General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsEurope Is Baffled by the U.S. Supreme Court
Europe is scratching its head over possibility that the U.S. Supreme Court will strike down President Obama's signature legislative achievement. As the judiciary and the Obama administration trade legal barbs over the high court's authority, the idea that health care coverage, largely considered a universal right in Europe, could be deemed an affront to liberty is baffling.
"The Supreme Court can legitimately return Obamacare?" asks a headline on the French news site 9 POK . The article slowly walks through the legal rationale behind the court's right to wipe away Congress's legislation. "Sans précédent, extraordinaires" reads the article. In the German edition of The Financial Times, Sabine Muscat is astonished at Justice Antonin Scalia's argument that if the government can mandate insurance, it can also require people to eat broccoli. "Absurder Vergleich" reads the article's kicker, which in English translates to, "Absurd Comparison." In trying to defeat the bill, Muscat writes, Scalia is making a "strange analogy [to] vegetables."
Over in Britain, the opposition is more direct. The Guardian's Kevin Powell called the debate "surreal" in his Monday column. "Wasn't the point to make sure the richest and most powerful nation on the planet could protect its own people, as other nations do?" he wrote. "If Americans are promised not just liberty but life and happiness, is there not a constitutional right to affordable healthcare?"
http://news.yahoo.com/europe-baffled-u-supreme-court-220944850.html
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
NRaleighLiberal
(60,551 posts)...plenty of bafflement right here.
CottonBear
(21,615 posts)
Except for the baby, no one in my family has health insurance. We just pray we don't get sick or injured. If something really bad happens, well then that's it for us.
lovuian
(19,362 posts)everybody knows it and so does the SC
The Velveteen Ocelot
(121,245 posts)
Joe Bacon
(5,167 posts)We have five Ju$ti¢e$ and four Justices.
Five of them have been bought off and none of those five even go to the bathroom without getting permission from Wall Street.
Smilo
(1,950 posts)Hawkowl
(5,213 posts)Scalia, Thomas et. al, get paid for speaking engagements, private plane rides, exclusive hunting trips etc. Yet, they can not be unelected or fired.
WTF is so baffling about being in the pockets of huge corporations?
Rex
(65,616 posts)They can do what they want.
LiberalFighter
(53,503 posts)The DOJ in the next 4 years need to hit the SC on these issues.
MadHound
(34,179 posts)The health care systems that most European countries have doesn't put financial institutions in charge of health care. Nor do their "mandates" require them to purchase a "product" from a for profit corporation.
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)The whole 'mandate' thing was a Republican tar baby from get-go,
and the Dems went for it, hook, line, and sinker.
Never-you-mind that Mitt Etch-a-sketch "forced this mandate" on
Massachusetts long ago. Nothing to see here.
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)The whole point of the ACA exercise is to show voters that Democrats in congress are working for the citizens betterment. If the SC is as biased and stupid politically as it appears to be, it is of no matter, an overwhelmingly Democratic congress can pass single payer after the November elections. Whatever the SC objects to in it's opinions can be corrected by the next Democratic majority Congress. This current legislation can be considered a trial balloon to gauge voter sentiment (a large majority in favor) and test SC opinion. Vote a straight Democratic ballot in November
99th_Monkey
(19,326 posts)
Maineman
(854 posts)money out of politics (publicly funded elections, full and immediate exposure of PAC and Super PAC donors;
corporations are not persons;
Medicare for all;
end corporate wellfare;
close tax loopholes for corporations and the wealthy.
PB
malaise
(278,488 posts)That happens when life is more important than 'the market'.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)fascisthunter
(29,381 posts)How much are you worth? Get sick and find out... the same bastards who claim to be pro-life would watch you die. There is no We in this country... the US crumbling before our eyes.
tblue37
(66,035 posts)
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)searching and rectal/vaginal inspections the arrested (not to be read as convicted) is not. Up is down.
happerbolic
(140 posts)... these days, your proctological and mamograms are a free perk. please, just no tugging on the polyps.
provis99
(13,062 posts)maybe the Guardian should do a series on them, too.
markpkessinger
(8,586 posts)... I don't even bother reading Yahoo comments anymore.
cherokeeprogressive
(24,853 posts)
marmar
(78,066 posts)nt
xtraxritical
(3,576 posts)The GOP are the offspring.
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)In the comments section of that Yahoo article
BanTheGOP
(1,068 posts)There is NO other political entity, in fact no more OPPRESSIVE regime, than the America republican party. We have four extreme right wingers on the bench, along with one right wing, 3 moderates and one whom I would have to say is left of center. This is a NO BRAINER in my mind.
