C-SPAN’s coverage of the Supreme Court’s Health Care Law argument continues into its second day when the Justices question the constitutionality of the individual mandate portion of the law.
How in the world did we get here? How did we end up with 26 states so much in disagreement with the Affordable Care Act that they are sewing to keep 25,000,000+ million Americans uninsured. If you have a moment, or actually 5 hours, to kill, you can listen to the 3 separate oral arguments below and rule for yourself.
The Supreme court will accept and rule. They could very easily issue that they will not rule since no citizen has been subject to the mandate portion yet. Since the entire suit was on principal they could very well decide to kick the can down the road.
On the matter of whether or not the federal government can force (and/or enforce) a constituency into enter an service agreement (the mandate) they will rule in favor of the government. For example, in order for them to strike down this portion of the law they would have to issue a dissent that stated neither federal or state governments can guarantee service to patients, even in the cases where the patient can not pay. Since that servicer would inevitably have to be reimbursed or paid some other entity would have to satisfy these debts. This is where the government steps in. And citizens are already paying for these services. The mandate will be upheld.
This is a simple yes. The Supreme Court on several occasions, has upheld facets of laws. However, the enforcement of the law as a hole was contingent upon a penalty to be paid by individuals who either abuse or did not participate in a health care plan.
I’d always thought that simply expanding VA hospitals would help to cover anyone without insurance ~ non-vets included. But hey, what do I know. Just leave all these laws alone and affect change where you DO have control. But that is a chumps way out. Change was needed. Health Care reform was needed.
On the whole ~ the Supreme Court would be very prudent in a decision in favor of the entire law… not just because of any ideological stance or even the constitutionality of the law, but the fact that constituents have the option of striking down the law on their own through their votes. Keep in mind, just 5 months from now Americans can choose to repeal the law and start all over with a new President. The people will have still spoken.
It’s not the role of the courts to protect the people from their political decisions.
All those who oppose the law… guess what… you can now exercise your democratic right with your vote in the Fall (2012). Romney will strike the law down. If you want it gone, beat Obama at the polls and the Affordable Care Act will be dissolved. America still wins right…?
Is this not what we asked the President to do when we hired him…?
This is what driving down Lemmon Ave. gets you…
On February 26h, 2012 Trayvon Martin (17) left his home in Sanford, Florida to grab some snacks during half-time of the NBA’s All-Star game. When returning home the neighborhood watchman, George Zimmerman (28), identified Martin as a threat to the neighborhood and proceeded to “following” the teen. What happened next is truly disturbing.
[cnnvideo url=’http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/03/17/mattingly-fl-teen-killed-911-tapes.cnn’ inline=’true’]
I was reserving comment until more facts were revealed but I think we’ve been fed as much as publicly possible considering the case’s recent escalation to the federal arena. The latest question is why Zimmerman is not in Sanford Police custody? Although I’m thinking Zimmerman may be free because of Florida’s updated “self-defense” law.
So in order for Zimmerman to be in cuffs… more evidence is needed for an actual charge.
At this point, it’s a matter of when Zimmerman felt his life was actually in danger. If a 220+ lb adult male can truly make the case he felt his life was in immediate danger of a 17-year old (football player no-less) then his use of deadly force might be justified.
I think the state may look to see if they have enough to prosecute for murder or manslaughter. They certainly have motive. And they definitely have intent (by virtue of Zimmerman carrying a gun against the guidelines of his duties). Remember he “decides” to pursue Martin despite the 911 dispatcher imploring him not to do so.
The only issue I see with prosecuting is whether Zimmerman had been attacked before. If that’s the case, and he’s reported as much, he may be able to prove “he felt” his life was in danger. Even then, he would have to prove he felt his life was in danger on the afternoon of the 26th.
Since this is now a federal matter, you can expect Attorney General Eric Holder may not comment directly but you can bet he will force the Fed’s hand in pursuing justice on this one. Just stay tuned and stay informed.
