Cooperations wrote:Do you have any examples of opinions where the Supreme Court has denied the federal government the right to regulate commerce?"
Of course it could not uphold a 'right to regulate commerce'. The federal government can only regulate interstate commerce. The individual insurance mandate cannot be categorized as "regulation of commerce", because a key article of the "law" forces people who are not engaged in any commerce, interstate, intrastate, or international, to enter the market. This is simply not 'regulation'.
Cooperations wrote:Because in his view, all of the legal precedents would favor upholding the law. Do you have any examples of opinions where the Supreme Court has denied the federal government the right to regulate commerce? It would be legally unprecedented, which is what all legal commentators (from both sides of the aisle) were saying before the actual hearing.Alkibiades wrote:(Obama) called any attempt to negate legislation "unprecedented".
You are selectively quoting the President. He strongly suggested that the Court had no power to overturn a popular law, and he drew attention to its 'being an unelected group of people' with the clear intention of attempting to rhetorically strip it of its constitutional authority.
Cooperations wrote:If the voters don't like it, they can elect people to change it-it's not like we are dealing with segregation here.
Alkibiades wrote:Oh, so that's the standard now. The Court can overturn the will of the people when the people are wrong, but when the people are right, the Court has no authority. That is an ingenious constitutional mechanism. They should just slide that up to the top of Article III....Why don't you guys just say that what you want is constitutional, and what you don't isn't? The way you all interpret the Constitution makes one wonder why the Founders didn't just stop with the Preamble, or just write, "What the people wants, the people gets! (So long as it is what I want, too)."
Cooperations wrote:Um, because that is not what anyone was saying. Interesting interpretation of what I said, but not what I said at all. There is much more nuance, which I have no interest in debating or trying to explain.
No, the nuance is fine indeed. If it's "bad" (such as segregation), the Supreme Court has the authority to overturn the popular will, but if it is "good" or "bad, but not too bad" (Obamacare), then where does the Supreme Court get off telling the "people" what to do? Your standard is entirely subjective, or as you term it, nuanced beyond description. You just want the Court to rubber-stamp your personal preferences.
Cooperations wrote:you can put me in the 'don't give a f*ck category....Your posts are great examples of the Fox-ization of debate...I don't have Jon Stewart's patience...
I think it's rather clear who is lowering the tone of debate here. I know using that kind of language is par for the course in political debate and with complete strangers nowadays, but I think it's uncalled for. Even Fox, as far as I know, doesn't sink that low.