I keep saying, we must get rid of the GOP if we are to have ANY chance of integrating into the society of civilized nations. The republican Party has ceased its political presence, and instead has existed as a criminal organization for several decades now. Use existing RICO statutes to netralize if financially, then use criminal statutes to get rid of the rest of it.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)for too many years. I grew up thinking there were sane among them in the fifties and sixties (except for the "Goldwater Scare," and he looked fine in comparison to today.) Of course, Eisenhower was the first president I was aware of. As the years have passed, we've learned that the Republicans sabotaged LBJ over Viet Nam peace talks, then sabotaged Jimmy Carter over the hostages in Iran. They've made it their mission to sabotage everything President Obama tries to do. They tied up a lot of what the previous Democratic president, Clinton, might have done with nit-picking investigations into anything they could dredge up. I loved how they made an issue of "Whitewater" from years back, then stood by while VP Cheney 's former company Halliburton, made out with no bid contracts in Iraq, while he was in office. No longer the "loyal opposition" the current Republican party lives to obstruct, sabotaging the Democrats being more important than making the government work. Seems to me pretty close to treason.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,780 posts)
socialindependocrat
(1,372 posts)When they say that their main goal is to make President Obama a one term president
and then do everything they can to stop any forward progress.
Then try to reduce the power of unions to hurt the money provided to the Dems for elections
Then, try to make it difficult for groups of people to vote (when they are mostly voters for Dems)
Then, SCOTUS allows Citizens United.
Then they collect $180M for doing nothing...
These people are like children. This isn't a highschool debate they are trying to "win".
chervilant
(8,267 posts)not to mention narcissistic...
WillyT
(72,631 posts)
Ter
(4,281 posts)They arrest those for speech they don't like, clearly our Constitutions are different.
Spacedog1973
(221 posts)Its to do with a different perspective on life, how to live life, the sort of basic things that people need to get on in life that Europeans have worked out and the US are still taking baby steps with.
As for 'who care what they think' since it sounds like a question, I do. Unless you live in an isolated bubble and surround yourself with those who agree, I guess you don't think its relevant.
As for arresting those for speech they don't like, yes, we call it hate speech. The freedom to speak comes with responsibility and by using speech as a weapon, it harms the individual and society as a whole. If people can't enjoy free speech without harming others through it, they lack a vocabulary, not freedom. In my view, hate speech laws would provide far more clarity and unity to your troubled nations and help some people grow up. Its not perfect, but its better than the mess you have.
Some have "state religions" too or registration of permitted religions.
I'll take our constitution against any European constitution any day of the week.
qb
(5,924 posts)
I'm sure Scalia has already ordered the cafeteria to start serving Freedom Fries in retaliation.
Octafish
(55,745 posts)He'll straighten them out, PDQ.
treestar
(82,383 posts)Journalists in Europe, one would think, would be sophisticated enough to understand our system.
Not that it is "an affront to liberty." It would be a matter of whether our federal government has the power under the Constitution.
In order to win the game, the players need to know the rules.
Our Constitution is the highest law of the land.
Take Britain for example. In Britain they do not have a strong constitution and the documents that they do have provide different rules. One standard, for instance, is:
"Unlike some supreme courts in other parts of the world, the UK supreme court does not have the power to 'strike down' legislation passed by the UK parliament. It is not the court's role to formulate public policy, but to interpret law and develop it where necessary, through well-established processes and methods of reasoning."
Here is the link: http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2011/jan/27/supreme-court-parliamentary-sovereignty
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)is what puzzles them. The Constitution is known to be a fairly rightwing document, but this would make it a joke amongst developed nations.
libtodeath
(2,892 posts)Democratic Socialism.
Peace and prosper would be the result so the MIC wont allow it.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)Making "Socialism" a dirty word and boogeyman has been the most successful project the "closer and closer to Facism" right wing has come up with. "Democratic Socialism" is actually a bit redundant, but needed to get the point across. A majority of Americans seem to have no idea what Socialism is. They think : Communism, forced, rigid government, "they'll take what I have and give it to the worthless." No wonder the Europeans think we're a clueless, uneducated bunch of rednecks.
BootinUp
(49,169 posts)anymore.
Rex
(65,616 posts)by a bunch of sick freaks. Sadly, they use the law for their own GOP agenda and we can do nothing about it. Should be illegal the way they use OUR court to advance their own personal agendas.
CTyankee
(65,197 posts)Real concerns of the people are ignored. Women are ignored.
We are a disgrace in the eyes of the rest of the world.
malthaussen
(17,740 posts)The justices on the court sit on "good behavior," which essentially means they can't be fired (except for gross misconduct). The irony is that this was done to protect the Court from corruption. But considering the option -- that they serve at pleasure -- they'd be even more corrupt and useless than they are now.
Of course. when the Court hands down a decision we agree with, then it is an admirable institution. When it does something we don't like, then lo! it becomes an affront to liberty.
Yes, it's a shame that some Justices are so corrupt. Want a perfect Court? Invent the perfect man.
-- Mal
Horse with no Name
(34,068 posts)malthaussen
(17,740 posts)... but they're a bunch of corrupt hacks, too.
-- Mal
benld74
(10,013 posts)Yahoo brings them out of the woodwork! everytime
DocMac
(1,628 posts)
Nye Bevan
(25,406 posts)through which he seized absolute power.
The US Supreme Court would prevent this kind of thing from happening in the US.
liberal N proud
(60,969 posts)Remember Bush vs. Gore 2000.
maddiemom
(5,106 posts)and I don't think we should. It's paved the way to Citizens United and who can imagine What down the road.
sudopod
(5,019 posts)
Autumn
(46,542 posts)of those sorry fuckers haven't been removed from the bench.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)starfox172
(33 posts)the horror...
librechik
(30,790 posts)it will never fly here. Will they offer us sanctuary from our oppressors, our MURDERERS??? I hope so.
marmar
(78,066 posts)...... Not challenging the fact that they're right in their observation. Just mad that they made the observation. ..... Ain't that America!?!
Pachamama
(17,020 posts)???????? 
????????
provis99
(13,062 posts)Daniel537
(1,560 posts)European nations have Supreme Courts as well. Yes, we should have universal health care, but our courts have the right to rule on what is and what is not constitutional. Nothing unusual there. Just because Europeans feel one way, doesn't automatically make them right.
Swede Atlanta
(3,596 posts)the concept in the preamble to the Constitution that reads "promote the general welfare"? How more intrinsic to "welfare" can there be than ensuring people can see a doctor when they need to?
And the ones on the right most loudly complaining are those that are either (a) covered by their employers such as the GOP members of Congress or (b) already on a single payer program, i.e. Medicare.
chknltl
(10,558 posts)We have been told our whole life that we have three co-equal branches of government. Before our very eyes we can see that
one leg of the three can overturn the will of the other two-in essence making that leg of our government more powerful than the other two legs combined! Worse yet, that particular leg of government is not answerable to the citizenry that it 'governs'.
This refutes that todays America has a government Of, By and For it's people. Instead we have two co-equal branches of government answerable to its citizenry overseen by a small group of judges who make decisions for us but not by us. I do not see this as a fair way to be governed.
"Obama Care" will defend the citizenry from pandemics better than anything proposed by the gop. Should we ever be attacked by terrorists using bio-weapons the citizenry of America would be stuck fending for themselves in underfunded hospitals and overburdened ERs under the gop plans. Imo, the gop is fighting to weaken national security and the SCOTUS is complicit.
upi402
(16,854 posts)We have no choice. Batshit crazy Republicans or Goldwater Democrats.
Initech
(102,305 posts)How can anyone *NOT* be baffled by it? 
Lars77
(3,032 posts)Most Europeans thinks this healthcare bill is about normal single payer healthcare like we have in Europe, thats why they are baffled. Europeans would not like the idea of being forced to buy private insurance. Granted, if it was the only thing we knew, maybe. But providing that people understand there is a single payer option, people would not like it and neither should you.
In the US, healthcare is considered a commodity to be bought, and therefore the question is whether or not the supreme court can mandate that people buy something, and i am not entirely sure the supreme court will rule Obamas way. Why should the federal government mandate that people buy a service?
This healthcare plan was flawed from the very beginning.
If they had gone for "medicare for all", and sold it like that to people instead of using terms like single payer etc, this problem may not have existed right now.
Taverner
(55,476 posts)WHEN CRABS ROAR
(3,813 posts)MEDICARE FOR ALL!
ailsagirl
(23,847 posts)Or perhaps 'sickened, disgusted, and outraged' is more accurate. 
caseymoz
(5,763 posts)And these are countries that have universal coverage, and usually single payer, and are quite happy with it.
So, does the Supreme Conservative Five make themselves look like assholes?
mzteris
(16,232 posts)Mr. Powell has it exactly right.
My only complaint? Obamacare doesn't go far enough. It should be universal healthcare. This paying for insurance crap needs to go.
Bassic
(6,205 posts)Is that so much of the population is against universal health care. Not that Obamacare is equivalent to that by any stretch of the imagination.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Of us, IMHO.
Bassic
(6,205 posts)The majority is conservative, I'd hardly see them vote against their buddies.
pampango
(24,692 posts)Merits Briefs for the Petitioners
Brief of the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for the Department of Health and Human Services et al. regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Reply Brief for the Petitioners on the Anti-Injunction Act
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioners
Brief for AARP
Brief for American Nurses Association et al.
Brief for Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts
Brief for Constitutional Law and Economics Professors
Brief for 104 Health Law Professors
Brief for Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Child Advocacy Organizations
Brief for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. et al.
Brief for the California Endowment
Brief for the National Women’s Law Center et al.
Brief for Prescription Policy Choices et al.
Brief for the Jewish Alliance for Law and Social Action et al.
Brief for Health Care For All et al.
Brief for California Public Employees Retirement System
Brief for Law Professors Barry Friedman et al.
Brief for Lambda Legal Defense Fund, et al,
Brief for David R. Riemer and Community Advocates
Brief for Department of Health and Human Services et al.
Brief for the Governor of Washington Christine Gregoire
Brief for Health Care Policy History Scholars
Brief for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid et al.
Brief for Small Business Majority Foundation, INC and the Main Street Alliance
Brief for State Legislators
Brief for the States of Maryland et al.
Brief for Service Employees International Union and Change to Win
Brief for Economic Scholars
Brief for the American Federation of Labor and the Congress of Industrial Organizations
Merits Briefs for the Respondents
Brief for the State Respondents on the Anit-Injunction Act
Brief for Private Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act
Brief for the State Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Brief for Private Respondents on the Minimum Coverage Provision
Reply Brief for State Respondents on the Anti-Injunction Act
Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondents
Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Cato Institute et al.
Brief for Association of American Physicians And Surgeons, inc., and Individual Physicians
Brief for Judicial Watch, Inc.
Brief for American Catholic Lawyers Association, Inc.
Brief for the American Center for Law and Justice et al.
Brief for the American Legislative Exchange Council
Brief for American College of Pediatricians et al.
Brief for the American Civil Rights Union et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for Gary Lawson et al.
Brief for the Catholic Vote and Steven J. Willis
Brief for Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence et al.
Brief for Citizens and Legislators in the Fourteen Health Care Freedom States
Brief for Citizens’ Council for Health Freedom
Brief for the Commonwealth of Virginia Ex Rel. Attorney General Kenneth T. Cuccinelli
Brief for Docs4patientcare et al.
Brief for Employer Solutions Staffing Group
Brief for Egon Mittelmann, Esq.
Brief for Former U.S. Department Officials
Brief for the Foundation for Moral Law
Brief for HSA Coalition, Inc. and the Constitution Defense Fund
Brief for John Boehner
Brief for the Landmark Legal Foundation
Brief for Liberty Legal Foundation
Brief for Members of the United States Senate
Brief for the Mountain States Legal Foundation
Brief for Oklahoma
Brief for Partnership for America
Brief for the Rutherford Institute
Brief for Senator Rand Paul
Brief for Stephen M. Trattner
Brief for the Thomas More Law Center et al.
Brief for Virginia Delegate Bob Marshall et al.
Brief for the Washington Legal Foundation and Constitutional Law Scholars
Brief for Authors of Origins of The Necessary and Proper Clause and the Independence Institute
Brief for Economists
Brief for the Independent Women’s Forum
Brief for the Tax Foundation
Brief for the Missouri Attorney General
Brief for Montana Shooting Sports Association
Brief for the American Life League
Brief for the Caesar Rodney Institute
Brief for Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for Project Liberty
Amicus Briefs Supporting Neither Party
Brief for the Health Foundation of Greater Cincinnati regarding minimum coverage
Merits Briefs for Court-Appointed Amicus regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Brief supporting vacatur
Amicus Briefs Supporting the Court- Appointed Amicus
Brief for Tax Law Professors
Brief for Mortimer Caplin and Sheldon Cohen
Amicus Briefs Supporting the Respondent regarding the Anti-Injunction Act
Brief for the Liberty University, Inc. et al.
Brief for the Cato Institute
Brief for the American Center for Law & Justice
Brief for Center for the Fair Administration of Taxes
http://go.bloomberg.com/health-care-supreme-court/2012-03-01/health-care-primary-sources-statutes-court-opinions-briefs/
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Without the mandate, those get axed.
Need the mandate for them to work.
grahamhgreen
(15,741 posts)Typical NYC Lib
(182 posts)meeksgeek
(1,215 posts)Not least of which is our health care system. A short anecdote: when I was in college, I spent my senior year (1999-2000) in the International Student Housing program, an on-campus dormitory that housed primarily foreign exchange students. U.S. students, however, could apply to live in this dorm. It was not the same as studying abroad, but it was close. One of my suitemates was Finnish; he was shocked to learn that I, being past the age where my parents' insurance would cover me, had absolutely zero medical insurance. True, I could go to the school infirmary and receive simple medical care (like if I caught a cold), but for any real problem, they would send me to the hospital where I would, of course, be required to pay. He found this simply unbelievable.
DaveJ
(5,023 posts)Something is still seriously wrong when half of our government is diametrically opposed to all forms of life, liberty, and happiness.
ut oh
(1,024 posts)is motivate the con 5 that they need to thumb their noses at Europe and REALLY defeat it now.