obamaKare and the Supremes

• gut

  BoatShoes;1135562 wrote:So you're sitting here lambasting his offer to Boehner for not having real cuts, despite having more cuts than the Ryan Budget. President Obama's offer was repudiated largely by the tea party types of the Republican Party...who then, the majority of which, went on to vote for Paul Ryan budget, which had fewer cuts than BHO's offer...and you talk about BHO not having a plan..

  Read what was written. Obama was not offering real cuts but rather reduced increases based on aggressive accounting assumptions.
  
  He's not on tv today railing against the Republican budget and lamenting all the reductions and eliminations of programs because it cut less than what he proposed. You're a smart guy, use your head. If what you are saying was true, Obama would have fallen all over himself to endorse a Repub budget that doesn't cut as deep as he was supposedly willing to do. Or maybe he's so incapable of leadership and compromise that he is just incapable. Likely both.
• QuakerOats

  Good leaders are able to develop and implement solutions to challenges, and get buy-in.
  
  
  The president, as demonstrated time and again, is an epic fail at leadership.
  Many knew he would be going in; most realize it now.
  
  
  
  Change we can believe in ....
• jhay78

  

  5th Circuit chides Obama administration:
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/
• BGFalcons82

  

  jhay78;1135992 wrote:5th Circuit chides Obama administration:
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/04/03/judges-order-justice-department-to-clarify-following-obama-remarks-on-health/

  While this paddling is deserved, the derision has already started: these judges are republican nominees, therefore it will be portrayed as merely a partisan attack on our poor Dear Leader. Further, the media will stay away from this story as if it pegged a Geiger Counter.
• majorspark

  

  Love to see the coequal branches of the federal government flex their muscles against each other. As the founders intended.
• majorspark

  

  QuakerOats;1135393 wrote:Did Kagan tip off obama on the preliminary court vote, and thus he is out sermonizing ??

  Obviously Obama believes the SCOTUS is poised to rule against Obamacare in some manner. No way he makes the statements he has made at this juncture if that were not the case. Obama believes the die is cast. If he did not believe so he would not have made such statements. He knows his statements would be counter productive as they would likely edge swing justices to defend their coequal power. The SCOTUS is as political as any of the branches, but will defend its coequel power as it would not want to be seen as caving to the chastisement of another branch.
  
  Obama's statements are a preliminary political strike meant to polarize the country around the impending SCOTUS decision. If the court rules as Obama is betting it will this summer he is gearing up to paint it as body held by an activist majority of unelected conservative justices who would thwart the will of the people's legislature in favor of their own ideoligical beliefs. Using the term "activist" is meant to put conservatives on immediate defense. Campaign 2012 look for new proposals for the expansion of established federal programs such as Medicare.
• QuakerOats

  Absolutely classic .... it is about time the adults in the room step up and smack down this administration .........
  
