Obama is saying the ACA is constitutional because it passed Congress.

No, he's not.

Ok I'll bite -- why/on what basis is he saying its constitutional if not that it passed Congress?

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

He's assuming it's constitutional and saying that it would be bad for the court to overturn an obviously constitutional law that was passed by a democratically elected Congress.

Allons-y!

The ultimate arbiter of consitutionality is the supreme court.  If the supreme court overturns it, it's not constitutional.

http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases1.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases3.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases4.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases5.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases6.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases8.htm
http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases10.htm

Turns out that the Supreme Court can't always make up its mind...maybe what's "constitutional" isn't exactly fixed in stone and easy to decipher?  Maybe the Supreme Court doesn't deserve the slavering BJs that conservatives are giving it right now?

Allons-y!

Who said the decisions of 9 political appointees over time would be 100% consistent and all decisions would be set in stone?    Not I.

I merely stated a fact - the supreme court, and to a lesser extent the courts below it, are the arbiters of consitutionality.  If you think there is some underlying notion of "real constitionality" separate and distinct from court rulings, you are incorrect.

If you think there is some underlying notion of "real constitionality" separate and distinct from court rulings, you are incorrect.

I agree - but if that's the case, then what's wrong with the executive branch lobbying the court?  The only thing that would make that wrong, in my eyes, is if there was some kind of "true meaning" to the constitution that the court was supposed to be objectively determining.  If the whole process is political...well, then it's political, and what Obama said was hardly out of bounds.  Of course, coming back at him isn't out of bounds either, but it's somewhat disingenuous, particularly from a group of characters that have been attacking the SCOTUS for years.

Allons-y!

The only applicable standard is whether or not intent is properly liberal. As long as they serve to advance liberalism, policies do not have to be effective, and arguments do not have to be consistent, honest, or based on facts.

You're deluding yourself if you think conservative justices don't operate the same way.

Allons-y!

Liberals like to pretend everyone is as unprincipled as they are, but that's not the case.

Can you think of a case where a single liberal voted with 4 conservatives to provide the  "conservative" block with a 5-4 win? Its not hard to find cases where a conervative has broken ranks and sided with 4 liberal judges  for a "liberal" win.

Are we counting Kennedy as a conservative or a liberal?  Heh.

Allons-y!

"Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law", by David R. Dow.

America's Prophets: How Judicial Activism Makes America Great, by David R. Dow:

"...a thorough definition and historical account of judicial activism...arguing that it is a method of prophetic adjudication which is essential to preserving American values. Dow confounds the allegation of the Christian right that judicial activism is legally and morally unsound by tracing the roots of American judicial activism to the methods of legal and moral interpretation developed by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible. He claims that Isaiah, Amos, and Jesus are archetypal activist judges and, conversely, that modern activist judges are America's prophets. Dow argues that judicial restraint is a priestly method of adjudication and that it, not judicial activism, is the legally and morally unsound method."

If its "obviously constitutional" why would the supreme court have accepted it to be reviewed -- or more accurately why have separate appeals court split on deciding whether it should be upheld?

Why would he assume its constitutionality based on an obviousness criteria where its clear that several appellate judges don't find it so obvious?

On a completely separate note -- its nice to have some vindication of my prior TnT comments on this issue. I should go get myself a law degree.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

He's trying to score political points, no doubt - but I think it's a big stretch to take what he said and go from that to saying he either doesn't understand or doesn't agree with the SCOTUS's power of judicial review.

Allons-y!

As a separate sidebar -- if the mandate does get struck down, I'm going to enjoy reading Scalia's concurrence/opinion of the majority. He was the one who extended the commerce clause massively in Gonzalez v. Raich by writing this

Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective. As Lopez itself states, and the Court affirms today, Congress may regulate noneconomic intrastate activities only where the failure to do so "could ... undercut" its regulation of interstate commerce. ... This is not a power that threatens to obliterate the line between "what is truly national and what is truly local

If ever there was an argument that the individual mandate is constitutional, it seems to me that uber-conservative Scalia makes it. Which just goes to show he's an anti-drug asshat.

