It requires insurance for using that car on the public right of
ways.... the same goes for horses...
On Thu, Mar 29, 2012 at 9:48 AM, plainolamerican
<plainolamerican@gmail.com> wrote:
> No its not. If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car
> insurance.
>
> Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
> ---
> I concede it's not the same ... in that you will forced to buy health
> insurance.
>
> the only point I was making is that the state DOES require you to buy
> auto insurance ... so they can require you buy health insurance ... if
> this OC is ok's by the USSC
>
> On Mar 29, 10:28 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> No its not. If I don't wanna drive, I don't have to buy car insurance.
>>
>> Please show me the same escape in OBambicare.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, March 29, 2012 9:51:03 AM UTC-4, plainolamerican wrote:
>> > but it does force you to buy auto insurance if you do drive.
>> > tom's point is valid
>> > Some states will allow you to post a bond instead of buying insurance
>>
>> > On Mar 29, 7:45 am, GregfromBoston <greg.vinc...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > The STATE government cannot force you to buy car insurance if you do not
>> > > intend to drive a car.
>>
>> > > The comparison falls down right there.
>>
>> > > On Tuesday, March 27, 2012 2:34:05 PM UTC-4, Tommy News 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, 1:56 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?"
>>
>> > > > > This is the crux of the matter.....
>>
>> > > > > On Mar 25, 12:30 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, 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 it 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 a 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!' "
>>
>> > > > > > 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."
>>
>> > > > > > Justice Scalia: "Depends on what part of California you're from."
>>
>> > > > > > 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."
>>
>> > > > > > 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 life"
>> > > > > > 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 — 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,"
>> > > > > > she said: "It's like nobody can use dirty words or nudity except
>> > for
>> > > > > > Steven Spielberg."
>>
>> > > > > > 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
>>
>> ...
>>
>> read 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.
--
Mark M. Kahle H.
--
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