Obama's Fundimental Principle

[bluethread]

Obama said that the Sipreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

First, is this indeed what the SCOTUS did with today's decision?

Second, is this indeed a fundimental principle?

[micatala]

Obama said that the Sipreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

First, is this indeed what the SCOTUS did with today's decision?

Well, not intentionally, but I think that is one effect of the ruling. The statement is standard political spin, but in the sense that that was one intention of the law, and the decision upholds most of the law at least, then it is not an unreasonable statement.

Second, is this indeed a fundimental principle?

Well, it is for Obama.


Seriously, I would say it is a principle that can be justified by the "promote the general welfare" clause. As a specific principle, it is certainly not what I would call well-established or widely agreed upon, but I think there is considerable support for it.

[bluethread]

Second, is this indeed a fundimental principle?

Well, it is for Obama.


Seriously, I would say it is a principle that can be justified by the "promote the general welfare" clause. As a specific principle, it is certainly not what I would call well-established or widely agreed upon, but I think there is considerable support for it.

So, if a 90 year old man needs a heart transplant, he should get it and it should not effect his financial situation?

[cnorman18]

Obama said that the Supreme Court upheld the fundamental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

First, is this indeed what the SCOTUS did with today's decision?

The Court certainly moved farther in that direction.

Second, is this indeed a fundamental principle?

It seems to be for every other nation in the industrialized world. I, personally, think it ought to be for this nation as well.

So, if a 90 year old man needs a heart transplant, he should get it and it should not effect his financial situation?

That is a medical decision, not a financial one. I doubt if any cardiac surgeon in the world would advise a heart transplant for a 90-year-old person.

In any case, the FINANCIAL COST ought not be the determining factor in ANY medical decision.

[WinePusher]

Obama said that the Sipreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

That's because Obama is a dumb, incompetant, sorry excuse for a President who knows nothing about the law or the Courts despite his Harvard Law School education. This is what affirmative action does, it gives dummies like Obama nice, fancy degrees not reflective of his talent or intellect. It's not the Supreme Court's job to uphold a made-up principle that has nothing to do with the Constitution. Their job is to interpret the law as it is. Their job in this case was to determine whether the individual mandate and Obamacare was consistent with the constitution. It is clearly not consistent, and the majority opinion even acknowledges this. The opinion explicitly stated that Congress did not have this power under not one, but two constitutional clauses. The Congress did not have the power to compell an individual to buy something under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. But if you change the wording and call the penalty a tax, which it is not, all of the sudden Congress is authorized to exercise this power. The inconvienet fact is that it is not a tax, even Obama said it wasn't a tax. So in order to uphold the statue, the court had to redfine the statue into something that it's not. And it's not the courts job to redefine laws in order to make them consistent with the constitution, it's their job to interpret the law as it is.

Obama's statement is just an example of a sloppy and embarrasing victory dance. He's demonstrated on a second occasion that he doesn't know what the function of the Supreme Court is, the first being his complete and total ignorance of Marbury v. Madison.

[cnorman18]

That's because Obama is a dumb, incompetant, sorry excuse for a President who knows nothing about the law or the Courts despite his Harvard Law School education. This is what affirmative action does, it gives dummies like Obama nice, fancy degrees not reflective of his talent or intellect.

It's so much fun to see obvious racism flushed out of hiding. If President Obama were not black, you would not be saying this, no? Phfft.

[WinePusher]

That's because Obama is a dumb, incompetant, sorry excuse for a President who knows nothing about the law or the Courts despite his Harvard Law School education. This is what affirmative action does, it gives dummies like Obama nice, fancy degrees not reflective of his talent or intellect.

It's so much fun to see obvious racism flushed out of hiding. If President Obama were not black, you would not be saying this, no? Phfft.

Haha. You would only focus on this one, single comment and ignore everything else that had to do with the actual issue. Not interested in having an actual debate about the actual issue? Whatever.

And I guess you don't know what affirmative action is. Of course I wouldn't be saying this is Obama wasn't black because affirmative action primarily applies to black individuals. If Obama wasn't black, affirmative action is be irrelevant. Please, do your research next time before shooting off your mouth. I don't take kindly to being called a hidden racist, even if it is by some random person over the internet. Obama, a student at Occidental College, transfers to Columbia, an Ivy League school, in less then two years. His grades are not available to the public, and universities have racial quotas they need to fill. The same accusation was made about Clarence Thomas. My opinion is that Obama was an affirmative action baby. You've got nothing to refute that opinion; no logic, no argument, no facts so you have to resort to calling me a racist.

[cnorman18]

That's because Obama is a dumb, incompetant, sorry excuse for a President who knows nothing about the law or the Courts despite his Harvard Law School education. This is what affirmative action does, it gives dummies like Obama nice, fancy degrees not reflective of his talent or intellect.

It's so much fun to see obvious racism flushed out of hiding. If President Obama were not black, you would not be saying this, no? Phfft.

Haha. You would only focus on this one, single comment and ignore everything else that had to do with the actual issue. Not interested in having an actual debate about the actual issue? Whatever.

