[GeneV]

Which makes it kind of odd that interstates are really under state prerogative. I agree.

Odd that you mention that. The Federal Government planned and built them, and they are currently funded and standards are set by both levels.

So during the great depression, the Federal Government tried a power grab. FDR said that farmers growing their own crops was interstate commerce. It was ruled unconstitutional (at least until FDR tried to overrun the supreme court).

The struggle between FDR and the Supreme Court was short-lived, and the vast majority of the precedent since the first years of his presidency has upheld interstate commerce for activities with far, far less effect than health insurance.

[ElJamoquio]

Odd that you mention that. The Federal Government planned and built them,

Planning was done at both state and federal levels. The large overarching organization was provided, i assume, by the federal government (rather than AASHTO, for instance).

The building of the interstates was done by the states individually. States maintain them and police them. States regulate them both internally and through AASHTO.

FHTSA often regulates as well, in my experience this is done primarily through witholding money to the states. I.e., if your drinking age is under 21, your state won't get it's highway money. If your speed limit is over 55, your state won't get it's highway money.

and they are currently funded and standards are set by both levels.

Whoops, well I've already typed all that and I'm not deleting it now.

The struggle between FDR and the Supreme Court was short-lived, and the vast majority of the precedent since the first years of his presidency has upheld interstate commerce for activities with far, far less effect than health insurance.

I'm not going to argue against that. I will argue in favor of a system where I can move to a state that has healthcare, however. Of course, I wouldn't have to move, but whatever.

[stevewig]

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law:

The Roberts Court’s rulings appear to be a concerted effort to send us back to the Gilded Age. If they dump the Affordable Care Act, writes David Dow, we should dump them.

You think the idea is laughable? Thomas Jefferson disagreed with you.

Jefferson believed Supreme Court justices who undermine the principles of the Constitution ought to be impeached, and that wasn’t just idle talk. During his presidency, Jefferson led the effort to oust Justice Salmon Chase, arguing that Chase was improperly seizing power. The Senate acquitted Chase in 1805, and no Justice has been impeached since, but as the Supreme Court threatens to nullify the health-care law, Jefferson’s idea is worth revisiting.

The problem with the current court is not merely that there is a good chance it will strike down a clearly constitutional law. The problem is that this decision would be the latest salvo in what seems to be a sustained effort on the part of the Roberts Court to return the country to the Gilded Age.

During that period—which ran from the years after of the Civil War to the start of the 20th century—wealth became highly concentrated and corporations came to dominate American business.

At the close of the Gilded Age, the U.S. infant mortality rate was around 10 percent—a number you find today in impoverished Central African nations. In some cities, it exceeded 30 percent. Women could not vote, and their lives were controlled by men. Blacks lived apart from whites and comprised an economic, social, and political underclass. Corporations exerted an unchecked and deleterious influence on the lives of workers.

All these ills were ultimately addressed by the federal government, but the strongest and most sustained resistance to fixing them came from the court. One exception was the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued that where economic regulations are at stake, judges must respect legislative decisions aimed at protecting society’s most vulnerable members. Our Constitution, Holmes famously wrote, does not enact social Darwinism. If the legislature acts to protect the poor and less powerful, its actions must be respected by the judicial branch.

That idea doesn’t appear to hold much water with the current court. Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, has a well-known affinity for the values of the Gilded Age. But he has quietly gone from being an outlier to being only one of five consistently regressive votes.

The pattern began with the court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, a case involving a rarely used, late-term abortion procedure. In holding that the government can prohibit abortion even where a woman’s life or health is at risk, the court overturned a decision that was not yet 10 years old.

To justify the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy—an ostensibly staunch believer in individual liberty—explained that some women who might otherwise undergo it would come to regret their decision. Ah, fickle women! Since
Roe v. Wade the abortion debate has always involved male-dominated legislatures enacting laws telling women what they can and cannot do. The Roberts Court, it seems, is All these ills were ultimately addressed by the federal government, but the strongest and most sustained resistance to fixing them came from the court. One exception was the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued that where economic regulations are at stake, judges must respect legislative decisions aimed at protecting society’s most vulnerable members. Our Constitution, Holmes famously wrote, does not enact social Darwinism. If the legislature acts to protect the poor and less powerful, its actions must be respected by the judicial branch.

That idea doesn’t appear to hold much water with the current court. Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, has a well-known affinity for the values of the Gilded Age. But he has quietly gone from being an outlier to being only one of five consistently regressive votes.

The pattern began with the court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, a case involving a rarely used, late-term abortion procedure. In holding that the government can prohibit abortion even where a woman’s life or health is at risk, the court overturned a decision that was not yet 10 years old.