Sorry..still am bitter about the Raich decision.

"The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money."

There is a fundamental difference between prohibiting an activity and requiring an activity. I think Raich was overreach, too, but still.

Do you really give a shit about anyone without insurance?  I mean, in a real, serious way that would lead to you having to make some sacrifice, large or small, to help them get care?

Allons-y!

At various times when they were uninsured I purchased health insurance for my sister and her kids. So what?

Claiming to "care" is neither compelling nor honest. A bad policy is a bad policy, regardless of whether its supporters claim to be motivated by "caring", and liberals have demonstrated time and again they don't care about the harmful effects of liberal policies.

Buying for family doesn't exactly get at the point I was trying to make - not everyone has family to buy them insurance when they need it.

A bad policy is a bad policy, regardless of whether its supporters claim to be motivated by "caring", and liberals have demonstrated time and again they don't care about the harmful effects of liberal policies.

A bad policy can be fixed - at least it's a starting point.  Republicans have offered nothing.

Allons-y!

In that case the next time she can't afford it I'll send you the bill. Your definition of "caring" seems to be using the government to spend other people's money for things you care about.

Often it's extremely difficult to fix bad policies. Try reading some public choice theory. I agree Republicans have failed miserably when it comes to health care. That doesn't justify Obamacare.

Your definition of "caring" seems to be using the government to spend other people's money for things you care about.

I think that healthcare is a big enough issue that it can't be fix through individual action.  I have a great health insurance policy right now and I pay taxes - I'm sure that under the ACA my health insurance access will decline due to the increased pressure on the system, and my taxes will go up, and I'm okay with that if it gets us universal coverage.

Allons-y!

At various times when they were uninsured I purchased health insurance for my sister and her kids. So what?

I commend you sir.  Instead of getting uninvolved third parties to pay the price via a "needs" argument, which is really just a nicer way of saying "incompetent irresponsible loser", you took responsibility for your own family.  Well done.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

I mean, in a real, serious way that would lead to you having to make some sacrifice, large or small, to help them get care?

It's a mistake to want personal solutions to systemic problems- that's the same mistake that leads ruthless plutocrats like Warren Buffett being considered "nice guys" because they write an op-ed about paying the same tax rate as their secretary (and the equally stupid response that Buffett "should write a check if he wants to pay more").  If Buffett really wanted billionaires to pay a single cent more in tax (lol as if) then he'd use some (or most) of his vast wealth to lobby Congress into passing higher taxes- or just straight up bribe them into doing it via campaign contributions.  But that of course isn't what Buffett really wants.

Similarly, if Urkel wanted to help people without insurance, he'd vote out Blue Dog Dems in primaries and do other things to address the systemic problems that lead to us not having single-payer or UHC- not just buy a couple healthcares here and there for this person and that.  Don't get me wrong- it was definitely nice of him to do that, but it wasn't a solution to the systemic problem.

I got more styles than prison got bricks- ain't that some shit?

It's not my responsibility to make the Democratic party more Communist than it already is, but it so happens my Congressman, who never faces any real opposition and has been in office for over 20 years, is in favor of Single Payer. He's also an idiot, which is a coincidence, I'm sure.

Don't go around making comments about how the Supreme Court can't overturn laws, as is its role, simply because it was passed by Congress

That's not what he was saying.

Allons-y!

Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

Is he just inarticulate then?  Imagine if Palin had said this.  

Many things she says have been, and will continue to be, deliberately viewed by her opponents in the worst possible way.  Her supporters will choose to view them in the most favorable interpretation.  

The opponents and supporters of Obama behave similarly.  

For my part (as apparently some bizarre creature who can find some things I agreed with and some I disagreed with from each of the last 4 Presidents), I think he's playing politics by trying to frame the debate in such a way that only "activist" judges would overturn this law, because it's clearly constitutional (his spin).  He is, and the Justice Department is, arguing that it is constituational.  This flows from that opinion, and he's trying to frame the debate in the public's mind in that way.  It's pretty standard in politics to try to do that kind of thing.

