Many people do not buy car insurance
And raping you twice doesn't make the first rape justified anyway
On Tuesday, March 27, 2012, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
>
> The FEDERAL Government forces you to buy Car Insurance?
>
> Regard$,
> --MJ
>
> The authority of government can have no pure right over my person or property but what I concede to it. -- Thoreau, 1849
>
>
>
> At 02:34 PM 3/27/2012, you wrote:
>
> If the government can force you to buy car insurance, and it does, why
> can't it ask you to buy health insurance?
>
> On Mar 25, 1:56Â pm, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmka...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>  “If the
>> government can force you to buy health insurance, why can’t it force
>> you to buy broccoli?â€
>>
>> This is the crux of the matter.....
>>
>> On Mar 25, 12:30Â pm, Tommy News <tommysn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-supreme-court-debates ...
>>
>> > What’s going to happen during 3 days of arguments on health care?
>> > By Jeffrey Rosen, Â PROFESSOR OF LAW Published: March 23
>>
>> > Starting Monday, the Supreme Court has scheduled six hours of oral
>> > arguments over three days to consider the constitutionality of
>> > health-care reform, the most time given to a case in more than 45
>> > years. We’re certainly in for a historic event — but itt might be an
>> > entertaining one, too.
>>
>> > Oral arguments are always theatrical: The lawyers stand only a few
>> > feet from the justices, who loom above them on a curved bench, and
>> > they are barraged with so many questions that they often have trouble
>> > completing a sentence. The hearings are also an opportunity for the
>> > traditionally secretive Supreme Court to cut loose. In fact, the
>> > Roberts court is known as a “hot bench†— not aa reference to the
>> > unusual sexiness of the justices but to the fact that eight of the
>> > nine are unusually chatty during oral arguments (Justice Clarence
>> > Thomas hasn’t uttered a word since 2006). Even though the justices
>> > rarely change their minds during oral arguments if they already have
>> > strong views about a case, the hearings can clarify their thinking,
>> > offer some lively give and take, and occasionally lead to humor.
>>
>> > So, will the oral arguments over health-care reform produce some
>> > laughs? Here’s a preview of what might transpire when the commerce
>> > clause becomes a punch line.
>>
>> > Justice Antonin Scalia
>>
>> > According to a 2010 study in the Communication Law Review, Scalia is
>> > the funniest member of the court, based on how many laughs the various
>> > justices have elicited in the courtroom. But his wit sometimes has a
>> > sharp edge. In 1988, when a lawyer fumbled for the answer to a
>> > question, Scalia exclaimed, “When you find it, say ‘Bingo!’ â€
>>
>> > Expect some zingers from Scalia in the health-care argument, perhaps
>> > focused on the not-so-side-splitting subject of whether Congress has
>> > the authority to require people to buy health insurance as part of its
>> > power to regulate interstate commerce. Imagine, for example, the
>> > following exchange:
>>
>> > Solicitor General Donald Verrilli: “In 2005, Justice Scalia, you held
>> > that Congress has the power to prevent California from authorizing
>> > people to grow marijuana for their own use. Surely, the decision not
>> > to buy health insurance has a far greater impact on the economy.â€
>>
>> > Justice Scalia: “Depends on what part of California you’re from.â€
>>
>> > Justice Stephen Breyer
>>
>> > Breyer’s jokes often follow a long question identifying the hardest
>> > issue in the case. He cares about legislative history and may focus on
>> > a striking irony in the health-care law briefs: During the debate over
>> > the legislation in Congress, Republicans insisted that the mandate to
>> > buy health insurance should be considered a tax, and Democrats
>> > countered that it shouldn’t. The moment President Obama signed the
>> > bill, though, both sides rushed to court to claim the opposite:
>> > Democrats now insist that the mandate is absolutely a tax (and
>> > therefore authorized by the taxing clause of the Constitution), and
>> > Republicans are equally confident that it’s not.
>>
>> > This debate is also relevant to whether the court has the power to
>> > hear the case in the first place. If the mandate is a tax, according
>> > to a 1867 law, litigants may have to wait until it goes into effect in
>> > 2014 to challenge it. If Breyer can get a laugh out of the “is it a
>> > tax?†debate, he deserves to be promoted to funniest justice.