  Updated 6:55 p.m. ET
  
  (CBS News) In the escalating battle between the administration and the judiciary, a federal appeals court apparently is calling the president's bluff -- ordering the Justice Department to answer by Thursday whether the Obama Administration believes that the courts have the right to strike down a federal law, according to a lawyer who was in the courtroom.
  The order, by a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit, appears to be in direct response to the president's comments yesterday about the Supreme Court's review of the health care law. Mr. Obama all but threw down the gauntlet with the justices, saying he was "confident" the Court would not "take what would be an unprecedented, extraordinary step of overturning a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress."
  Overturning a law of course would not be unprecedented -- since the Supreme Court since 1803 has asserted the power to strike down laws it interprets as unconstitutional. The three-judge appellate court appears to be asking the administration to admit that basic premise -- despite the president's remarks that implied the contrary. The panel ordered the Justice Department to submit a three-page, single-spaced letter by noon Thursday addressing whether the Executive Branch believes courts have such power, the lawyer said.
  The panel is hearing a separate challenge to the health care law by physician-owned hospitals. The issue arose when a lawyer for the Justice Department began arguing before the judges. Appeals Court Judge Jerry Smith immediately interrupted, asking if DOJ agreed that the judiciary could strike down an unconstitutional law.
  The DOJ lawyer, Dana Lydia Kaersvang, answered yes -- and mentioned Marbury v. Madison, the landmark case that firmly established the principle of judicial review more than 200 years ago, according to the lawyer in the courtroom.
  Smith then became "very stern," the source said, suggesting it wasn't clear whether the president believes such a right exists. The other two judges on the panel, Emilio Garza and Leslie Southwick--both Republican appointees--remained silent, the source said.
  Smith, a Reagan appointee, went on to say that comments from the president and others in the Executive Branch indicate they believe judges don't have the power to review laws and strike those that are unconstitutional, specifically referencing Mr. Obama's comments yesterday about judges being an "unelected group of people."
  I've reached out to the White House for comment, and will update when we have more information.
  UPDATE 6 p.m. ET: The White House is declining to comment on the 5th Circuit's order, but the president today did clarify his comments that it would be "unprecedented" for the Court to overturn laws passed by a democratically elected Congress. During a question-and-answer session after a luncheon speech in Washington, a journalist pointed out "that is exactly what the Court has done during its entire existence."
  Mr. Obama suggested he meant that it would be "unprecedented" in the modern era for the Court to rule the law exceeded Congress' power to regulate an economic issue like health care.
  "The point I was making is that the Supreme Court is the final say on our Constitution and our laws, and all of us have to respect it, but it's precisely because of that extraordinary power that the Court has traditionally exercised significant restraint and deference to our duly elected legislature, our Congress. And so the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this," Mr. Obama said.
  "Now, as I said, I expect the Supreme Court actually to recognize that and to abide by well-established precedence out there. I have enormous confidence that in looking at this law, not only is it constitutional, but that the Court is going to exercise its jurisprudence carefully because of the profound power that our Supreme Court has," he said.
  And now DOJ gets to write three single-spaced pages expounding on that. Due at high noon on Thursday.
  UPDATE 6:55 p.m. ET: Audio from the 5th Circuit hearing, with Judge Smith's order to DOJ, is available here.
  In the hearing, Judge Smith says the president's comments suggesting courts lack power to set aside federal laws "have troubled a number of people" and that the suggestion "is not a small matter."
  The bottom line from Smith: A three-page letter with specifics. He asked DOJ to discuss "judicial review, as it relates to the specific statements of the president, in regard to Obamacare and to the authority of the federal courts to review that legislation."
  "I would like to have from you by noon on Thursday -- that's about 48 hours from now -- a letter stating what is the position of the Attorney General and the Department of Justice, in regard to the recent statements by the president," Smith said. "What is the authority is of the federal courts in this regard in terms of judicial review?"
  Smith made his intentions clear minutes after the DOJ attorney began her argument, jumping in to ask: "Does the Department of Justice recognize that federal courts have the authority in appropriate circumstances to strike federal statutes because of one or more constitutional infirmities?"
  Kaersvang replies yes, and Smith continues: "I'm referring to statements by the president in past few days to the effect, and sure you've heard about them, that it is somehow inappropriate for what he termed 'unelected' judges to strike acts of Congress that have enjoyed -- he was referring to, of course, Obamacare -- to what he termed broad consensus in majorities in both houses of Congress."
  In asking for the letter, Smith said: "I want to be sure you're telling us that the attorney general and the Department of Justice do recognize the authority of the federal courts, through unelected judges, to strike acts of Congress or portions thereof in appropriate cases."
• gut

  That is some quality grandstanding by the Republican judge. And right now Obama is saying "what, you mean I can't shut them up?"
• BGFalcons82

  

  gut;1136538 wrote:That is some quality grandstanding by the Republican judge. And right now Obama is saying "what, you mean I can't shut them up?"

  In typical Chicago-style politics, look for the henchmen to dig some dirt up on Smith, get some court records un-sealed, invent a scurrilous campaign donation from the last century, or some other typically calculated ploy to extort the judge. It's by-the-book.
• QuakerOats

  obama continues to demean the office ................change we can believe in...
• QuakerOats

  
• gut

  Obama is getting pretty desperate and perhaps becoming his own worst enemy. First he goes too far pandering to women with the contraception mandate, and now he's turning more people off trampling the constitution (well, again)....all this over a healthcare plan less than half the country supports.
  
  Secretly I think he fears losing the election and so he's fighting desperately for what would probably be his signature legacy. Otherwise he's left with $1.5T deficits and killing Bin Laden.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1135597 wrote:Read what was written. Obama was not offering real cuts but rather reduced increases based on aggressive accounting assumptions.
  