I don't agree with him on this point, but I don't think this shows he has no idea that SCOTUS can overturn unconstituational laws.  

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Palin is an idiot, Obama is not. Palin saying something like that would be from sheer ignorance. Obama saying it is calculated politics. How anyone would be stupid enough to make a Palin-Obama comparison is unfathomable.

The point of my post was not intended to be specific to Palin vs. Obama.  Bush and many others are/were given the same treatment.  

For many public and polarizing figures, if there's any way to interpret a statement in poor light, it will be done.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

How anyone would be stupid enough to make a Palin-Obama comparison is unfathomable.

You are correct.  Its completely unfair to Palin who is at least intellectually honest.

Oh right, Palin has a history of intellectual honesty.

• The Bridge to nowhere, you know the one she wanted to spend $150 million on to serve 50 people on a remote island.
  
• Promoting abstinence education even after her teenage daughter got knocked up outside of marriage.
  
• Quitting her term as governor not even half way into her governorship to star in a Reality Show, in which she clearly shows how is she NOT used to all the shit she said she did, like fishing and hunting.
  

Oh right, Palin has a history of intellectual honesty.

• The Bridge to nowhere, you know the one she wanted to spend $150 million on to serve 50 people on a remote island.

Though I find it hard to believe I'm defending Sarah Palin, that's a gross misrepresentation of both the Gravina Access Project bridge and the Palin administration's position on it.  As it happens, at the moment I'm sitting in front of a window from which I would be able to see that bridge, had it ever been built, and so it's a subject I followed perhaps more closely than the average person.

For the record I was not then, nor am I now, an advocate of the bridge project.  The amount of money it would have cost would have been ridiculously out of proportion to the amount of economic benefit that the community of Ketchikan would have derived from the bridge or its construction (and by the time the project was cancelled, by the state government under Palin's administration the projected cost was well over $200M and rapidly approaching $300M.)

If you want to point a finger at the Alaska politician behind the bridge, look to Alaska's sole Congressman -- Representative Don Young.  Palin never advocated the bridge project in any meaningful sense.  You might be able to find some quotes from her making mildly positive comments about the project but I can tell you they amount to little more than acknowledgment that no Alaskan politician ever got elected (or re-elected) by turning down money from the federal government.

Find some other fiasco to lay at Palin's feet.  It's not like there's any shortage.

You probably need to look up the definition of intellectual honesty before you proceed any further.  

How do you judge a politician's intelligence if not by what they say?  And if Identical things are said by two different politicians, how can you without bias attribute idiocy to one and shrewdness to another?

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

How do you judge a politician's intelligence if not by what they say?

Hope.

Historical evidence of stupidity.

Which is made up of things they've said in the past.  If you continuously attribute some other motive/interpretation to past utterances, how are you determining intelligence rather than attributing it?

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

I'm not sure if you have second-sight or psychic ability, but most of us have to use things said/done in the past as part of our judgements about people. It's just heuristics.

The question I would ask you is do you honestly think Palin and Obama are on the same level?

That's exactly my point, you are attributing intelligence to Obama (or at least political savvy) for utterances that you freely admit would invoke scorn and further proof of idiocy if uttered by Palin.  If you continuously do this, you are simply re-enforcing your own per-conceived notions about their relative attributes.

Palin and Obama are both politicians, and both have said some very stupid things.  I haven't heard much about Palin recently, but this latest gaffe from a supposed "expert" in constitutional law, when taken with past utterances, certainly doesn't reflect well on his own level of intelligence no matter what Palin's may be.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

If you continuously do this, you are simply re-enforcing your own per-conceived notions about their relative attributes.

I haven't done that continuously soI guess I can I attribute your per-conceived notions about my stances on politicans your psychic abilities.

Palin and Obama are both politicians, and both have said some very stupid things.

Really? Both have said very stupid things? Please point out these very stupid things said by Obama. And by I mean real things, not some bs about misspeaking about number of states or shit like that, I mean... really retarded things in Palin-esque manner like "I can see Russia from my house" caliber.

this latest gaffe from a supposed "expert" in constitutional law

We already have discussed how it wasn't a gaffe. Maybe it's your per-conceived notions about Obama (maybe they are prejudiced, tea-party positions about his race) that cloud your judgment about Obama and what he said.

Palin never said she could see Russia from her house.

You're fighting a losing battle. He's got one ax to grind, and it's currently in use.

So, if you eliminate stupid things said by just one of the politicians as "misspeaks" and not "real", then you prove that he is more intelligent.  Apparently, you don't see this as operating from a prejudicial starting point.  Interesting.

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

If you think "misspeaks" and stupidity are the same thing then you are bending over backwards to reach equivalence.  

Did he misspeak when he said:

Ultimately, I'm confident that the Supreme Court will not take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress.

His confidence level can be either foolish or wise, depending on what the eventual outcome is.  So, that's a neutral.  I suspect he's right, since SCOTUS very rarely tries to restrain the expansion of the USFG, however I guess we'll see.  The next part though is flagrantly stupid "would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress".

Every federal law that SCOTUS has ever overturned has been passed by congress, which is democratically elected.  The House has always been directly democratically elected, and the Senate has been for over a century.    So, unless you maintain that SCOTUS has not overturned a law in that time, this statement is stupidly wrong.  There is certainly precedent for SCOTUS overturning laws.  Hell, Citizen's United only occurred two years ago.

Now, you may quibble that he said "by a strong majority".  Considering the final vote in the House was 219-213, it's stupidly wrong to call that a "strong majority".  It's less than a 2% difference, after all, or more exactly 50.7%-49.3%.  That would be like calling a 51-49 football game a blowout.

Now, you may say that math isn't Bo's strong suit, and I would agree given the types of budgets he's put forth.  However, I ask you, what intelligence do you gleam from that direct quote, which is wrong in almost every respect?

the secret to happiness is to have you pay for my cocaine and mountain climbing-p0157

Please point out these very stupid things said by Obama

Some examples:

"We can't afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception of a shortage, and driving prices higher -- only to flip the oil for a quick profit."

"My answer is that if the private insurance companies are providing a good bargain, and if the public option has to be self-sustaining -- meaning taxpayers aren't subsidizing it, but it has to run on charging premiums and providing good services and a good network of doctors, just like any other private insurer would do -- then I think private insurers should be able to compete. They do it all the time. I mean, if you think about it, UPS and FedEx are doing just fine, right? No, they are. It's the post office that's always having problems.

"There are some structural issues with our economy, where a lot of businesses have learned to become much more efficient with a lot fewer workers.  You see it when you go to a bank and you use an ATM, you don't go to a bank teller... or you go to the airport and you use a kiosk instead of checking in at the gate.  So all these things have created changes."

To be fair, I think one could reasonably argue that the first and third quotes are merely ignorant rather than stupid.

The second quote is stupid, only in the sense that he tried to compare the post office to the ACA to say that it won't kill off private insurers because it is still inefficient. So, it is stupid because it weakened his own argument. I agree with that. The other I don't find stupid or ignorant but I can understanding why a walking economics textbook would.

If you believe that higher productivity leads to higher unemployment, then I suppose I can see why you think President Obama is intelligent.

That's different from the idea that higher productivity doesn't automatically lead to lower unemployment.

It's pretty standard in politics to try to do that kind of thing

Has any president ever commented in this fashion on a case before the Supreme Court? That is, after oral arguments but before an opinion is issued?

I once tried to communicate with you in good faith.  I found the experience unpleasant.  I doubt I'll do it again.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

It's a pretty easy question to understand: Critics of the president have said his comments about the court this week (not to mention his public dressing down of the justices at his State of the Union address a couple years ago) are not only unpresidential, but unprecedented. Do you know of any similar public comments by other US presidents?

Your assertion that communicating with me in good faith was unpleasant reminds me of something President Truman supposedly said: "I never give them hell. I just tell the truth and they think it's hell."

Of course Obama is trying to intimidate the court by claiming that only political motives could lead the court to overturn his signature accomplishment.  He's  sending the message to the deliberating justices that he will attacking the legitimacy of the Court if it defies him,  a threat he knows will resonate with the Chief Justice.

It's pretty standard in politics to try to do that kind of thing.

It is? Can you point to an example of President Bush or Clinton similarly attacking the court while it deliberated? I also don't recall any other President attacking the court during a State of the Union but maybe I missed something.  Obama's all consuming partisanship makes one long for a President like George W. Bush who respected his office and the seperation of powers.  

He's  sending the message to the deliberating justices that he will attacking the legitimacy of the Court if it defies him,  a threat he knows will resonate with the Chief Justice.

Is there a reason Chief Justice Roberts would be particularly susceptible to intimidation?

He has a repuation for being particularly sensitive on that issue.  I don't know how deep it goes, but it comes up pretty frequently in profiles of him.

Can you point to an example of President Bush or Clinton similarly attacking the court while it deliberated?

Whether I call it 'political posturing' or your preferred 'attacking the court', I cannot point to a similar example, no.  I don't view it through quite the same lens of hatred you have for Obama though.

I disagree with him, and think the constitutionality of the individual mandate is not at all clear.  I also think it's inappropriate of him to try to influence the court in that manner, having had plenty of time to communicate to the court through briefs and oral arguments.  However, I understand that he's playing any and all cards he has because he thinks this is critical to his legacy.  I still don't agree that his statement shows that he doesn't understand that SCOTUS can invalidate laws.  

I used to have discussions with my brother about Bush.  Everything he did was evil, corrupt, and a naked power grab, etc.  Bush was an all consumed partisan with no respect for seperation of powers to his eyes.  I'm sure you believe the difference is that he was wrong and you are right, but I don't think you would ever give the benefit of the doubt to anything Obama does.  In your eyes, he is wrong, not in the sense of incorrect about an issue, but wrong inherently.  People on the other end of the spectrum seem to see the same thing in Bush, Cheney, Santorum, Boehner, etc.  

It is?

Not the specifics of lobbying the Supreme Court in this manner, but yes.  Phrasing things to shape the debate (e.g. "Reproductive Health", "Fair Share") and acting as though only your position could be right ("wants to deliberately weaken the country"), is part of the normal operating mode of politics.  Here he's phrasing it as though he's so completely right that only political activist judges would overturn the law.  It's a lot like phrasing it as though only people who hate the troops would oppose some law, or only people who hate the poor would oppose some law, or only people who hate America would oppose some law.

There ain't no good guy. There ain't no bad guy. There's only you and me and we just disagree - Jim Krueger

Let's be clear.  Obama didn't make some ambiguous argument that is capable of  an innocent interpretation without completely rewriting what he actually said.  At this point, everyone agrees that Obama made a false claim that is factually indefensible.  Either (a)  he doesn't understand the topic or (b) he intentionally misled his audience in order to whip up public pressure against  the Supreme Court.   I'm not sure how my supposed hatred of the President changes those options.  Nor am I clear how only people who hate the President would be upset that about his shameless demagoguery.  By all means provide me with an innocent alternative that explains his statement without adding all sorts of new arguments  and I'll happily reassess my position.

is part of the normal operating mode of politics... It's a lot like phrasing it as though only people who hate the troops would oppose some law, or only people who hate the poor would oppose some law,.., or only people who hate America would oppose some law.

I realize this is SOP for the current President, (see his recent  argument that Republicans will poison children) but that's not how recent Presidents have carried themselves.  Typically that sort of crass partisanship is carried out by politicians outside the administration.  For the President to sink that low is an ominous development and not something that should be ignored as politics as usual, because it is not.