>>
>> > Chief Justice John Roberts
>>
>> > All eyes will be on Roberts to see whether he is inclined to interpret
>> > the commerce clause of the Constitution as narrowly as he did in an
>> > opinion that gave rise to one of his most memorable one-liners as an
>> > appellate judge. In 2003, Roberts dissented from a ruling holding that
>> > the federal government could use the Endangered Species Act to prevent
>> > development on the habitat of the arroyo toad. He said the federal law
>> > couldn’t be applied to “a hapless toad that, for reasons of its own,
>> > lives its entire life in California.†Verrilli will try to convince
>> > Roberts that the interstate economic effects of thousands of uninsured
>> > sick people are far greater than those of the hapless toad, all the
>> > while avoiding the word “toad.â€
>>
>> > As the crucial swing vote, Kennedy is most frequently flattered in
>> > Supreme Court briefs. Some libertarians hope that he will strike down
>> > the health-care mandate by invoking the same right to privacy that he
>> > recognized when he reaffirmed Roe v. Wade in 1992. “At the heart of
>> > liberty is the right to define one’s own concept of existence, of
>> > meaning, of the universe, and of the mystery of human life,†Kennedy
>> > wrote; Scalia later ridiculed this as the “sweet mystery of lifeâ€
>> > passage. For Scalia and the other conservatives, Roe v. Wade is the
>> > root of all constitutional evil. So if Paul Clement — who will argue
>> > before the court for the health-care law’s challengers â€" wants to
>> > appeal to Kennedy without alienating the other conservatives, he may
>> > try to murmur “sweet mystery†so quietly that only Kennedy can hear
>> > it.
>>
>> > Justices Elena Kagan
>> > and Sonia Sotomayor
>> > These justices weren’t yet on the court during the period covered by
>> > the 2010 laughter study, but Kagan may have her eye on Scalia’s
>> > “funniest justice†title. She delivered the best one-liner of the
>> > current Supreme Court term. Noting that the Federal Communications
>> > Commission had interpreted its TV indecency policy to allow the
>> > cursing in “Saving Private Ryan†and the nudity in “Schindler’s List,â€
>> > she said: “It’s like nobody can use dirty words or nudity except for
>> > Steven Spielberg.â€
>>
>> > It will be hard to top the “Spielberg exception,†but perhaps Kagan
>> > can make something of the “Romney exception†— namely, the fact that
>> > the same arguments about the economic effects of self-insurance that
>> > Mitt Romney used to justify health-care reform in Massachusetts are
>> > the ones that lawyers challenging the Affordable Care Act are
>> > rejecting before the Supreme Court.
>>
>> > Sotomayor has made her mark in oral arguments and in recent separate
>> > opinions by wondering aloud whether long-established Supreme Court
>> > doctrines should be reexamined. During arguments in the Citizens
>> > United case in 2009, she suggested looking again at the idea that
>> > corporations are people. “There could be an argument made that that
>> > was the court’s error to start with,†she said. In the health-care
>> > argument, perhaps Sotomayor will press the government to explain why,
>> > if corporations are people, they can’t be forced to buy health
>> > insurance, too.
>>
>> > Justices Ruth Bader
>> > Ginsburg and Samuel Alito
>>
>> > Though not prone to punch lines, both are respected by lawyers for
>> > asking the most technically difficult questions about a case.
>> > Ginsburg, who once taught civil procedure, may be especially
>> > interested in the complicated question of whether, if the court
>> > strikes down the individual mandate, it should grant the government’s
>> > request to wait for future cases to decide whether other provisions
>> > should be struck down as well.
>>
>> > Alito may be interested in the question of whether the expansion of
>> > Medicaid unconstitutionally coerces the states by threatening them
>> > with the loss of federal funds.
>>
>> > Justice Clarence Thomas
>>
>> > Thomas is considered the justice most likely to strike down
>> > health-care reform. He alone among the current justices has signaled
>> > willingness to overturn a landmark 1942 case in which the court
>> > allowed Congress to regulate a farmer’s cultivation of wheat in his
>> > own back yard for his own use. Thomas also ranks as the least funny
>> > justice, since he hasn’t asked a question at an oral argument for the
>> > past six years. (Still waters may run deep, but they don’t run funny.)
>> > Nevertheless, he has been known to speak when he cares passionately
>> > about an issue, as he did in a 2002 argument about a Virginia law
>> > banning cross-burning.
>>
>> > Lucky ticket-holders will be waiting eagerly to see whether Thomas can
>> > restrain himself from leaning forward in his chair, pounding the bench
>> > and exclaiming, as those challenging the law have asked: “If the
>> > government can force you to buy health insurance, why can’t it force
>> > you to buy broccoli?â€
>>
>> > Jeffrey Rosen is a law professor at George Washington University and
>> > the legal affairs editor of the New Republic. He is also an editor of
>> > “Constitution 3.0: Freedom and Technological Change.â€
>>
>> > http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/when-the-supreme-court-debates ...
>> > --
>> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> > Have a great day,
>> > Tommy
>>
>> > --
>> > Together, we can change the world, one mind at a time.
>> > Have a great day,
>> > Tommy- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
>
> --
> Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
> For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
>
> * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
> * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
> * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
> --
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.
No comments:
Post a Comment