To justify the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy—an ostensibly staunch believer in individual liberty—explained that some women who might otherwise undergo it would come to regret their decision. Ah, fickle women! Since Roe v. Wade the abortion debate has always involved male-dominated legislatures enacting laws telling women what they can and cannot do. The Roberts Court, it seems, is All these ills were ultimately addressed by the federal government, but the strongest and most sustained resistance to fixing them came from the court. One exception was the great Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, who argued that where economic regulations are at stake, judges must respect legislative decisions aimed at protecting society’s most vulnerable members. Our Constitution, Holmes famously wrote, does not enact social Darwinism. If the legislature acts to protect the poor and less powerful, its actions must be respected by the judicial branch.

That idea doesn’t appear to hold much water with the current court. Justice Clarence Thomas, in particular, has a well-known affinity for the values of the Gilded Age. But he has quietly gone from being an outlier to being only one of five consistently regressive votes.

The pattern began with the court’s 2007 decision in Gonzales v. Carhart, a case involving a rarely used, late-term abortion procedure. In holding that the government can prohibit abortion even where a woman’s life or health is at risk, the court overturned a decision that was not yet 10 years old.

To justify the ruling, Justice Anthony Kennedy—an ostensibly staunch believer in individual liberty—explained that some women who might otherwise undergo it would come to regret their decision. Ah, fickle women! Since Roe v. Wade the abortion debate has always involved male-dominated legislatures enacting laws telling women what they can and cannot do. The Roberts Court, it seems, is similarly not averse to helping protect women from themselves.

A decision striking down the health care law would be a statement that the only people entitled to health care are the people who can afford it...............

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

Hmmmmmmmmm

[GeneV]

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

Hmmmmmmmmm

The one that seems possibly impeachable would be Thomas. His wife is earning money as a lobbyist on some of the very issues he is deciding here. Justice Thomas?s wife Virginia Thomas now a lobbyist - Kenneth P. Vogel and Marin Cogan and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com Many judges at the lower level would recuse themselves.

[jeffkrol]

The one that seems possibly impeachable would be Thomas. His wife is earning money as a lobbyist on some of the very issues he is deciding here. Justice Thomas?s wife Virginia Thomas now a lobbyist - Kenneth P. Vogel and Marin Cogan and John Bresnahan - POLITICO.com Many judges at the lower level would recuse themselves.

Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas has released newly corrected financial disclosure forms showing his wife's past employment, blaming a misunderstanding for years of omissions of Virginia "Ginni" Thomas' salary at a conservative think tank and other jobs.
Thomas was required to report the information on the annual disclosure forms all federal judges must file. The forms did not disclose how much money Mrs. Thomas was paid.

The updated records go back 13 years and confirm Mrs. Thomas has worked for the Heritage Foundation, the Republican leadership in the House and Hillsdale College in Michigan.

Her employers were known previously, since Virginia Thomas is a well-known conservative activist. She founded her own conservative group, Liberty Central, in late 2009. That information was also not disclosed on the justice's financial forms. She has since relinquished leadership of Liberty Central, but still has an advisory role.

The new information came after the liberal advocacy group Common Cause noted the omissions last week. The group also urged the Justice Department to investigate whether a speech the justice gave in 2008 before a conservative seminar sponsored in part by prominent GOP fundraisers created a possible conflict of interest.

Common Cause said its review of the Heritage Foundation's IRS forms showed Virginia Thomas earned nearly $700,000 from 2003-07 while at the think tank.

Clarence Thomas releases details of wife's past employment - CNN

Mother Jones reported that his financial disclosure form indicates his wife, Virginia “Ginni” Thomas, received a $150,000 salary from the group Liberty Central in 2010 and less than $15,000 from an anti-health care reform lobbying firm she founded.

Liberty Central, which she helped found, supports the repeal of the the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2011/05/31/justice-clarence-thomass-wife-received...-reform-group/

SAD isn't it.. while here in WI we have those questioning if judges should have "voted" by signing a recall petition.........

Alice meet wonderland...............

[les3547]

Impeach the Supreme Court Justices If They Overturn Health-Care Law - The Daily Beast

Hmmmmmmmmm

Here's something I think that should upset court observers, it bothers me anyway. When Justice Scalia suggested the whole law might be overturned, and it was pointed out that only the mandate was actually in question, Scalia replied, "Do you expect us to go through these 2700 pages . . .?"

Scalia jazzed by laughter uses old bill is too big argument - YouTube

President Obama yesterday apparently stirred the ire of the court system with his remarks about feeling confident that 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." It prompted the 5th circuit US appeals court (all Reagan appointees) to order the Justice Department to answer whether the Obama Administration believes the courts have the right to strike down a federal law:

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."

President Obama seems to admit he may have overstated the case in his clarification today:

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.