  He's not on tv today railing against the Republican budget and lamenting all the reductions and eliminations of programs because it cut less than what he proposed. You're a smart guy, use your head. If what you are saying was true, Obama would have fallen all over himself to endorse a Repub budget that doesn't cut as deep as he was supposedly willing to do. Or maybe he's so incapable of leadership and compromise that he is just incapable. Likely both.

  Yeah because Obama wants to spend more than the joint chiefs do on Defense and turn Medicare into a Voucher program :rolleyes:
  
  And, you're clearly giving Ryan a pass for the same accounting gimmicks.
  
  The democrats were on board with a reasonable compromise that satisfied all of the ratings agencies. They put the same types of compromises that Ronald Reagan made on the table. You're sitting here talking about compromise. Obama has fallen all over himself trying to make any kind of compromise with Republicans. They repudiated their own presidential nominees healthcare plan!
  
  They answer back with a voucher system for Medicare...which if we care about evidence at all, will be more expensive than traditional medicare (just like medicare advantage is).
  
  I don't see how you, a genuine fiscal hawk, can be on board with the Ryan budget (even if you can't stand Obama).
• BoatShoes

  bigdaddy2003;1132404 wrote:Just a quick question for those in the know. If Obama-care is so great why are there countless doctors who will be closing their practice if it's passed?

  Well it was passed and there haven't been countless doctors who've closed their practice. Furthermore, if Congress would allow the cuts in medicare payments to occur as scheduled...which they've always balked at doing...but will likely need to happen if we're to control the cost of medicare...many doctors will also likely have to close their practice. I don't suppose your'e against trying to control the cost of medicare are you...which is one aspect of Obamacare and why some doctors may close their doors.
  
  Where are you getting this information that countless doctors are going to go gault on us if everyone will actually be paying for their healthcare via their insurance company since they can't freeload?
  
  I suppose a doctor is more likely to treat an uninsured person for free rather than get paid by an insurer because that person who tried to freeload is required to have insurance :rolleyes:
• BoatShoes

  Harry Truman summed it up best: American Medical Care is the best in the world -- For people that can afford it. A lot of people cannot and Conservatives have no answer anymore now that they have decided that their good ideas are now socialism.
  
  Obamacare/Romneycare is an attempt to try to make our private-based system reasonably work for everyone, within the private system. Millions and millions will still get to keep their private, employer-provided coverage (some won't) and freeloaders have to be responsible for their healthcare rather than put it on the rest of us.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1138717 wrote:You're sitting here talking about compromise. Obama has fallen all over himself trying to make any kind of compromise with Republicans.

  That's laughable. 412-0 says it all. Obama's budget was a non-starter even for people in his own party.
• QuakerOats

  BoatShoes;1138721 wrote:Harry Truman summed it up best: American Medical Care is the best in the world -- For people that can afford it. A lot of people cannot and Conservatives have no answer anymore now that they have decided that their good ideas are now socialism.
  
  Obamacare/Romneycare is an attempt to try to make our private-based system reasonably work for everyone, within the private system. Millions and millions will still get to keep their private, employer-provided coverage (some won't) and freeloaders have to be responsible for their healthcare rather than put it on the rest of us.

  
  85% of We The People were quite content with their health care/insurance.
  
  In typical socialist/communist fashion, obama is destroying all that is good in order to appease the few. obamacare is, without question, the most disastrous legislation ever heaped upon the American citizens.
  
  The failed leadership is of epic proportion; the only question now is whether we can survive 9 more months.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1138779 wrote:That's laughable. 412-0 says it all. Obama's budget was a non-starter even for people in his own party.

  That Budget was political! No democrat is gonna vote for a budget that would've been a tough vote when the Republicans are going to go and pass a budget that is supposedly revenue neutral but doesn't even contain the tax expenditures it's going to eliminate lol!
  
  You think Democrats are going to vote for a budget that has tough things to vote for in it when Republicans are passing budgets that eliminate the FBI and CIA? :laugh:
  
  No way I would vote for a budget that has things in it that could be used against me when the other side is literally voting on a fantasy budget. I'm not sure whether Ryan's budget was worse last year when he forecasted 3% unemployment and didn't hide the ball or this year when he just plays pretend time and goes on t.v. declaring it's revenue neutral. This guy is worse than Newt Gingrich but he gets a pass because he is mild mannered and wonky.
  
