|
|
| Post Number: 1
|
High_Sierra_Fan 
Group: Members
Posts: 39584
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
 |
Posted on: Mar. 13 2013, 10:13 pm |
|
   |
And rather ignorant House member.
"Rep. Bridenstine on Obamacare: ‘Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional’"
Republican of course.
|
 |
|
|
| Post Number: 2
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1128
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 13 2013, 10:19 pm |
|
 |
Right wing newbie loon!
Sounds like something Palin would say.
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 3
|
|
|
| Post Number: 4
|
Ron.
don't surround yourself with your self
Group: Members
Posts: 11944
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 13 2013, 10:29 pm |
|
|
That's an intrinsic problem with our federal/judicial Leviathan, the more intrusive it becomes the less respect it gets.
Look at Illinois and Chicago defying the courts on second amendment issues. They don't agree with the courts plain language and are trying to finagle a way around the "law".
Oddly both R's and D's are in favor of a huge all powerful federal government, they each want to be the ones in charge of the beast. Both sides salivate at the chance to seat a SC justice, they want to be in control of the beast.
Of course both sides yelp when it's time for their ox to be gored.
--------------
And be kind toward one another
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 5
|
|
|
| Post Number: 6
|
Buggyboo
Group: Members
Posts: 1128
Joined: Feb. 2013
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 13 2013, 10:39 pm |
|
|
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 13 2013, 10:24 pm)
QUOTE
(Buggyboo @ Mar. 13 2013, 7:19 pm)
QUOTE Right wing newbie loon!
Sounds like something Palin would say. But you know? What's the greater source of pause, that this guy is slightly ignorant on the government he's now a part of or that he got elected in the first place. I mean can you imagine who his opponent must have been?
Two words for you HSF;
Tulsa, Oklahoma
--------------
"I'll give you my gun when you pry it from my cold, dead hands"
Charlton Heston
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 7
|
Ron.
don't surround yourself with your self
Group: Members
Posts: 11944
Joined: Sep. 2006
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 13 2013, 10:41 pm |
|
|
Cuts both ways, plenty of judges who attempt to legislate from the bench.
--------------
And be kind toward one another
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 8
|
|
|
| Post Number: 9
|
|
|
| Post Number: 10
|
Montecresto
Group: Members
Posts: 1874
Joined: Jul. 2012
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2013, 5:13 am |
|
|
Don't see the problem with the congressman's comment. Even the SC doesn't agree with itself most of the time, thus the regular 5/4 rulings.
--------------
Killing one person is murder, killing a 100,000 is foreign policy
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 11
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39584
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2013, 10:50 am |
|
|
(Ben2World @ Mar. 13 2013, 10:20 pm)
QUOTE
(High_Sierra_Fan @ Mar. 13 2013, 7:13 pm)
QUOTE My take is that the Congressman is saying the Supreme Court doesn't interpret the Constitution correctly all the time. Indeed, I can think of two SC misruling's that were particularly egregious: Dred Scott v US and Korematsu v US. The former misinterpreted the Constitution by claiming that it inherently supports the institution of slavery (it actually doesn't). The second misinterpreted the Constitution as sanctioning the right of the government to incarcerate American citizens en masse without trial. I do not know what the congressman's intentions are. But my own take is that whatever the SC rulings -- they serve with the force of law -- yes -- but they can also be overturned via legal means -- either by a future SC ruling or by amendment(s) to the constitution itself.
I disagree: he's making one more effort to de-legitimize the federal government just like the "Birthers" etc.
Another brick in that "sovereign citizen" yellow brick road.
Before the Supreme Court renders a ruling there's room for diagreement on a statute: once the court has considered the arguments and published an opinion it's largely settled law. That's what the amendment process is for.
Such as rthe amendment which deleted this section, which, arguably acknowledges slavery as a legitimate condiiton and oine which is okay to use for determining the aportionment of representitives.
"Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. "
There were coy about it, but "other persons"?
ETA: Now to his further point about whether the Congress has to self-censor in anticipation of what the Supreme Court may decide, I agree with him on that: equal branches of government is a good thing. Congress can pass what it will, once signed by the president then if people have a problem with a statute they go to the courts for the final arbitration. Now going through the motions getting into place a piece of legislation that is positive to get rejected: say a law that puts into place that a president can run for re-election 4 times, now that would just be a huge waste of time. But the bright line issues are probably rare, why we've got so many lawyers: it ISN'T all that simple.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 12
|
kyle2193
Group: Members
Posts: 4506
Joined: May 2008
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2013, 11:05 am |
|
|
He is actually correct. The Supreme Court rules on very specific questions of law, which are by nature, limited in scope.
--------------
If I cannot swear in heaven I shall not stay there.
-Mark Twain
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 13
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39584
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2013, 11:14 am |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Mar. 14 2013, 8:05 am)
QUOTE He is actually correct. The Supreme Court rules on very specific questions of law, which are by nature, limited in scope.
Limited to Obamacare and yet he's stating the ruling doesn't mean the legist]lation is constitutional when that is precisely what the court ruling was about?
"Bridenstine says Obamacare “is a government takeover” and says Chief Justice John Roberts is “incorrect” on the Affordable Care Act being a tax. He says he wants “Congress to take back its constitutional authority.”
“Just because the Supreme Court rules on something doesn’t necessarily mean that that’s constitutional,” he said."
Sorry, in that section he wasn't being all theoretical, he was stating that the ACA was unconsitutional in defiance of the court's "incorrect" ruling. Well, he doesn't get to make that call: the next level is an amendment to the Consitution as the "Supreme" in "Supreme Court" means exactly that: no appeal.
Now if he intended to querstion whether Death Panels, Roving Old People Excution Squads and Grandma (and other non produers) Plug Pullers were still open to question since the case before the court didn't ask for a ruling on them he should have elucidated that point. I didn't read it that way. He directly and specifically rejected the court's determination on "tax". That's about as focused as you get.
Calling for Congress to "take back" it's Consitutional authority? Well that authority is to writelegislation per that verysame Consitution: the final arbiter is the Supreme Court OVER that legislation.
OR "Show me the lines in the Consitution that say" Congress is the final and ultimate arbiter? Congress has the power to override a presidential veto, but only with special effort, they don't get to override the Supreme Court. That's lefty to the People via the amendment process which is less an "override" than an adjustment of the Consitution itself. to reset the metrics by which the Supreme Court will judge future statutes.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 14
|
nogods
Group: Members
Posts: 5426
Joined: Sep. 2007
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2013, 11:20 am |
|
|
I guess then that he would agree that just because a majority of voters in his district voted for him doesn't mean that he is the elected representative to congress for his district
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 15
|
|
|
| Post Number: 16
|
High_Sierra_Fan
Group: Members
Posts: 39584
Joined: Aug. 2005
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2013, 11:45 am |
|
|
(kyle2193 @ Mar. 14 2013, 8:35 am)
QUOTE HSF QUOTE Sorry, in that section he wasn't being all theoretical, he was stating that the ACA was unconsitutional in defiance of the court's "incorrect" ruling. Well, he doesn't get to make that call: the next level is an amendment to the Consitution as the "Supreme" in "Supreme Court" means exactly that: no appeal. You can challenge the same provison under a different question of law. There is currently a case going before the 4th District Court that could be heard by the SOCTUS about the ACA. While his reasoning is incorrect, he is correct in the statement I quoted.
I don't see a section you quoted?
But that does make sense: somehting judged under one metric is not broadly immune to any other challenge. Like, say, the sugary drink law: rejected because it was too arbitrary, since it was issued by the Health Department that didn't have broader authority (limited to certain types of food establoshments but not others) so a similar regulation, iissued by, say, the City Council which does have authority to make a general, applicable to all, regulation, could still be acceptable. Or at least withstand attack based on arbitrary application.
ETA: But the issue of whether it's a "tax" does seem settled contrary to what appears to be his viewpoint.
|
|
|
|
| Post Number: 17
|
|
|
| Post Number: 18
|
BillBab
Group: Members
Posts: 4500
Joined: Sep. 2008
|
|
Posted on: Mar. 14 2013, 2:26 pm |
|
|
Excuse me but wans't a certain constitutional scholar named Obama saying that if the court had ruled the other way they would have been wrong
Plenty of idiots in govt
--------------
"Asking liberals where wages and prices come from is like asking six-year-olds where babies come from."
Thomas Sowell
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Survival Skills 101 • Eat Better