Justice Smith might be justified in wanting the President's statements to be more clear about the Judicial branch's powers, but what are we to conclude from Justice Scalia's attitude but that he wants to strike down a law in total without knowing what is actually in it? I suspect it was Scalia's arrogance and gross irresponsibility (since it's the courts' job to study and know the law) that prompted the President's remarks, just as such attitudes might have been why Thomas Jefferson worried about abuse of power by the judiciary, "The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist, and shape into any form they please."

[Parallax]

but what are we to conclude from Justice Scalia's attitude but that he wants to strike down a law in total without knowing what is actually in it?

What's wrong with that? There isn't a single Representative or Senator who voted for it that knows everything that's in it, so what's wrong with SCOTUS ruling without knowing? Does anybody think the president who signed it into law knows everything that's in it? He can't possibly, it's simply too big and complex.

[GeneV]

What's wrong with that? There isn't a single Representative or Senator who voted for it that knows everything that's in it, so what's wrong with SCOTUS ruling without knowing? Does anybody think the president who signed it into law knows everything that's in it? He can't possibly, it's simply too big and complex.

The law as passed is 906 pages, so we start with an exaggeration by Justice Scalia. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia And, yes, I'll bet there are quite a few lawmakers in committees who have read the legislation. Legislators seldom know everything that is in every bill for which they are voting. Budgets, alone, have been running about 1,500 pages since the Bush years, and Congress spits out about 7,000 pages of legislation a year. Lawmakers often trust others, especially committees rather than studying every word. However, once a bill is passed and signed by the President, it is law. Whether it is a good idea or bad idea, a law is strongly presumed to be constitutional. Before a court overcomes this presumption and holds otherwise, they should know the facts. So, yes, the SCOTUS should either read it and can the Fox News talking point about its length or not accept the case.

[les3547]

What's wrong with that?

It's known as stupidity. If you think there's nothing wrong with deciding something so important without studying the available facts, I don't know what to say.

There isn't a single Representative or Senator who voted for it that knows everything that's in it, so what's wrong with SCOTUS ruling without knowing?

You don't know that's true. But whoever voted for or against it without studying it thoroughly is not only guilty of stupidity but also dereliction of duty.

Does anybody think the president who signed it into law knows everything that's in it? He can't possibly, it's simply too big and complex.

Nonsense. As Gene points out, it is actually 900 or so pages. Any college grad used to reading loads of books for a course (which Obama as a Columbia and Harvard grad has certainly faced) shouldn't feel intimidated by studying a law that's so important to our country. If someone can't handle that, they shouldn't be in office.

[Parallax]

It's known as stupidity. If you think there's nothing wrong with deciding something so important without studying the available facts, I don't know what to say.

You don't know that's true. But whoever voted for or against it without studying it thoroughly is not only guilty of stupidity but also dereliction of duty.

As Gene pointed out:

Legislators seldom know everything that is in every bill for which they are voting.

'nuff said, methinks.

[redrockcoulee]

I would think a legislators time is too important to read and understand each page of each document of every law they pass. Do they not have staff and experts to rely on. I cannot think that a some one on a board of directors does not rely on their staff to read and intrept important documents as well. If the elected rep is supposed to read and understand the wording of each bit of the law, then do not be upset if most of them are lawyers as that is the skill sets you may be demanding. That is not saying they should vote on a law without knowing what is in it but to read and understand it entirely with the other duties and the other bills, committee work and if they are anything like our elected officials much of their duties should be tied up with helping their consituients with problems with the govt. They have staff for a reason. And some of those staff members will understand the bill much better than the elected rep especially if they are from a non lawyer background.

[Parallax]

I would think a legislators time is too important to read and understand each page of each document of every law they pass. Do they not have staff and experts to rely on. I cannot think that a some one on a board of directors does not rely on their staff to read and intrept important documents as well. If the elected rep is supposed to read and understand the wording of each bit of the law, then do not be upset if most of them are lawyers as that is the skill sets you may be demanding. That is not saying they should vote on a law without knowing what is in it but to read and understand it entirely with the other duties and the other bills, committee work and if they are anything like our elected officials much of their duties should be tied up with helping their consituients with problems with the govt. They have staff for a reason. And some of those staff members will understand the bill much better than the elected rep especially if they are from a non lawyer background.

You're absolutely right. They can't be expected to know everything, nor can the President.
If it's okay for a legislator to vote for a bill without knowing all of its contents, and it's okay for the President to sign a bill into law without knowing all of the minutia, then why isn't it okay for the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality without reading the whole thing? If they conclude that a part of it violates the Constitution, what difference does the rest make?
It seems a bit like suggesting that before a judge decides whether to send a murderer to jail, he should take into account how many people he didn't kill, as well.

