Virginia Judge strikes down Obamacare

[vvvvvvv]

If the Commerce Clause is so easily twisted and raped, then it has outlived it's usefulness. Unlike the BoR, it enumerates what Congress is allowed to do rather than the people. It is specifically intended to regulate commerce among the states, with foreign nations and the Indian tribes. This latest abberation is directly targeting The People, rather than settling squabbles between states.

Yes, you have the bold part correct.

However, it has been bound, gagged, and raped many times over the years by Justices who let their ideological values control their judicial opinions.

I do not believe that the Commerce Clause has outlived its usefulness.

We thought we were beginning to get somewhere with the Commerce Clause in Lopez and Morrison, but then Raich came along.

 

[Glocktogo]

Yes, you have the bold part correct.

However, it has been bound, gagged, and raped many times over the years by Justices who let their ideological values control their judicial opinions.

I do not believe that the Commerce Clause has outlived its usefulness.

We thought we were beginning to get somewhere with the Commerce Clause in Lopez and Morrison, but then Raich came along.

I respectfully disagree. When Congress misuses a tool given to them by The People, then that tool needs to be taken away from them before they do further harm. Matches are tools, but you still don't let children play with them.

I concede that the fault lies with Congress and their failure to understand their place in governing the nation. Most of them need to go back to grade school, so they can re-learn exactly what they're supposed to be doing, rather than what they can get away with. Congress was never intended to fix every problem or ill in this country, yet a large percentage of them think that's exactly what they're there for. They've fallen in love with themselves and exaggerated their worth to this country, which is all out of proportion to their real mission. They can't see the forest for the trees.

Partisanship has all but destroyed this country. We now view everything through the myopic filters of right vs. left and haves vs. have nots. Nothing is judged by how it impacts the country as a whole. Judges rule based on their "values" and the decisions of other judges, rather than what the rulebook says. Look at almost every decision SCOTUS makes. Everyone knows exactly how each judge will rule based on their politics. Why else are so many of the verdicts a 5/4 split? Some of the mental gymnastics they perform to justify their position are tragic comedy gold. The articles of impeachment are all but worthless. You couldn't kick a federal judge off the bench for being a complete embicile and failing to perform their duties as charged if you tried. Case in point, pretty much all of the 9th Circuit judges. Think I'm wrong? Only 6 federal judges have EVER been removed! Hell, Alcee Hastings got kicked off the bench and he just switched branches and moved into Congress!

This country is in dire straits and all we can manage to do is squabble about which side is winning. There shouldn't BE any sides right now!

 

[vvvvvvv]

I respectfully disagree. When Congress misuses a tool given to them by The People, then that tool needs to be taken away from them before they do further harm. Matches are tools, but you still don't let children play with them.

I think the problem runs deeper than the tool itself.

In my opinion, the Advice and Consent Clause of Article II Section 2 needs to be adjusted. The requirement for 2/3 of the Senate to confirm a Presidential appointment was just fine when Senators were appointed by the States rather than by popular vote. However, as more and more States adopted laws to make those Senate appointments by virtue of popular vote rather than by the State's legislature, the Senate became less of a check on the slim majority and more of a mini-House. (Some will try to say that the 17th Amendment caused this, but they look at history they will find that the 17th Amendment was only to make the practice standard.)

The only viable solution to the problem here would be an Amendment to increase the fraction of the Senate required to grant consent to 3/4 or 4/5. (Hell, I'd love to shoot for unanimous, but that will never happen.)

 

[Glocktogo]

I think the problem runs deeper than the tool itself.

In my opinion, the Advice and Consent Clause of Article II Section 2 needs to be adjusted. The requirement for 2/3 of the Senate to confirm a Presidential appointment was just fine when Senators were appointed by the States rather than by popular vote. However, as more and more States adopted laws to make those Senate appointments by virtue of popular vote rather than by the State's legislature, the Senate became less of a check on the slim majority and more of a mini-House. (Some will try to say that the 17th Amendment caused this, but they look at history they will find that the 17th Amendment was only to make the practice standard.)

The only viable solution to the problem here would be an Amendment to increase the fraction of the Senate required to grant consent to 3/4 or 4/5. (Hell, I'd love to shoot for unanimous, but that will never happen.)

While I think that might help, what would keep a president from appointing and the Senate from approving .gov apologists to the bench? Both sides are in love with their power and most federal judges rule in favor of the .gov now, which is part of the problem.

Even elected judges are a problem. Most of them win as a result of campaign funding and winning a popularity contest. Then they're rarely ousted once they sit on the bench. Finding out information about how effective a judge is has become nearly impossible.

Ultimately it all reverts back to the voter. We elect idiots and charlatans, who then go on to do despicable things in the name of appeasing an indulgent and apathetic populace. We're definitely in the bread and circuses phase in this country.

 

[dennishoddy]

What was stuck down is the mandatory "must buy" insurance, as its unconstitutional.
It doesn't come into effect untill 2014, so our tax dollars can be wisely spent debating this issue.

 

[dennishoddy]

Even elected judges are a problem. Most of them win as a result of campaign funding and winning a popularity contest. Then they're rarely ousted once they sit on the bench.

This is why I ALWAYS vote to dismiss the judges on my ballot.
We need new blood in there.

 

[FakeHuman]

This is why I ALWAYS vote to dismiss the judges on my ballot.
We need new blood in there.

I do the same thing, leave them there too long and they get too much of a God complex.