The current incarnation of your fallacy is just as ill-informed as your last one. SCOTUS does not give approval, tacit or express, to laws that have not been brought before it. Your absurd statement would be true if SCOTUS had the power to bring forth constitutional challenges, but they do not. That is up to either the citizenry, or other government entities. Laws that they choose not to bring forward on Constitutional challenge, are simply never considered by SCOTUS. You know this, so how you come up with the conclusion that SCOTUS has given approval of any kind to issues never brought before it is baffling. But not surprising.
The conclusion is that all law is constitutional until it is declared unconstitutional by SCOTUS. You know that, but you'd rather talk in circles as if you think it makes you look like a master debater.
Tired of speculating about their decisions on PPACA? Good. It's a futile exercise
And while you're fretting over their deliberations, here are some more facts to entertain or confuse you.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/26/health...html?hpt=he_c2
optimus (03-29-2012)
Two problems. First, you made the absurd claim that all laws have SCOTUS blessing, which you changed to tacit or express approval. And are now changing again- to something equally as absurd. A law that is unconstitutional is unconstitutional from its inception. SCOTUS may issue a ruling on its constitutional basis, but that basis existed before the ruling. I'm not talking in circles, and I am certainly no master debater. But for one as far above the conservative masses intellectually as you proclaim yourself to be, you do not seem to have a very firm grasp on some very simple facts.Originally Posted by Chachma v'Oz
"A law that is unconstitutional is unconstitutional from its inception."
That is talking in circles. It isn't unconstitutional until SCOTUS declares it so. Its opinion is the only one that matters and until its opinion is contrary to that law, that law is constitutional.
An unconstitutional law violated some constituional provision prior to SCOTUS saying so. Indeed, often times lower courts find laws unconstitutional, and those laws are never appealed to SCOTUS. I suppose you find those laws to be consittutional, since SCOTUS never said otherwise....
Of course it seems to you like I am talking in circles. The proposition you set forth is absurd on its face.
So slavery is constitutional today? The Supreme Court has not, to my knowledge, specifically rendered a verdict declaring it unconstitutional.
And we can elect three Presidents in November? They've never ruled on that, either.
Little chachie, are you competing with yourself for "Most bizarrely stupid post of the year"?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
Wrong answer, pal. Look at the recent SC decisions on the 2nd and tell me otherwise.
DAY 3:
Here's transcripts from at least the morning of Wednesday's oral arguments. I guess there may be more coming out later. Haven't had time to read much this morning, it's hell at work today.
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74596.html
The first few pages document Sotomayor's lecturing one of the anti-Obamacare lawyers, that Obamacare will work just fine, even without the mandate, as long as it's fine-tuned just right. She even interrupts him and tries to steer his replies.
I wonder if/when she will later stop arguing one side of the case, and become a Supreme Court Justice again. But she's definitely doing the job Obama appointed her to do: Promote liberalism wherever and whenever she can, "I swear to defend the Constitution" oath be damned.
A few excerpts:
MR. CLEMENT:If you do not have the individual mandate to force people into the market then community rating and guaranteed-issue will cause the cost of premiums to skyrocket. We can debate the order of magnitude of that but we can't debate that the direction will be upward. We also can't debate -*
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: Counsel, that may well be true. The economists are going back and forth on that issue, and the figures vary from up 10 percent to up 30. We are not in the habit of doing the legislative findings. What we do know is that for those States that found prices increasing, that they found various solutions to that. In one instance, and we might or may not say that it's unconstitutional, Massachusetts passed the mandatory coverage provision. But others adjusted some of the other provisions. Why shouldn't we let Congress do that, if in fact, the economists prove, some of the economists prove right, that prices will spiral? What's wrong with leaving it to — in the hands of the people who should be fixing this, not us?
MR. CLEMENT: Well, a couple of questions -* a couple of responses, Justice Sotomayor. First of all, I think that it's very relevant here that Congress had before it as examples some of the States that had tried to impose guaranteed-issue and community rating and did not impose an individual mandate. And Congress rejected that model. So your question is quite right in the saying that it's not impossible to have guaranteed-issue and community-rating without an individual mandate. But it's a model that Congress looked at and specifically rejected. And then, of course, there is Congress's own finding, and their finding, of course, this is (i), which is 43(a)of the government's brief in the appendix, Congress specifically found that having the individual mandate is essential to the operation of guaranteed-issue and community-rating.