[les3547]

You're absolutely right. They can't be expected to know everything, nor can the President.
If it's okay for a legislator to vote for a bill without knowing all of its contents, and it's okay for the President to sign a bill into law without knowing all of the minutia, then why isn't it okay for the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality without reading the whole thing? If they conclude that a part of it violates the Constitution, what difference does the rest make?
It seems a bit like suggesting that before a judge decides whether to send a murderer to jail, he should take into account how many people he didn't kill, as well.

It sounds to me like you are advocating carelessness. If I were reading a 900 page bill and if I were pressed for time, I might skim areas that seem like irrelevant minutia, or I might have an aide study the bill for me and advise, especially if it were a bill that dealt with something ordinary and wouldn't have great impact one way or another.

But we are talking about a historic bill, one that has tremendous consequences for Americans. It is not "ordinary" law that's at stake in any sense of the word. Furthermore, a great amount of work was put into the project and passed by the elected representatives of the people. Yet here we have an arrogant judge saying he might reject the entire bill (when he only needs to rule on the mandate) because he is too lazy to separate out what is not constitutional.

If Scalia doesn't want to do the reading, then let him just rule on what he does read. Isn't that the fair and honest way to do it?

[redrockcoulee]

You're absolutely right. They can't be expected to know everything, nor can the President.
If it's okay for a legislator to vote for a bill without knowing all of its contents, and it's okay for the President to sign a bill into law without knowing all of the minutia, then why isn't it okay for the Supreme Court to rule on its constitutionality without reading the whole thing? If they conclude that a part of it violates the Constitution, what difference does the rest make?
It seems a bit like suggesting that before a judge decides whether to send a murderer to jail, he should take into account how many people he didn't kill, as well.

In our country anyway many bills refer to regulations that have not even been fully written yet, left to technical experts in the field. So to expect a law maker to not only read and understand the legal wording but should they not also be expected to understand the technical aspects of the law as well? I have to deal with several laws for my job and even though I use the same ones over and over I have to read and re read them to understand them. Reading a new law will give the person voting no more understanding of all the details of that law then they will get by being adequately briefed by staff members who not only have more time but there are more of them and have different expertices. Again if you only want lawyers making policy and voting fine. The laws are also created by staff that supposedly have expertice and access to expertise. The judges on the other hand are experts on the law and are judging that law. I would guess, and it is only a guess, that any technical questions they have resources to answer those questions. In summary Judges are trained in the law, law makers are setting policies and voting on bills made up by lawyers and hence I do not think it is a truen analogy.

I perfer my MP to be representing the people in his riding, reading the executive summaries of any proposed bill and having his staff fully prepared to answer and advise him. Otherwise about all the MP will be doing is reading bills and maybe having time to vote. Put their staff to good work and do your job as representing the constituents. Judges on the other hand only have to deal with the case before them, not with people complaining about not getting their passport or having their farm flooded or whatever else the citizens have need of answers from the govt. The elected person should not be required to read each and every page of a law and the associated regs with it, just an understanding of what it does and how it will affect people. That is not the same thing as not knowing what they are voting on.

[séamuis]

It sounds to me like you are advocating carelessness. If I were reading a 900 page bill and if I were pressed for time, I might skim areas that seem like irrelevant minutia, or I might have an aide study the bill for me and advise, especially if it were a bill that dealt with something ordinary and wouldn't have great impact one way or another.

But we are talking about a historic bill, one that has tremendous consequences for Americans. It is not "ordinary" law that's at stake in any sense of the word. Furthermore, a great amount of work was put into the project and passed by the elected representatives of the people. Yet here we have an arrogant judge saying he might reject the entire bill (when he only needs to rule on the mandate) because he is too lazy to separate out what is not constitutional.

If Scalia doesn't want to do the reading, then let him just rule on what he does read. Isn't that the fair and honest way to do it?

Besides, the truth likely is, Scalia is being activist and looking for an excuse to trash the entire bill on behalf of his conservative compatriots.

I think the issue shouldn't just be wether its fair for someone to do their job to the fullest or not all the time, we should be simplifying the bill's trying to be passed. not trying to include other things into bills that really don't need to be there, and making the whole process more simple. however, having said that I don't believe, no matter how tedious a job may be, saying you simply don't want to do it is just absurd. if you take on that role, you have an important duty. you get paid by the people to do that duty. if you don't want to do your job properly, then get a new job. I personally find this attitude pathetic, and it seems to me to be a good indicator of the type of attitude a lot of our current government seems to possess. 'should I really be expected to properly do my job and uphold and defend the constitution with every bill?' YES. you should. period. if there is something you don't understand and need clarification, then having an aid, or more than one is perfectly understandable. but that shouldn't mean that you can get away with only doing your job half assed.