  The fact remains that Obama offered Boehner a deal with cuts in medicare and social security and revenue from removing tax expenditures (which distort economic activity and conservatives are supposed to be against!) and he and his caucus refused. It is that simple. He betrayed all liberals when he tried to reason with the unreasonable.
  
  You keep talking about the budget he introduced when you should be talking about the budget deal that Conservatives refused.
  
  If there was even a modicum of reasonable people in the Republican party (and there isn't) you would have had the supposed great liberal hope signing a budget that was conservative in every single way and liberals would have been betrayed and would have repudiated the anointed one.
• BoatShoes

  QuakerOats;1140854 wrote:85% of We The People were quite content with their health care/insurance.
  
  In typical socialist/communist fashion, obama is destroying all that is good in order to appease the few. obamacare is, without question, the most disastrous legislation ever heaped upon the American citizens.
  
  The failed leadership is of epic proportion; the only question now is whether we can survive 9 more months.

  Enjoy voting for the guy who would have introduced the same bill if he didn't lose every time he runs for something :thumbup:
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1141123 wrote:Enjoy voting for the guy who would have introduced the same bill if he didn't lose every time he runs for something :thumbup:

  Actually, the guy probably would have been smart enough to know that the same bill is unconstitutional at the federal level and done no such thing. Don't let that get in the way of some good hyperbole though.
• gut

  BoatShoes;1141118 wrote:T
  You think Democrats are going to vote for a budget that has tough things to vote for in it when Republicans are passing budgets that eliminate the FBI and CIA? :laugh:

  So you approve of a POTUS who, in the course of 1 year, had 1 budget get shot down 97-0 in the Senate and another 412-0 in the House?!?
  
  Really fine leadership you endorse there.:laugh::laugh:
• BoatShoes

  fish82;1141133 wrote:Actually, the guy probably would have been smart enough to know that the same bill is unconstitutional at the federal level and done no such thing. Don't let that get in the way of some good hyperbole though.

  
  Keep dreaming my friend. You have to realize that none of you and especially none of the Republican Attorneys General would have been clamoring about its constitutionality. Romney, who's only principled belief is that he should be president, would not have even thought of that possibility in the same vein as nancy pelosi as he's more like her than any Tea Party Republican.
  
  
  The Republicans would have told Ron Paul, Cato, and Randy Barnett to go sit back in their corner when they said it was unconstitutional...just like they did when they expanded the welfare state and the police state the most since the 60's in the aughts.
  
  
  All of this outrage over Obamacare would not have happened. Obamacare was invented by Republicans. Genuine Libertarians would have raised hell (as they always have) but Republicans basically consider them useful idiots and ignore their concerns when they have power.
  
  
  It may have been a good line for Romney during the campaign but I sense you know in your heart that he would've passed essentially the same bill (he advocated as much) and you're giving him too much credit. Gotta rally for Team Republican though, I understand.
• BoatShoes

  gut;1141139 wrote:So you approve of a POTUS who, in the course of 1 year, had 1 budget get shot down 97-0 in the Senate and another 412-0 in the House?!?
  
  Really fine leadership you endorse there.:laugh::laugh:

  There is as little virtue in passing budgets that have no hope of surviving bicameralism and presentment as passing no budget at all.
• fish82

  

  BoatShoes;1141181 wrote:Keep dreaming my friend. You have to realize that none of you and especially none of the Republican Attorneys General would have been clamoring about its constitutionality. Romney, who's only principled belief is that he should be president, would not have even thought of that possibility in the same vein as nancy pelosi as he's more like her than any Tea Party Republican.
  
  
  The Republicans would have told Ron Paul, Cato, and Randy Barnett to go sit back in their corner when they said it was unconstitutional...just like they did when they expanded the welfare state and the police state the most since the 60's in the aughts.
  
  
  All of this outrage over Obamacare would not have happened. Obamacare was invented by Republicans. Genuine Libertarians would have raised hell (as they always have) but Republicans basically consider them useful idiots and ignore their concerns when they have power.
  
  
  It may have been a good line for Romney during the campaign but I sense you know in your heart that he would've passed essentially the same bill (he advocated as much) and you're giving him too much credit. Gotta rally for Team Republican though, I understand.

  LOL....sure thing, Bro. :rolleyes: