The Supreme Court & Obamacare

[Ideologue]

Oh, I guess that was a rhetorical question.  GLAD I SPENT TWENTY MINUTES LOOKING SOME SHIT UP.

[The Minsky Moment]

Leaving the conservative definition aside for a moment, how do you defend yourself against the charge of inconsistency in using the liberal definition?

Where's the inconsistency?  I raised the issue of activism only because it seems like some of the most vociferous critics of activism (e.g. when in the form of Boumediene  v. Bush) line up behind the idea that the mandate should be struck down.  That does seem inconsistent.

My problem with the anti-mandate position is not that it would judicial activism to overturn it but that it would conflict pretty strongly with prior precedent.

[Neil]

My problem with both the mandate and anti-mandate positions is that they're bad public policy.

[Sheilbh]

I've read most of it now.  My suspicion is that it'll be upheld, but I could be wrong.

[LaCroix]

I've read most of it now.  My suspicion is that it'll be upheld, but I could be wrong.

as much as i wish it will be upheld, i don't think with this course that it will be. that's only an opinion, and i dearly hope i'm wrong

[grumbler]

My problem with both the mandate and anti-mandate positions is that they're bad public policy.

True, but I think that the mandate-for-insurance policy has to be shown to be a failure before the majority will accept the truth that market forces have limited leverage in the health care field.

[Neil]

My problem with both the mandate and anti-mandate positions is that they're bad public policy.

True, but I think that the mandate-for-insurance policy has to be shown to be a failure before the majority will accept the truth that market forces have limited leverage in the health care field.

Perhaps.  The again, it seems like a majority of Americans would want it to fail anyways, because business as usual is better than any alternative where someone attempts to improve things.

[dps]

Leaving the conservative definition aside for a moment, how do you defend yourself against the charge of inconsistency in using the liberal definition?

Where's the inconsistency?  I raised the issue of activism only because it seems like some of the most vociferous critics of activism (e.g. when in the form of Boumediene  v. Bush) line up behind the idea that the mandate should be struck down.  That does seem inconsistent.

My problem with the anti-mandate position is not that it would judicial activism to overturn it but that it would conflict pretty strongly with prior precedent.

That last part doesn't really matter to those that have always thought that the prior precedents were poor decisions, i.e., that the Court interpreted the commerce clause too broadly in the past.

[The Minsky Moment]

That last part doesn't really matter to those that have always thought that the prior precedents were poor decisions, i.e., that the Court interpreted the commerce clause too broadly in the past.

Sure.  But at risk of banging the same drum again, the "past" with respect to broad Court interpretations of the commerce clause (and the N&P clause) includes the Gonzales v. Raich case, and includes Kennedy and Scalia doing that intrepretation. 

[The Minsky Moment]

My problem with both the mandate and anti-mandate positions is that they're bad public policy.

The good policy options are off the table, so what's left is selecting the brand name of the poison to drink.

[Admiral Yi]

My problem with the anti-mandate position is not that it would judicial activism to overturn it but that it would conflict pretty strongly with prior precedent.

You've made some statements in this thread that smelled very much like a preference for judicial deference to the legislature.

[The Minsky Moment]

My problem with the anti-mandate position is not that it would judicial activism to overturn it but that it would conflict pretty strongly with prior precedent.

You've made some statements in this thread that smelled very much like a preference for judicial deference to the legislature.

I agree with the presumption of constitutionality, that is true.  But that presumption is rebuttable. 

[MadImmortalMan]

It would be "judicial activism" to NOT overturn it.


JA is bullshit, but let's be honest about it.

[Kleves]

It would be "judicial activism" to NOT overturn it.

Wait, are you saying that inaction can treated as action in some cases? 

[crazy canuck]

My problem with both the mandate and anti-mandate positions is that they're bad public policy.

The good policy options are off the table, so what's left is selecting the brand name of the poison to drink.

The problem is when the mandated system does really work the Goptards will want to go back to the bad old days.  What are the chances that real reform will ever become viable?