Posted on 12/16/2018 5:25:39 PM PST by Olog-hai
Trump did order the Justice Department not to defend Obamacare and yes, California and other states do have standing. If Obamacare is truck down their Medicaid funding goes with it. That represents damages enough for them to have standing.
I don’t see this case going anywhere unfortunately. Congress does have to fix the ACA. There isn’t enough choice of plans. As a retiree on a non medicare retirement plan I don’t need birth control or prenatal care but because the ACA requires all plans have it, I pay for it. No wonder premiums and deductibles are high.
As a woman I don't need coverage for prostate cancer or Viagra. But I pay for that.
Me too.
Roberts did not “cave”. What he did was of his own will.
Why do people talk as if nothing existed before Zerocare?
Defense of Medicaid funding (socialism) is a shabby case.
What he did was of his own will.
He’ll be impeached right after RBG is.
Actually the immigration blocks were from District Courts too - not “supreme courts”
When it comes to the feds, there’s only one question you need to ask: IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
If not, all the rest is bull shit.
When it comes to the feds, there’s only one question you need to ask: IS IT CONSTITUTIONAL?
If not, all the rest is bull shit.
The same sex marriage one was also a farce. At the end of the day, what they LITERALLY did was simply redefine a word, via the power of the SCOTUS. “Marriage” no longer means what it used to mean, thanks to an over-reaching court.
… The nation declared its will by dismissing functionaries of one principle and electing those of another, in the two branches, executive and legislative, submitted to their election. Over the judiciary department the Constitution had deprived them of their control. That, therefore, has continued the reprobated system: and although new matter has been occasionally incorporated into the old, yet the leaven of the old mass seems to assimilate to itself the new; and after 20 years confirmation of the federated system by the voice of the nation declared through the medium of elections, we find the judiciary on every occasion still driving us into consolidation.One bad decision made a Constitutional crisis that led to civil war. Several others have led to other crises in this country, and always to push the country into “consolidation” as Jefferson put it (centralization) and to create more instability on behalf of the power-hungry.
In denying the right they usurp of exclusively explaining the Constitution, I go further than you do, if I understand rightly your quotation from the Federalist of an opinion that the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government, but not in relation to the right of the parties to the compact under which the judiciary is derived. If this opinion be sound, then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de se. For intending to establish three departments, coordinate and independent that they might check and balance one another, it has given, according to this opinion, to one of them alone the right to prescribe rules for the government of the others; and to that one too which is unelected by, and independent of, the nation. […]
The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered as an axiom of eternal truth in politics that whatever power in any government is independent is absolute also. …
— Letter to Spencer Roane, 09/06/1819
I wish we could go back. My health care premium doubled because of it.
FDR threatened to increase the SCOTUS’ number until he could get what he wanted, then suddenly it was found to be ‘constitutional’..................
No, no. One federal judge makes a ruling, that’s expected to be obeyed as the incontrovertible law of the land forevermore. Oh wait, this ruling was bad for statists and good for normal people...never mind....
The thing that pissed me off about the same-sex ‘marriage’ fiasco, or at least SCOTUS’ role in it, was this: When they addressed full faith and credit when some states legalized it, they sided with the homos and against states rights. BUT, when it came back for nationwide acceptance, they again voted with the homos, this time voting AGAINST states rights to do so. As you can see, there is one common factor between the two decisions, and consistent judicial philosophy ain’t it.
How about we go back ALL the way before fascisti started pol=king their nose in health care funding, which is none of their business, and which poking is in fact the cause of any actual problems they claim to want to fix?
Then you should be as po’ed
Exactly correct.
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.