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: That's all it said it's essential to. I mean, I'm looking at it. The exchanges, the State exchanges are information- gathering facilities that tell insurers what the various policies actually mean. And that has proven to be a cost saver in many of the States who have tried it. So why should we be striking down a cost saver when if what your argument is, was, that Congress was concerned about costs rising? Why should we assume they wouldn't have passed that information?
MR. CLEMENT: I think a couple of things. One, you get — I mean, I would think you are going to have to take the bitter with the sweet. And if Congress — if we are going to look at Congress's goal of providing patient protection but also affordable care, we can't — I don't think it works to just take the things that save money and cut out the things that are going to make premiums more expensive. But at a minimum -*
JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: I want a bottom line is why don't we let Congress fix it?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
Repeal for the win!
If the whole Health care bill is repealed, I hope the republican/democrats have something in mind to replace it.
_____________________________________________
I WILL NOT INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE BUT YOUR LACK OF INTELLECT IS FAIR GAME
Remember the axiom of big government bureaucrats: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. When, finally, under the crushing weight of taxes and regulation, it stops moving, subsidize it. Going Postal
food4thought (03-31-2012)
And the hits just keep on coming.
Supreme Court justices are finding more and more strange stuff in the Obamacare bill, and sometime just break out in laughter at the craziness.
This is what happens when sensible people get the chance to examine in broad daylight, programs and schemes the liberals have been keeping hidden behind walls of bluster, propaganda, and disingenuous rhetoric.
-------------------------------------
http://campaign2012.washingtonexamin...ickback/451151
SCOTUS laughs at senator over Cornhusker Kickback
by Joel Gehrke
Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., proved the unnamed butt of a joke at the Supreme Court hearing today, as the courtroom chuckled at Justice Scalia's suggestion that the court overturn the "Cornhusker Kickback" because it amounted to bribery.
Scalia used the Cornhusker Kickback in a question about the principle of severability. "[I]f we struck down nothing in this legislation but the -- what you call the corn husker kickback, okay, we find that to violate the constitutional proscription of venality, okay?" Scalia said, drawing laughter throughout the courtroom. Venality means "the quality or principle of being for sale," and is associated with bribery.
"When we strike that down, it's clear that Congress would not have passed it without that. It was the means of getting the last necessary vote in the Senate. And you are telling us that the whole statute would fall because the corn husker kickback is bad. That can't be right."
Attorney Paul Clement argued that "it can be [right]" because "it's congressional intent that governs," and -- with respect to the individual mandate -- Obamacare would not have passed into law, because the individual mandate is an essential feature of the law.
"Cornhusker Kickback" is a derisive term for the deal that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., brokered with Nelson in order to get his essential 60th vote in support of Obamacare. In the deal, Nebraska received an exemption from the expense of Medicaid expansion.
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
Sorry, Adolf, there will not be a repeal. Now kindly go ask your masters what to do next.
Baghdad Bob lives!
The ambassador died, Obama lied.
Powerboss (03-29-2012)
Slavery was constitutional until the 13th Amendment prohibited the practice. Any laws on the books at that time and any laws after that time that allowed for slavery became unconstitutional. Despite your claim, they were not unconstitutional from their inception. A constitutional amendment is another way to render existing laws unconstitutional.
Three presidents? Fine. Try to elect three presidents and I'll opine on how the SC might view it.
So your previous statement, "It isn't unconstitutional until SCOTUS declares it so," is, umm, "no longer operative"?
Anybody see any point to arguing with little chachie any further?
"The social contract exists so that everyone doesn’t have to squat in the dust holding a spear to protect his woman and his meat all day every day. It does not exist so that the government can take your spear, your meat, and your woman because it knows better what to do with them." - Instapundit.com
Vader, do you wear your helmet to bed.
I WILL NOT INSULT YOUR INTELLIGENCE BUT YOUR LACK OF INTELLECT IS FAIR GAME
Remember the axiom of big government bureaucrats: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. When, finally, under the crushing weight of taxes and regulation, it stops moving, subsidize it. Going Postal
86Dùde (03-31-2012)
Bear in mind the subject of this thread. We're not talking about the amendment to the constitution process, martial law or insurrection.
Oh, you glossed over the Pho-ny claim that "A law that is unconstitutional is unconstitutional from its inception."
Last edited by Chachma v'Oz; 03-29-2012 at 07:25 AM.
Clearly you didn't listen to the Oral Arguments. Perhaps you can explain why the Solicitor General had such a hard time arguing his side, the the point of the liberal media calling it a "train wreck" and the leftists on the court having to practically feed him his talking points?
You still lose ... you nazi republican swine. The law isn't getting repealed. DEAL WITH IT.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks