Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 06 Feb '11 17:58
    Since two federal courts have found aspects of Obamacare to be unconstitutional, should the federal government go ahead with Obamacare anyway?
  2. 06 Feb '11 18:03
    Can they do so, legally? If not, no, if yes, yes.
  3. 06 Feb '11 18:20
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Can they do so, legally? If not, no, if yes, yes.
    It should be noted that social security and the minimum wage were also both declared unconstitutional, however, the Supremes overturned these decisions. I would think that the Supremes would have to rule on this for it to go forward.
  4. 06 Feb '11 18:34
    3 courts have said that it is constitutional. Why should the 2, both Republican appointed judges, trump the 3 and the 1 where it was thrown out.

    Another poorly thought out thread by Whodey.
  5. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    06 Feb '11 18:42
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    3 courts have said that it is constitutional. Why should the 2, both Republican appointed judges, trump the 3 and the 1 where it was thrown out.

    Another poorly thought out thread by Whodey.
    Clearly that would be too logical.

    Seriously, though, it will "go forward" to the Supreme Court, ultimately.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    06 Feb '11 19:00
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    3 courts have said that it is constitutional. Why should the 2, both Republican appointed judges, trump the 3 and the 1 where it was thrown out.

    Another poorly thought out thread by Whodey.
    Any federal judge can enjoin the enforcement of the Act pending appeal; at least over the parties within its jurisdiction.

    Who has more judges on which side and who appointed whom could not be less relevant.
  7. 06 Feb '11 20:09
    Originally posted by sh76
    Any federal judge can enjoin the enforcement of the Act pending appeal; at least over the parties within its jurisdiction.

    Who has more judges on which side and who appointed whom could not be less relevant.
    It is only relevant in showing that the decisions in this case are political, not constitutional. The decisions have been drawn right down party lines as per the political affiliation of the one making the appointment. The question asked was "Since two federal courts have found aspects of Obamacare to be unconstitutional, should the federal government go ahead with Obamacare anyway?" I am merely pointing out that since 3 have found it to be constitutional, then 2 finding that it isn't should not trump those decisions.
  8. 06 Feb '11 20:11
    Why is there no significant support for a Constitutional amendment to stop the political appointment of judges, anyway?
  9. 06 Feb '11 21:22
    Originally posted by CliffLandin
    3 courts have said that it is constitutional. Why should the 2, both Republican appointed judges, trump the 3 and the 1 where it was thrown out.

    Another poorly thought out thread by Whodey.
    So what if only one federal judge finds a ruling unconstitutinal? Do you think it is OK to ignore the ruling?
  10. 06 Feb '11 21:23 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Why is there no significant support for a Constitutional amendment to stop the political appointment of judges, anyway?
    No political appointment? What do you propose, elections? Either way its political. How could politics not be involved when the judiciary is one of the three branches of government?
  11. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Feb '11 21:42
    Originally posted by whodey
    So what if only one federal judge finds a ruling unconstitutinal? Do you think it is OK to ignore the ruling?
    Did he issue an injunction? If not, then there's nothing to ignore until the appellate process ends or some court orders the parties to actually do something.
  12. 06 Feb '11 21:57 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Did he issue an injunction? If not, then there's nothing to ignore until the appellate process ends or some court orders the parties to actually do something.
    I don't know. Why would someone rule something unconstitutional but not issue and injunction? Would he be saying that it is unconstitutional but does not really care?
  13. Subscriber no1marauder
    It's Nice to Be Nice
    06 Feb '11 22:01 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I don't know. Why would someone rule something unconstitutional but not issue and injunction? Would he be saying that it is unconstitutional but does not really care?
    Ask Judge Vinson. Any injunction would have been almost certainly stayed by a higher court anyway; lower level Federal judges don't get the final say on what is unconstitutional or not. A Federal judge in Massachusetts has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional but I don't recall you or other right wingers insisting that enforcement of that law now be stopped.
  14. 06 Feb '11 23:48
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Ask Judge Vinson. Any injunction would have been almost certainly stayed by a higher court anyway; lower level Federal judges don't get the final say on what is unconstitutional or not. A Federal judge in Massachusetts has found the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional but I don't recall you or other right wingers insisting that enforcement of that law now be stopped.
    So it would appear that although judge Vinson is the toast of the town in conservative corners, perhaps he should be blasted for not imposing an injunction. Why on earth would anyone declare something unconstitutional and not try to enforce their ruling?

    Anyone?
  15. 06 Feb '11 23:58 / 1 edit
    Confess, this not about the health care it is about thwarting Obama.