Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:51 PM
liberal N proud (60,038 posts)
Europe 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
|
84 replies, 23138 views
![]() |
Author | Time | Post |
![]() |
liberal N proud | Apr 2012 | OP |
NRaleighLiberal | Apr 2012 | #1 | |
CottonBear | Apr 2012 | #2 | |
lovuian | Apr 2012 | #55 | |
The Velveteen Ocelot | Apr 2012 | #3 | |
Joe Bacon | Apr 2012 | #15 | |
Smilo | Apr 2012 | #79 | |
Hawkowl | Apr 2012 | #4 | |
Rex | Apr 2012 | #5 | |
LiberalFighter | Apr 2012 | #28 | |
MadHound | Apr 2012 | #6 | |
99th_Monkey | Apr 2012 | #7 | |
xtraxritical | Apr 2012 | #52 | |
99th_Monkey | Apr 2012 | #62 | |
Maineman | Apr 2012 | #83 | |
Poll_Blind | Apr 2012 | #17 | |
malaise | Apr 2012 | #23 | |
woo me with science | Apr 2012 | #45 | |
fascisthunter | Apr 2012 | #49 | |
tblue37 | Apr 2012 | #67 | |
Ed Suspicious | Apr 2012 | #8 | |
happerbolic | Apr 2012 | #16 | |
provis99 | Apr 2012 | #9 | |
markpkessinger | Apr 2012 | #57 | |
cherokeeprogressive | Apr 2012 | #10 | |
marmar | Apr 2012 | #37 | |
xtraxritical | Apr 2012 | #53 | |
Spacedog1973 | Apr 2012 | #11 | |
BanTheGOP | Apr 2012 | #12 | |
maddiemom | Apr 2012 | #40 | |
Proud Liberal Dem | Apr 2012 | #50 | |
socialindependocrat | Apr 2012 | #61 | |
chervilant | Apr 2012 | #72 | |
WillyT | Apr 2012 | #13 | |
Ter | Apr 2012 | #14 | |
Spacedog1973 | Apr 2012 | #18 | |
treestar | Apr 2012 | #22 | |
Daniel537 | Apr 2012 | #81 | |
qb | Apr 2012 | #19 | |
Octafish | Apr 2012 | #20 | |
treestar | Apr 2012 | #21 | |
BB_Troll | Apr 2012 | #43 | |
geek tragedy | Apr 2012 | #74 | |
libtodeath | Apr 2012 | #24 | |
maddiemom | Apr 2012 | #41 | |
BootinUp | Apr 2012 | #25 | |
Rex | Apr 2012 | #26 | |
CTyankee | Apr 2012 | #27 | |
malthaussen | Apr 2012 | #29 | |
Horse with no Name | Apr 2012 | #46 | |
malthaussen | Apr 2012 | #47 | |
benld74 | Apr 2012 | #30 | |
DocMac | Apr 2012 | #35 | |
Nye Bevan | Apr 2012 | #31 | |
liberal N proud | Apr 2012 | #32 | |
maddiemom | Apr 2012 | #42 | |
sudopod | Apr 2012 | #56 | |
Autumn | Apr 2012 | #33 | |
nadinbrzezinski | Apr 2012 | #34 | |
starfox172 | Apr 2012 | #36 | |
librechik | Apr 2012 | #38 | |
marmar | Apr 2012 | #39 | |
Pachamama | Apr 2012 | #44 | |
provis99 | Apr 2012 | #60 | |
Daniel537 | Apr 2012 | #82 | |
Swede Atlanta | Apr 2012 | #48 | |
chknltl | Apr 2012 | #51 | |
upi402 | Apr 2012 | #54 | |
Initech | Apr 2012 | #58 | |
Lars77 | Apr 2012 | #59 | |
Taverner | Apr 2012 | #63 | |
WHEN CRABS ROAR | Apr 2012 | #64 | |
ailsagirl | Apr 2012 | #65 | |
caseymoz | Apr 2012 | #66 | |
mzteris | Apr 2012 | #68 | |
Bassic | Apr 2012 | #69 | |
grahamhgreen | Apr 2012 | #70 | |
Bassic | Apr 2012 | #71 | |
pampango | Apr 2012 | #77 | |
geek tragedy | Apr 2012 | #75 | |
grahamhgreen | May 2012 | #84 | |
Typical NYC Lib | Apr 2012 | #73 | |
meeksgeek | Apr 2012 | #76 | |
DaveJ | Apr 2012 | #78 | |
ut oh | Apr 2012 | #80 |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:55 PM
NRaleighLiberal (58,782 posts)
1. Europe needs to get in line for bafflement....
...plenty of bafflement right here.
![]() |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:58 PM
CottonBear (21,566 posts)
2. Most of us here in the USA are baffled as well.
![]() |
Response to CottonBear (Reply #2)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 01:17 AM
lovuian (19,362 posts)
55. healthcare will be the issue in the 2012 election
everybody knows it and so does the SC
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Thu Apr 5, 2012, 10:59 PM
The Velveteen Ocelot (111,880 posts)
3. I am baffled by the Supreme Court.
Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #3)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:37 AM
Joe Bacon (5,162 posts)
15. I'm not.
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. |
Response to Joe Bacon (Reply #15)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 12:50 PM
Smilo (1,930 posts)
79. And the kochroaches and Rove and his sycophants. n/t
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Thu Apr 5, 2012, 11:39 PM
Hawkowl (5,213 posts)
4. Supreme Corruption should not be baffling
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? |
Response to Hawkowl (Reply #4)
Thu Apr 5, 2012, 11:47 PM
Rex (65,616 posts)
5. Good point, they have no voters to represent.
They can do what they want.
|
Response to Hawkowl (Reply #4)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:56 AM
LiberalFighter (47,848 posts)
28. If that was done at the lower courts there would be investigations of corruption
The DOJ in the next 4 years need to hit the SC on these issues.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:09 AM
MadHound (34,179 posts)
6. Perhaps this explains their bafflement
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.
|
Response to MadHound (Reply #6)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:23 AM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
7. B-I-N-G-O
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. |
Response to 99th_Monkey (Reply #7)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:23 AM
xtraxritical (3,576 posts)
52. Pack Congress with Democrats in November and everything can and will be corrected.
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
![]() ![]() |
Response to xtraxritical (Reply #52)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:50 PM
99th_Monkey (19,326 posts)
62. I like the way you think. From your lips to God/dess' ears. ~nt
Response to xtraxritical (Reply #52)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:39 PM
Maineman (854 posts)
83. Vote for Dems, and then give them hell every day until they clean up the mess...
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. |
Response to MadHound (Reply #6)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 08:33 AM
malaise (261,939 posts)
23. Ding ding we have a winner
That happens when life is more important than 'the market'.
|
Response to MadHound (Reply #6)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 05:25 PM
woo me with science (32,139 posts)
45. Thank you.
Response to MadHound (Reply #6)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 07:01 PM
fascisthunter (29,381 posts)
49. we live in a sociopathic country... prime environment for fascism
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.
|
Response to fascisthunter (Reply #49)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 01:57 PM
tblue37 (62,130 posts)
67. Not just "watch you die," but cheer loudly at the prospect! nt
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:24 AM
Ed Suspicious (8,879 posts)
8. Providing health care is an affront to liberty at the same time forced strip
searching and rectal/vaginal inspections the arrested (not to be read as convicted) is not. Up is down.
|
Response to Ed Suspicious (Reply #8)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:40 AM
happerbolic (140 posts)
16. i hear if you have an airline ticket....
... these days, your proctological and mamograms are a free perk. please, just no tugging on the polyps.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:34 AM
provis99 (13,062 posts)
9. and I'm baffled by the idiotic American commenters on news.yahoo.com
maybe the Guardian should do a series on them, too.
|
Response to provis99 (Reply #9)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 01:45 AM
markpkessinger (8,265 posts)
57. Yahoo commenters excel in idiocy...
... I don't even bother reading Yahoo comments anymore.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:55 AM
cherokeeprogressive (24,853 posts)
10. There's no surprise in that. They're still surprised WE decided to move "across the pond"...
Response to cherokeeprogressive (Reply #10)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:41 PM
marmar (76,356 posts)
37. Actually, they're probably pretty happy we did these days.
nt
|
Response to marmar (Reply #37)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:28 AM
xtraxritical (3,576 posts)
53. That's right, they unloaded all their criminally insane and religious zealots.
The GOP are the offspring.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:56 AM
Spacedog1973 (221 posts)
11. Its like turkey's voting for Christmas
In the comments section of that Yahoo article
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:06 AM
BanTheGOP (1,068 posts)
12. Why are they baffled? The US is the ONLY country in the world with a party as extreme as the GOP
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. |
Response to BanTheGOP (Reply #12)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:58 PM
maddiemom (5,104 posts)
40. I gave the Reublican party the benefit of the doubt
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.
|
Response to maddiemom (Reply #40)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 07:11 PM
Proud Liberal Dem (24,081 posts)
50. +1000
![]() |
Response to maddiemom (Reply #40)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:28 PM
socialindependocrat (1,372 posts)
61. I agree - close to treason
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". |
Response to socialindependocrat (Reply #61)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:27 PM
chervilant (8,267 posts)
72. Sociopathic behavior,
not to mention narcissistic...
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:08 AM
WillyT (72,631 posts)
13. The U.S. Is Baffled By The U.S. Supreme Court...
![]() |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:26 AM
Ter (4,281 posts)
14. Who cares what they think
They arrest those for speech they don't like, clearly our Constitutions are different.
|
Response to Ter (Reply #14)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:46 AM
Spacedog1973 (221 posts)
18. Its nothing to do with the constitution
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. |
Response to Ter (Reply #14)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 08:32 AM
treestar (82,116 posts)
22. +1
Some have "state religions" too or registration of permitted religions.
|
Response to Ter (Reply #14)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:09 PM
Daniel537 (1,560 posts)
81. +1
I'll take our constitution against any European constitution any day of the week.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:07 AM
qb (5,924 posts)
19. How dare they!!!
![]() I'm sure Scalia has already ordered the cafeteria to start serving Freedom Fries in retaliation. |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 07:24 AM
Octafish (55,745 posts)
20. Europe needs to call Thom Hartmann.
He'll straighten them out, PDQ.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 08:31 AM
treestar (82,116 posts)
21. Well we go by the rule of law as expressed in the Constitution
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. |
Response to treestar (Reply #21)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 03:52 PM
BB_Troll (65 posts)
43. Exactly.
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 |
Response to treestar (Reply #21)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 08:55 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
74. That our government doesn't have the power to guarantee health care
is what puzzles them. The Constitution is known to be a fairly rightwing document, but this would make it a joke amongst developed nations.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:06 AM
libtodeath (2,888 posts)
24. We would and the planet would be better off if we all took followed Europe`s lead in
Democratic Socialism.
Peace and prosper would be the result so the MIC wont allow it. |
Response to libtodeath (Reply #24)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 03:10 PM
maddiemom (5,104 posts)
41. Absolutely agree!
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.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:16 AM
BootinUp (45,007 posts)
25. Nothing this Supreme Court does surprises me
anymore.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:18 AM
Rex (65,616 posts)
26. Well it is a no brainer, the SCOTUS is controlled
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.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 09:29 AM
CTyankee (62,742 posts)
27. This is why emerging democracies don't want to model their constitutions on the U.S. Constitution.
Real concerns of the people are ignored. Women are ignored.
We are a disgrace in the eyes of the rest of the world. |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:03 PM
malthaussen (16,474 posts)
29. The irony of it
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 |
Response to malthaussen (Reply #29)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 05:39 PM
Horse with no Name (33,948 posts)
46. The court needs to be bigger.n/t
Response to Horse with no Name (Reply #46)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 05:43 PM
malthaussen (16,474 posts)
47. Think so? Congress is pretty big
... but they're a bunch of corrupt hacks, too.
-- Mal |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 12:50 PM
benld74 (9,788 posts)
30. Just take a look at some of the article replies,,,,
Yahoo brings them out of the woodwork! everytime
![]() |
Response to benld74 (Reply #30)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:22 PM
DocMac (1,628 posts)
35. One can get brain damage from reading those comments. nt
![]() |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:08 PM
Nye Bevan (25,406 posts)
31. Too bad a German court could not strike down Hitler's 1933 Enabling Act
through which he seized absolute power.
The US Supreme Court would prevent this kind of thing from happening in the US. |
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #31)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:12 PM
liberal N proud (60,038 posts)
32. Or they could enable it
Remember Bush vs. Gore 2000.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Reply #32)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 03:16 PM
maddiemom (5,104 posts)
42. I'll Never "get over it"
and I don't think we should. It's paved the way to Citizens United and who can imagine What down the road.
|
Response to Nye Bevan (Reply #31)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 01:30 AM
sudopod (5,019 posts)
56. "The US Supreme Court would prevent this kind of thing from happening in the US."
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:12 PM
Autumn (43,470 posts)
33. Yeah me too, only I'm baffled as to why most
of those sorry fuckers haven't been removed from the bench.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 01:17 PM
nadinbrzezinski (154,021 posts)
34. Some of us as well.
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:36 PM
starfox172 (33 posts)
36. can you imagine the mess if SCOTUS were electable seats?
the horror...
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:46 PM
librechik (30,598 posts)
38. How sensible!
it will never fly here. Will they offer us sanctuary from our oppressors, our MURDERERS??? I hope so.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 02:52 PM
marmar (76,356 posts)
39. I see the usual parade of "Kiss My Flag, damn Europeans" reactionary posts attacking the OP.....
...... Not challenging the fact that they're right in their observation. Just mad that they made the observation. ..... Ain't that America!?!
|
Response to marmar (Reply #39)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 05:24 PM
Pachamama (16,778 posts)
44. USA! USA! USA!
????????
![]() |
Response to marmar (Reply #39)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:08 PM
provis99 (13,062 posts)
60. Freedumb! Freedumb ain't free!
Response to marmar (Reply #39)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:11 PM
Daniel537 (1,560 posts)
82. What exactly are they right about?
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.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 06:53 PM
Swede Atlanta (3,596 posts)
48. How does ensuring all citizens have access to affordable healthcare not meet.....
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. |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Fri Apr 6, 2012, 10:39 PM
chknltl (10,558 posts)
51. They are baffled...many here are baffled too!
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. |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 12:29 AM
upi402 (16,854 posts)
54. Almost by design - it was doomed to get dumped by these Supreme Courtisans
We have no choice. Batshit crazy Republicans or Goldwater Democrats.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 02:26 AM
Initech (98,659 posts)
58. This is the same Supreme Court that said that money is free speech.
How can anyone *NOT* be baffled by it?
![]() |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 05:01 AM
Lars77 (3,032 posts)
59. Most Europeans would be opposed to Obamacare if they knew what it was
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. |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 06:52 PM
Taverner (55,476 posts)
63. Welcome to USA. In Europe you get sick. IN USA sick gets YOU!
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sat Apr 7, 2012, 09:09 PM
WHEN CRABS ROAR (3,813 posts)
64. Repeat this over and over.
MEDICARE FOR ALL!
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 12:55 AM
ailsagirl (22,288 posts)
65. So are the sane people of this country
Or perhaps 'sickened, disgusted, and outraged' is more accurate.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 03:09 AM
caseymoz (5,763 posts)
66. Yes, the eyes of the world are on the SCOTUS
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? |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 02:05 PM
mzteris (16,232 posts)
68. constitutional right to affordable healthcare . . .
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. |
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:22 PM
Bassic (6,205 posts)
69. What is even more baffling
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.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:26 PM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
70. The court will most likely rule in favor of big insurance and let the law stand, screwing the rest
Of us, IMHO.
|
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #70)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 05:27 PM
Bassic (6,205 posts)
71. Pretty much.
The majority is conservative, I'd hardly see them vote against their buddies.
|
Response to Bassic (Reply #71)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 08:01 AM
pampango (24,692 posts)
77. Exactly. You can tell who their buddies are by the "friends of the court" briefs.
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/ |
Response to grahamhgreen (Reply #70)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 08:57 PM
geek tragedy (68,868 posts)
75. So you favor repealing guaranteed issue and community rating then.
Without the mandate, those get axed.
Need the mandate for them to work. |
Response to geek tragedy (Reply #75)
Mon May 7, 2012, 10:27 PM
grahamhgreen (15,741 posts)
84. No necessarily, just means less profits
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Sun Apr 8, 2012, 07:30 PM
Typical NYC Lib (182 posts)
73. Join the club already!
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 07:38 AM
meeksgeek (1,214 posts)
76. I think Europeans are baffled by many things about America,
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.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 09:05 AM
DaveJ (5,023 posts)
78. Republicans set the bar very low for Democrats
Something is still seriously wrong when half of our government is diametrically opposed to all forms of life, liberty, and happiness.
|
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Mon Apr 9, 2012, 03:06 PM
ut oh (809 posts)
80. All this commentary will do
is motivate the con 5 that they need to thumb their noses at Europe and REALLY defeat it now.
|