;Posted on 04/02/2012 4:25:29 AM PDT by xsmommy
Word For The Day, Monday, 4/2/12
;In order that we might all raise the level of discourse and expand our language abilities, here is the daily post of "Word for the Day".
licit; adj.
legal; lawful; legitimate; permissible.
Etymology:1475–85; < Latin licitus permitted (past participle of licēre ); replacing earlier licite < Middle French; see -ite
Rules: Everyone must leave a post using the Word for the Day in a sentence.
The sentence must, in some way, relate to the news of the day.
The Review threads are linked for your edification. ;-)
Practice makes perfect.....post on....
They are not reading 2400 pages.
My take is this.
the 5 that will vote to overrule, will take into account that there was a period of unified government, and hence NO political discussion on the merits.
They will strike it down and return it as a Political question to be addressed.
That wont be in the language, but should be the reasoning.
have no idea what you are saying here.. what is a period of unified government? return it as a political question? what’s that and to whom are they returning it?
several of them mentioned a few discrete amendments which are totally unrelated to obamacare, during the argument. I think Roberts and Ginsberg both did. Yes, Nino doesn’t want them slogging through the mess or worse yet, consigning it to their clerks to do. I just am not sure that his view will win the day.
HE means it was passed by one party ruling both Congress and WH.
SCOTUS has 2 choices:
a) Reject the entire bill and allow politics to settle what comes next.
b)Custom design a solution to the problem and install it as the law of the land. Then spend the rest of our lives running to the Supreme Court to decide every aspect of health care.
I’d rather be ruled by elected Democrats than unelected judges.
The Justices will take into account that as a political question, OBAMACARE was rammed through before 2010, when the Libs held by virtue of a single election, unified control of the government, which was repudiated at the ballot box in 2010.
As a legal concept, clearly this is a perversion of the Commerce Clause that the Court itself has allowed to mutate to this point. Sotomayor has given them an out, however unwillingly.
Sotomayor’s question about a ‘limiting principle’ should be (IMO) the new standard in these types of cases, and Obamacare has none.
When she asked that question, she inadvertently (I think) introduced the corollary to Marshall’s Right of Judicial Review.
At what point, (the forward going question should be) without explicitly detailing the limit on Congressional power to enact and enforce said statute...can we uphold it?
(Now clearly that is not what she said, but that is what the conservative argument should be going forward. Marbury is an abomination that makes the 9 Supreme, no?)
See above. Sonia Sotomayor should be very conservatives best girlfriend.
It’s time to bury John Marshall.
Sunshine and 76, but rain is supposed to be on the way-
Obama’s minions are running
From the legal issue so hot-
When it comes to health care
What is licit and what is not
They mimic the Clinton tactic
When they’re not looking great-
Talking up the Florida shooting
As the newest way to obfuscate
Hey, everyone-look over here-
Racism is their favorite tool-
Don’t give a thought to the Emperor
Without clothes, looking like a fool
What I don’t like is the blithe assumption, even by our counsel at the Supreme Court, that a single-payer gov’t run health care system financed under the general power to tax is constitutional.
We need a ruling that states that Medicare and Medicaid are charity and that is the limiting principle on their expansion. In no way should we be able to consider every person living in the country as a charity case, and forbid the private practice of medicine.
(Of course, all of that charity should be returned to the states where it belongs, but we aren’t going to get there in one step, so it’s not worth talking about. Let’s change “entitlement” to “charity,” which is what it is.)
I hope so, but just cause the gov’t solicitor and all the liberals in the world couldn’t articulate a limiting principle doesn’t mean Sotomayor or some other justice won’t invent one out of whole cloth.
That’s what I fear most.
Exactly. And that’s why NO ONE can predict how they will rule in this.
I might buy some champagne and fireworks. Just in case.
Today I am a licit driver of Massachusetts, having finally traded in the Virginia license. I guess I’m a Mass*ole again.
Just officially.
Yes, that’s ambiguous. ;-)
oh when did you move back up there? I was in Boston the weekend before last for the Regional finals of the NCAA and while i recalled the Massh*le appellation, i found the people there to be incredibly nice! We stayed in Revere and took cabs back and forth into the city until xsboy arrived on Friday afternoon. the hotel set us up with a cab co. and they were very helpful and nice in toting us back and forth.
moved up some months ago. lost work in VaBch on 12/31/10. so many engineers with Secret+ clearances applying for the same jobs I couldn’t get an interview. got one up here so, packed up, put the house on the market and headed back to this land of liberalism. Oh, and my folks and brother all quite ill, so I really had to return.
prayers for your family, but am glad it worked out for you to move back up there.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.