Reply With Quote
So uninsured people, who can't pay or won't pay for insurance, really will be able to get free medical care from tax-payer financed sick-care services.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...NewsCollection
chalk one round up, true believers. pendulum will begin to swing back.
So uninsured people, who can't pay or won't pay for insurance, really will be able to get free medical care from tax-payer financed sick-care services.
Cons ution? What's that? Isn't it a "flawed" do ent?
govt can only be the magic bullet if the cons ution says so.
Its time we quit stretching the do ent beyond recognition, and then maybe the govt will stop stretching the little man over the rack.
if you want a hero, dont look to politicians.
See, here's what I don't get (and I'm not arguing with the merits of this decision):
If the same judge had reached the same ruling on some issue that was near and dear to the hearts of conservatives -- say a Legislative enactment that prohibited same-sex marriage -- he'd be immediately labeled an "activist" who was legislating from the bench.
Somehow, I'm doubting that Judge Hudson is going to attract that label here.
(by the way, in a bit of judicial trivia, Judge Hudson is also the judge who sentenced Michael Vick a few years ago).
republicans would, because they are just as willing to trash the cons ution as democrats. both parties blow. hence the state of the nation. the two parties in power are responsible in every sense of the word.
Libertarians would not, because they actually try to conform to the do ent. Also, they are social liberals, and fiscal conservatives.
"Libertarians would not, because they actually try to conform to the do ent"
there are no parts or amendments that the libertarians would change to "conform" to their extremism?
I don't know about repubs but I thought activist judges were the ones based their ruling on what is right to them and not whiter it is cons utional or not.
And an example of a judge who based a decision on what was right to them without stating the cons utional grounds for that decision would be . . . ?
the correct definition of an "activist" judge is a judge who proactively creates a "right" which affects everyone under his jurisdiction (like the right to privacy, the right to housing) where none existed before. Basically this comes from 14th amendment cases only.
But people like to throw around the term whenever any ruling goes against their wishes.
you tell me.
that right to privacy is a pretty big limitation on government's authority to:
Dont think the founding fathers would have stood for that either. just sayin.
- feel up your wife when she boards a plane,
- step into your bedroom and tell you when and how to ejaculate,
- make your medical decisions for you or your family,
- tell you how to raise your kids, etc.
But yeah, your pretty much on the money there.
Several other judges don't see it that way hence their opposing rulings. I won't really have a problem with this being overturned as I pretty much hate the mandate without a public option but it will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court rules when they finally hear the case.
"Supreme Court"
... is extreme right wing and Repug, corruptly electing dubya in 2000, then overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call corporations persons.
If something is good for individuals and bad for corps, the 5 SCOTUS right-wing activists will come down on the side of corps, ins utions, capitalists.
Disappointing. I'd be interested in your view of the merits in particular. It might give color to your sly suggestion that Judge Hudson is legislating his political preferences rather than following the law.
Does he deserve the label for this particular ruling? Honest question. I'm still reading through the ruling.
I don't think there were any suggestions in fwdt's post outside of his point on the activist label.
The suggestion was sly, not straightforward. Wondering why the label is not applied in a particular case seems to solicit the inference that perhaps it ought to be.
So if the govt can't make you buy insurance, why do I have to buy auto insurance to drive?
If the response is "driving is a privilege", then, are we equating healthcare to being a privilege?
If it is then a privilige then hospitals could theoretically, (based on this opinion) turn people away rather than provide health services.
The state can deny you a license and send you to jail for not having auto insurance now...
I think both of these issues need to be held to a consistent standard.
Nah. FWDT has a long history of hating the term judicial activism on this forum so he's just ranting about it a bit more, IMO. I could be wrong, but given the context of FWDT's posting history I think its an accurate assessment.
He's absolutely right...
I think the difference being that there is no federaly mandated requirement for automobile insurance. That is something the states do but the federal government does not.
I haven't read the ruling but that was the obvious difference in the mandates when the bill passage was going being debated.
If that's what you discern about my post, I think you're reading way too much into what I wrote.
I have a general disinclination to the "activist" judge concept because I think it to be a mostly unprincipled and meaningless term used primarily to castigate judges who make decisions that do not comport with one side's view of a particular issue. When a politically-charged issue is decided by a judge, I'm interested to see whether my sense that the term "activist" is largely based on whether one likes the outcome or not will be validated.
I offer no opinion on the ruling because I truly have none. I have not read it and don't intend to read it in the immediate future.
Truly, my lone interest in this thread was to note (here, in the form of a question) my su ion that the relatively popularity with any particular judicial determination seems to have a substantial amount to do with whether the person issuing that determination is considered an "activist" or not, regardless of the analytical means used to achieve that end.
p.s. -- if my statement that I'm not "arguing" with the merits was taken as a suggestion that I've developed an opinion concerning the merits, that was a poor word choice on my part.
Hospitals, private hospitals, can and will deny treatment. It's not theoretical. County hospitals cannot due to existing federal mandates tied to continued funding. Driving is certainly a privilege, if a privilege is defined as activity not covered under the rights clauses.
That the state can deny you a license is indicative of the states exercising their individual rights as states to regulate their licensing. Way different than a fed mandate of the same stripe.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
