Skip to main content

Appeals Court Says Health Law Is Constitutional
A federal appeals court in Cincinnati upheld the 2010 health-care law Wednesday, handing the Obama administration its biggest victory yet as challenges to the president's signature initiative advance toward the Supreme Court. The decision, from the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, marked the first time a Republican-appointed judge has found the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act constitutional, after federal district courts hearing separate challenges divided along partisan lines.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/...ml?KEYWORDS=medicaid

 

While Judge Martin wrote the court's lead opinion, Judge Sutton's concurrence is sure to get the most attention. A former law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, Judge Sutton was among the cohort of young conservatives former President George W. Bush nominated in a drive to shape the federal bench. Over the protest of liberal groups, the Senate confirmed Judge Sutton largely along party lines with a 52-41 vote.
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Unfortunately I can see the reasoning of the judge. Because of the FDR packed Supreme Court in 1942 (I believe only one judge on the court was not a New Dealer), wheat grown for personal use can be construed as being part of interstate commerce because it has some miniscule effect on the price of wheat on the national market. It is not that that much of a stretch to say that healthy individuals opting out of insurance effects the price of health insurance nationally since the past Congress and Obama have decided that the Fed's and not the states should regulate the health industry. It is above the pay grade of the lower courts to decide this issue. It will take the Supreme Court to decide the issue by either dancing around the Wickard v. Filburn  case with arcane legalese, deciding that the jackboot-light fascists in black robes of the New Deal got it wrong, or decide the Founders had fecal matter for brains in their desire to limit the power of the federal guv'mint.

 

Even today, the Supreme Court can’t be counted on to provide sound legal reasoning.

 

 

Supreme Court strikes Arizona’s ‘matching funds’ for publicly financed candidates

 

The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of Arizona’s public campaign finance law, the latest in a series of its rulings holding that the right of political speech trumps government efforts to restrain the power of money in elections.

 

The court rejected Arizona’s system of providing additional funding to publicly funded candidates when they face big-spending opponents or opposition groups. The system has been used in every statewide and legislative election since voters approved it in 1998, after a rash of political scandals in theArizona capitol.

 

But the court, in a 5 to 4 ruling, said the law impermissibly forces privately funded candidates and independent political organizations to either restrain their spending or risk triggering matching funds to their publicly financed opponents.

 

“The First Amendment embodies our choice as a nation that, when it comes to such speech, the guiding principle is freedom — the ‘unfettered interchange of ideas’ — not whatever the state may view as fair,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr.

 

Monica Youn, who heads the money in politics project at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice, said the court appears to be creating “a new set of rights” that she characterized as “the right to speak without response” and the “right to preserve monetary advantage.”

 

New Justice Elena Kagan, reading her dissent from the bench for the first time, seemed to emerge as a spokeswoman for the minority, saying that states have an interest in combatting “the stranglehold of special interests on elected officials.”

 

“The First Amendment’s core purpose is to foster a healthy, vibrant political system full of robust discussion and debate,” Kagan said. “Nothing in Arizona’s anti-corruption statute, the Arizona Citizens Clean Elections Act, violates this constitutional protection.”

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../AG92xenH_story.html

 

In other words, if I am a privately-financed candidate, bringing deep corporate pockets to the contest, you as a publicly-financed candidate cannot be expected to match my firepower, nor should you. We must go back to the old corrupt system where the most money buys the lawmaker.

I believe the best solution is to NOT allow corporate , pac, or private funding, past the initial primaries.  Public funding only, the same amt for each candidate. Since TV , and Radio obtain their licenses from the Federal Gov, part of that should be that any TV station, or radio station provide some limited amt of political adds, and limited time. 

This would accomplish a number of things, first and most important (at least to me) is that there would NOT be a constant barrage of political adds to have to endure during the political season on TV or radio. I would suspect that that would be a big blessing to most every citizen in the country.

Second to that, it would bring the cost of a political campaign down drastically, and third , it would get a lot of the influence of lobbyist and therefore big corporations , who currently buy congressmen and senators, out of the mix. Sure, there will still be corruption, and senators and reps will be bought and paid for in other ways, but not allowing any pack or corporate donations would certainly  bring some degree of cleansing to the political system.

Originally Posted by seeweed:

I believe the best solution is to NOT allow corporate , pac, or private funding, past the initial primaries.  Public funding only, the same amt for each candidate. Since TV , and Radio obtain their licenses from the Federal Gov, part of that should be that any TV station, or radio station provide some limited amt of political adds, and limited time. 

This would accomplish a number of things, first and most important (at least to me) is that there would NOT be a constant barrage of political adds to have to endure during the political season on TV or radio. I would suspect that that would be a big blessing to most every citizen in the country.

