent; it would, as I understand it, basically decide that the 10th amendment now supercedes the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1. It could give any state that wants one a veto over federal legislation, whereas right now, the exact opposite is generally true.

This just proves yet again that liberals will argue ANYTHING, including the opposite of their beliefs, when someone doesn't agree with their viewpoint.

 

 

huh? So a conservative will not argue with someone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint?

 

 

 

 

Pretty much the definition of judicial activism is stepping out of precedent to overturn the will of Congress. This point of view, if adopted, would be an enormous overhaul of precedent; it would, as I understand it, basically decide that the 10th amendment now supercedes the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1. It could give any state that wants one a veto over federal legislation, whereas right now, the exact opposite is generally true.

 

(1) There is no precedent here that was overturned. So no, this isn't judicial activism unless you define it as "any time a judge renders a decision."

 

(2) No, it doesn't. READ the opinion (specifically pg 21-24). Don't rely on your bulls*** blogosphere commentary. This opinion does nothing of the sort, and is just made up bulls***.

 

He's making a number of arguments with regard to that specific provision of the Act. The most important being that there is NO PRECEDENT and NO AUTHORITY for Congress to regulate activity that it forces upon people. The Commerce Clause requires activity that has a demonstrable effect on interstate commerce. There is no action here because I can choose to sit on my hands and not buy health insurance. I've done nothing to enter myself or my actions into interstate commerce. Because Congress doesn't have that power and authority, the Necessary and Proper Clause doesn't factor into the case.

 

It is astounding to me that people don't think about this issue more clearly. The government is actively forcing you to do something, even when you could otherwise not be involved with it at all. And again, this is an issue that YOU should be fighting for, given your progressive beliefs. But keep believing that this is all a big play so that the rich can get richer. This is a decision THAT HURTS THE INSURANCE COMPANIES. You've admitted this. Why are you so against this opinion?

Edited December 15, 201015 yr by Jenksismybitch

huh? So a conservative will not argue with someone who doesn't agree with their viewpoint?

 

No, i'm saying that all too often on this board (and throughout the national debate) people with strong liberal beliefs will often times argue in direct opposition to fundamental principles of their beliefs just to win a political argument. Like here. This is government actively CLEARLY infringing on your freedom to decide what to buy and what not to buy. Instead of holding true to that principle of freedom, liberals are actually arguing that this is somehow a bad decision.

 

And yes, conservatives do the same thing. It's because we've become this society filled with a my side is right/your side is wrong mentality. We often times completely ignore the actual issue, and to win the debate for "our" side we'll argue ANYTHING.

The government infringes on your freedom to buy and not to buy things all the time.

The government infringes on your freedom to buy and not to buy things all the time.

 

Like? (ignoring criminal things)

Edited December 15, 201015 yr by Jenksismybitch

Like? (ignoring criminal things)

Things that the federal government declares to be criminal purchases are a fully appropriate precedent.

To elaborate...here is the direct quote from the judge's decision.

If a person’s decision not to purchase health insurance at a particular point in time does not constitute the type of economic activity subject to regulation under the Commerce Clause, then logically an attempt to enforce such provision under the Necessary and Proper Clause is equally offensive to the Constitution.

 

Legal precedent for the necessary and proper clause has in fact done the exact opposite. Whether or not the commerce clause directly gives the government the right to require (or ban you) you to purchase a product, the Necessary and Proper clause is generally believed to expand the government's power to give it the authority to make laws that, as long as they don't violate something else in the constitution, enable it to regulate interstate commerce. This judge's opinion basically renders the necessary and proper clause powerless.

Things that the federal government declares to be criminal purchases are a fully appropriate precedent.

 

"Purchases" being the key. And that's the big difference - saying you can't purchase X versus you MUST purchase X.

Pretty much the definition of judicial activism is stepping out of precedent to overturn the will of Congress. This point of view, if adopted, would be an enormous overhaul of precedent; it would, as I understand it, basically decide that the 10th amendment now supercedes the "necessary and proper" clause of Article 1. It could give any state that wants one a veto over federal legislation, whereas right now, the exact opposite is generally true.

 

Balta, did you read the Michigan decision upholding the bill? In that decision the judge states that there is no precedent and that this is a case of "first impressions" (judicial speak for, "I gonna make up some stuff"). That judge cites to nothing to support his conclusion either. In fact, that decision openly states that there has never been a case where inactivity is at issue, so he makes up the idea that that because people "decide" not to be a part of health insurance system, they are involved in an "activity". His sources for this premise are entirely misplaced, relying on cases involving illegally growing pot, and rejecting blacks from staying at a hotel.

 

United States jurisprudence is built on the principles that (1) a person is never required to act (except in very specific tort situations), but (2) if a person acts, he must act within a certain set of rules. A person cannot choose to live, yet that is the only activity that is required for payment to be required.

 

These judges are understandably confused on how to handle these cases and are doing the best they can on the records presented. In these cases, personal beliefs will play a role.

 

To elaborate...here is the direct quote from the judge's decision.

 

 

Legal precedent for the necessary and proper clause has in fact done the exact opposite. Whether or not the commerce clause directly gives the government the right to require (or ban you) you to purchase a product, the Necessary and Proper clause is generally believed to expand the government's power to give it the authority to make laws that, as long as they don't violate something else in the constitution, enable it to regulate interstate commerce. This judge's opinion basically renders the necessary and proper clause powerless.

 

For the N and P clause to apply it has to be based on some already recognized authority of Congress. He concluded that Congress has no authority in this specific instance under the Commerce Clause, thus the N and P clause is inapplicable.

"Purchases" being the key. And that's the big difference - saying you can't purchase X versus you MUST purchase X.

Let me ask this...where in the constitution do we get the concept that the commerce clause's power ends at the point where it requires purchase of a product? You've granted that the Congress has a right to ban products, which is something not explicitly given by the constitution. The only way this judge was able to write his decision was to basically throw out the necessary and proper clause, such that he could say that Congress didn't have the authority to come up with laws regulating interstate commerce that aren't specifically allowed by the constitution.

 

The judge himself couldn't make the argument that you're trying to make if he admitted that the Congress had a right to make laws that it deems necessary to regulating interstate commerce. If Congress has the authority to write laws necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce, then Congress is fully within its rights to require purchase of a particular product.