Quite simply… What do we have: a dead teenager from the single shot of a gun-toting neighborhood watchmen who fits even the legal definition of a vigilante. What we don’t have just yet is a clear path to justice.
Let’s see what the State of Florida has to say… considering Trayvon Martin was shot lying face down in the grass. And now there is possible evidence that Trayvon was on the phone with an individual that is speaking out.
For more information about contacting the Office of the State Attorney Eighteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida here:
Norman R. Wolfinger
For more information about contacting the Sanford Police Department feel free to contact Chief Bill Lee, Jr. here:
Chief of Police
City of Sanford
Office (407) 688-5075
For more information about Florida’s “Stand Your Ground Law” feel free to review it here:
I find that conservatives attempt to protect principles and liberals attempt to protect people. Often these tenants clash. But I guess that’s what makes democracy so interesting.
My question is why the clash. Why is there the zero-sum game?
I guess principles can outlive people so why not protect them, right? Principles are derived from culture. But culture, if anything, is the acceptance of a set of standards between PEOPLE.
I’ve officially given up on politicians and the idea of change or working together. We can’t, on the one hand, say politicians are puppets but on the other blame their narrow-minded approaches to solving problems.
It’s time to begin challenging constituents to make the best choices for who they elect to office. Accountability as a constituency is where real hope & change lie. As long as we continue to elect polarizing leaders, any hope of real problem solving is lost. Real talk. Another friend of mine weighed in. It was good to know that I wasn’t only one feeling that lines drawn in the sand are simply not helpful.
Take away the inflexibility of people on the far right (and left) and you will see more working together. ~ S.A.
Will the “government” change? Not unless we do. And unfortunately the battle between good people and sound principles wages on.
Super Tuesday was less than 24 hours ago and the anti-liberal rhetoric is freshly squeezed. Republican candidates are against the ropes and they needed to do some saber rattling… so they relied on old faithful: The President is weak on defense. Womp, womp right. But I always notice the collective, affirming sigh when this topic comes up. It seems the right’s knee-jerk consensus is that it’s true. So the issue before me this afternoon was “Why Won’t Republicans Stop Giving the President a Hard Time on Defense“. It definitely makes you wonder, why the right simply will not let up on all the “wuss” rhetoric.
But they won’t stop. That’s one thing I respect about Republicans… right or wrong… they’re right. And they drive that message home. The good news is this administration will continue to mount victory after victory in regards to counter-terrorism. We will continue to back our allies in the east and gain more and more strength where it counts. Diplomacy has been the priority of this President from his innauguration speech to significant economic sanctions.
I try not to talk much about the Osama bin Laden operation because it will get reduced to “one operation” in most bipartisan debates. It’s better close an act than open a show with. The real victories have come in the form of carefully dismantling terrorist sects by removing their leadership… one by one… And by removing I mean ‘caps pealed’. And by ‘caps pealed’ I mean ‘deaded’.
Republicans would do better by concentrating their counter-arguments with Guantanamo. Now there’s a steak to stick a fork in. They can actually control THAT negative narrative all day.
All I’d suggest to Republicans is the following:
This President’s defense record is sporadic in presentation but solid in narrative. The timeline is stretched but collectively rock solid. We’ve seen an almost unprecedented “small-ball” approach to counter-terrorism that even has a few home-runs. All the while, the Republicans (excluding my boy Lindsey Graham) have fallen all over themselves to nit-pick the areas they differ and ignore very obvious wins. Before they know it, President Obama will have locked in a defense record too strong for an opponent to bring up and no longer modest enough suppress.
And on the topic of Iran in particular, let us all keep in mind what happened that last time we “pursued” a country suspected of having weapons of mass destruction. Though Netanyahu has stated this is a totally different situation, I feel our military leaders and commander in chief have to proceed with a level of caution and shrewdness that might not have been necessary 10 years ago. What would I do differently; I can’t say I have an answer to that because I don’t know all the facts… but then again neither do the Republicans.