And I guess you don't know what affirmative action is. Of course I wouldn't be saying this is Obama wasn't black because affirmative action primarily applies to black individuals. If Obama wasn't black, affirmative action is be irrelevant. Please, do your research next time before shooting off your mouth. I don't take kindly to being called a hidden racist, even if it is by some random person over the internet. Obama, a student at Occidental College, transfers to Columbia, an Ivy League school, in less then two years. His grades are not available to the public, and universities have racial quotas they need to fill. The same accusation was made about Clarence Thomas. My opinion is that Obama was an affirmative action baby. You've got nothing to refute that opinion; no logic, no argument, no facts so you have to resort to calling me a racist.

Obama's race is entirely irrelevant to the issue; I did not bring it up, and you did; ergo....

Can you PROVE, as opposed to ASSUME, that Obama benefited from Affirmative Action? Can you prove that that fact, even if true, is at all relevant to the debate (since Obama did not write the bill)? Can you prove that Romney did not get special treatment because of his Father's influence?

"Affirmative Action" is entirely irrelevant to this debate and your bringing it up betrays your own concerns about the President's race and nothing else.

Want to debate the issue? Okay. Every argument against Obamacare applies to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why should those not be ruled unconstitutional and/or repealed, too?

[WinePusher]

Obama's race is entirely irrelevant to the issue; I did not bring it up, and you did; ergo....

You're the one calling me out as a racist. What was so racist about my comment about him and affirmative action? It's somehow racist to suggest Obama's success throughout college was the result of affirmative action?

Want to debate the issue? Okay. Every argument against Obamacare applies to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Why should those not be ruled unconstitutional and/or repealed, too?

They are unconstitutional and should be repealed. This country existed for a century without those three programs, and the federal government has no power anywhere within the constitution to establish and administer Social Security or Medicare/Medicaid making these things unconstitutional. I've heard no argument from you or anybody about how these things are constitutional.

Edit:

Can you PROVE, as opposed to ASSUME, that Obama benefited from Affirmative Action? Can you prove that that fact, even if true, is at all relevant to the debate (since Obama did not write the bill)? Can you prove that Romney did not get special treatment because of his Father's influence?

"Affirmative Action" is entirely irrelevant to this debate and your bringing it up betrays your own concerns about the President's race and nothing else.

You're right, it is irrelevant. It was a side comment of mine incorporated into a much larger post meant to shed light on how ignorant this President is of the role of the Judiciary. You're the one who singled it out and blew it up into some big issue, and drew unwarrented conclusions from it about my character. I already offered my reasons why I think Obama benefited from affirmative action, you can go back and read them. This thread is about Obama's Fundamental Principle in regards to the Supreme Court decision, and I'm saying that he is ignorant of the law and the function of the court based on this statement and a prior statement regarding Marbury v. Madison. My comment about affirmative action was meant to illustrate how sad it is that a Harvard Law School graduate could possibly be that ignorant.

[Slopeshoulder]

Obama said that the Sipreme Court upheld the fundimental principle that no one should have their health or finances put at risk based on a medical condition.

That's because Obama is a dumb,

He's smarter than you and me combined and I'm smarter than you. These are demonstrable facts.

incompetant,

You misspelled that.
I find him to be a very competent pragmatic centrist.
His big error in his moral dream to forge a new future when the opposition is so extremist.

sorry excuse for a President

How so? I think he's da man.

who knows nothing about the law or the Courts despite his Harvard Law School education.

He prevailed.
His guy argued correctly.
And how could your claim be anything other than a "sorry excuse" for a serious point, and unsubstantiated and counterfactual to boot.

This is what affirmative action does, it gives dummies like Obama nice, fancy degrees not reflective of his talent or intellect.

Pure racism, as I suspected.
If you think Obama is a dummy and lacks intellect, there is no saving you. You can disagree with him and his vision and priorities, but to call him dumb exposes you as an unserious hateful, and emotional person. You lost big today. Suck it up.

It's not the Supreme Court's job to uphold a made-up principle that has nothing to do with the Constitution. Their job is to interpret the law as it is. Their job in this case was to determine whether the individual mandate and Obamacare was consistent with the constitution. It is clearly not consistent, and the majority opinion even acknowledges this. The opinion explicitly stated that Congress did not have this power under not one, but two constitutional clauses. The Congress did not have the power to compell an individual to buy something under the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause. But if you change the wording and call the penalty a tax, which it is not, all of the sudden Congress is authorized to exercise this power. The inconvienet fact is that it is not a tax, even Obama said it wasn't a tax. So in order to uphold the statue, the court had to redfine the statue into something that it's not. And it's not the courts job to redefine laws in order to make them consistent with the constitution, it's their job to interpret the law as it is.

It would appear that you haven't followed the chief justice's argument. Whether this is an intelligence or talent issue I leave to readers' judgment.

Obama's statement is just an example of a sloppy and embarrasing victory dance. He's demonstrated on a second occasion that he doesn't know what the function of the Supreme Court is, the first being his complete and total ignorance of Marbury v. Madison.

Sore loser.