Second to that, it would bring the cost of a political campaign down drastically, and third , it would get a lot of the influence of lobbyist and therefore big corporations , who currently buy congressmen and senators, out of the mix. Sure, there will still be corruption, and senators and reps will be bought and paid for in other ways, but not allowing any pack or corporate donations would certainly  bring some degree of cleansing to the political system.


Public funding in Europe resulted in only the parties in existence continuing to rule.  No new parties come in to existence against such barriers.  Also, a constitutional amendment would be required.

 

Simplified income tax laws with few, if any deductions, would make contributions less of an incentive. 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The best solution for that is simply required full disclosure on sources of contributions. Preferably posted on the web within 24 hours of receipt. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.  Not, the clumsy hand of government swabbing the deck.


Who would require that full disclosure? Can you rely on the candidates or the donors to willingly do such a thing? I doubt it. It requires the power of government which the Supreme Court has told the State of Arizona it cannot exercise. This is the same Supreme Court that is giving free reign in the Citizens United case to those corporate "persons" to corrupt elections with their unlimited spending because they are entitled to unlimited "free speech."

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The best solution for that is simply required full disclosure on sources of contributions. Preferably posted on the web within 24 hours of receipt. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.  Not, the clumsy hand of government swabbing the deck.


Who would require that full disclosure? Can you rely on the candidates or the donors to willingly do such a thing? I doubt it. It requires the power of government which the Supreme Court has told the State of Arizona it cannot exercise. This is the same Supreme Court that is giving free reign in the Citizens United case to those corporate "persons" to corrupt elections with their unlimited spending because they are entitled to unlimited "free speech."

For federal elections, the US Congress,  enforced by the FEC. Nothing unconstitutional.

 

As to your comments about corporations as persons, that goes back to several decisions:

 

In 1819, the Dartmouth College v. Woodward decision, in the 1886  the Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad case, and the 118 U.S. 394 decision, when the Supreme Court ruled that corporations were recognized as persons for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

The left wing desires to destroy that so corporate shareholders may be held responsible for any liabilities.  Thus, making stocks extremely risky to hold.  Its a portion of their desire to destroy the present system.

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The left wing desires to destroy that so corporate shareholders may be held responsible for any liabilities.  Thus, making stocks extremely risky to hold.  Its a portion of their desire to destroy the present system.

 

 

That is a tremendous idea!!!  Especially with the advent of more GSE's to run our healthcare sector, making the shareholders that stand to benefit also liable for any losses would guarantee the solvency of the operation without exposing the taxpayer to any further liability, as was the case with Fannie, Freddie and Ginne.  

Originally Posted by Mr.Dittohead:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The left wing desires to destroy that so corporate shareholders may be held responsible for any liabilities.  Thus, making stocks extremely risky to hold.  Its a portion of their desire to destroy the present system.

 

 

That is a tremendous idea!!!  Especially with the advent of more GSE's to run our healthcare sector, making the shareholders that stand to benefit also liable for any losses would guarantee the solvency of the operation without exposing the taxpayer to any further liability, as was the case with Fannie, Freddie and Ginne.  

Like I said!  Of course, if public pension funds went down, the taxpayer would be on the hook for the entire pension and losses.  Insurance companies would lose a major source of investment.  Of course, manufacturing and any large business would flee the US.  Nor, would they be replaced, as there would be no major capital formation.  Investors might risk their funds, but not everything they own.  And, everything they might earn in the future.  

 

That is the international socialist's dream! 

Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The left wing desires to destroy that so corporate shareholders may be held responsible for any liabilities.  Thus, making stocks extremely risky to hold.  Its a portion of their desire to destroy the present system.


All a corporation is, really, is a collection of papers in a file cabinet. A corporation cannot act except through human actors.

 

Additionally, a corporation is not merely the sum of the separate shareholders, as evidenced by the mechanism of double taxation of distributed dividends.

 

All that ballyhooed "personhood" of the corporation is a mask behind which human actors can hide to escape liability for their real, in-person damages. It's like that imaginary friend you used to blame for all your mishaps when you were a child.

 

 

Originally Posted by The Propagandist:
Originally Posted by interventor1212:

The left wing desires to destroy that so corporate shareholders may be held responsible for any liabilities.  Thus, making stocks extremely risky to hold.  Its a portion of their desire to destroy the present system.


All a corporation is, really, is a collection of papers in a file cabinet. A corporation cannot act except through human actors.

 

Additionally, a corporation is not merely the sum of the separate shareholders, as evidenced by the mechanism of double taxation of distributed dividends.

 

All that ballyhooed "personhood" of the corporation is a mask behind which human actors can hide to escape liability for their real, in-person damages. It's like that imaginary friend you used to blame for all your mishaps when you were a child.

 

As least Propie is man enough to admit what I stated.  If, the society he espouses comes to fruition, enjoy the next millennium which will resemble the Dark Ages.  That is, if the Islamofascists they've allied with allow them to exist.

 

Say good-by to your 401(k)s, pension plans, and the rest.   

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×