# waiting \[for Supreme Court decision on health care law\] **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [June 18, 2012, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510 "2012-06-18T13:51:23Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/7ba0ec/32.png) [@Omg\_a\_Black\_Conservative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Omg_a_Black_Conservative)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 1:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/61 "2012-06-19T13:46:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Which Justice is _objectively_ wrong? Ginsburg, without a doubt. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/62 "2012-06-19T14:32:06Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …But it means that, in good faith, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Alito can reach different results on questions like the ACA. Justice Ginsburg can say, “Look, it’s the mark of a decent society to provide a basic level of health care to all its members, and the role of the federal government has expanded enough over the years that an individual mandate simply passes the common sense test of Congress’ powers.” > > And Justice Alito can say, in equally good faith, “Look, the federal government’s powers have a limit, and this extends that limit. The way for our nation to extend the powers of the federal government is not by action of the courts; those are not the rules. The rules require an amendment, or absent that, they require fidelity to the words of the Constitution.” > > Which Justice is _objectively_ wrong? > > Neither one. Both are hewing to their judicial philosophies. Ginsburg would be wrong in your example. Considering that Ginsburg was one of the Justices who questioned the limits, or lack of limits, that would exist on the Federal government if the SC ruled in favor of Obamacare “as it was written by Congress”, I wouldn’t count on Ginsburg ruling wholly in favor of the governments position. Congress can write another bill that limits this overreach to healthcare and only healthcare. Similar to how child porngraphy is considered differently than pornography. Passing a bill that allows the Fed to mandate anything and everything in the future would remove the SC from ever reviewing or questioning the actions of the legislative branch. ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 2:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/63 "2012-06-19T14:53:17Z")
> [@onecut39](#): > > At any given time the constitution is exactly what a majority of nine old people say it is. > > Decisions have been made reversed and made again. The USSC, an institution that was supposed to be non political, has become the most political of all the branches. > > The present court has an abysmal record of preserving our “freedoms”. > > With friends like these… And bills have been written, passed, and found to be unconstitutional as well as constitutional. Congress can write another bill that passes Constitutional muster. Passing a bill that isn’t even fully written yet is absurd. It was argued on the floor of Congress that the funding for this would not be a tax. That’s in the Congressional record, which will be part of the courts deliberations. Just what did Congress mean when they passed this bill. It is argued now that because the funding is considered a tax, and no one can file suit against it until they actually have to pay the tax??? What Congress meant, or said, or says now is confusing. The Justices are being asked to resolve 4 specific question pertaining to this bill. The first, and most important, is whether the SC has jurisdiction. If the SC decides that they don’t have jurisdiction, the rest of the questions are moot. If the SC has jurisdiction, they then have to decide if the fund rasiing portion is actually constitutional. They’ll also have to decide if portions of the bill are unconstitutional or if the whole bill is unconstitutional. There’s also the possibilty that the SC will decide that only portions of the bill are unconstitutional but that the whole bill should be tossed because it is unworkable without manditory funding. Time will tell. ---
**Author:** ![Nars\_Glinley](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/nars_glinley/32/8177_2.png) [@Nars\_Glinley](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Nars_Glinley)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/64 "2012-06-19T16:25:26Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > Not only is it a Constitutionally-mandated duty of Congress, but it was implemented using one of the powers explicitly granted to Congress in the Constitution. Congress has the power to levy taxes, and so they did. To argue that “it works exactly the same way a tax would, but it’s unconstitutional because they didn’t actually say the word tax” is the same sort of magic-word thinking that leads crackpots to talk about the fringe on flags. President Obama insisted that it’s not a tax. I suppose he’s wrong too. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 4:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/65 "2012-06-19T16:43:37Z")
> [@](#): > > Quoth **Inner Stickler** : > > I didn’t realize that republicans are against paying one’s debts. You didn’t realize that? They were pretty vocal about how we had an absolute moral imperative to not pay our debts, about a year ago. And **Nars** , it’s not that Obama’s wrong when he says that it’s not a tax, but that he’s irrelevant. It is what it is, regardless of what anyone (yes, even including Congress and the President) calls it. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/66 "2012-06-19T16:47:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > We expect conservative and liberal justices to vote differently, and not because of their adherence to particular outcomes. > > In general, conservative justices see their role as that of an umpire, applying the rules in a reasonably mechanical fashion. It doesn’t matter if one batter has a really compelling life story, or one fielder’s success is what the game of baseball needs to really prosper. If the rules say the batter is out, he’s out. If the rules say the fielder made an error, he made an error. > > In general, liberal justices are themselves as having a role and a responsibility to shape the law and the land – to be a part of the living Constitution. They want to make a difference, to leave the state of the law better than they found it, to help the country’s social policy grow and mature, to be a voice for the evolving standards of decency that are the mark of every civilization. > > There is nothing objectively in error about either belief. > > In my opinion, the proper role of judges (shocker!) is more correctly described by the first paragraph than by the second. > > But it means that, in good faith, Justice Ginsburg and Justice Alito can reach different results on questions like the ACA. Justice Ginsburg can say, “Look, it’s the mark of a decent society to provide a basic level of health care to all its members, and the role of the federal government has expanded enough over the years that an individual mandate simply passes the common sense test of Congress’ powers.” > > And Justice Alito can say, in equally good faith, “Look, the federal government’s powers have a limit, and this extends that limit. The way for our nation to extend the powers of the federal government is not by action of the courts; those are not the rules. The rules require an amendment, or absent that, they require fidelity to the words of the Constitution.” > > Which Justice is _objectively_ wrong? > > Neither one. Both are hewing to their judicial philosophies. I disagree with your assessment that this is just a difference in judicial philosophies. I think it’s an ideological difference and some conservative judges actively rule in favor of conservative causes just as some liberal judges actively rule in favor of liberal causes. And then these activist judges find a judicial philosophy which corresponds to the decision they made. This [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html) makes a similar argument (specifically about Scalia): _“Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go.”_ ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/67 "2012-06-19T17:04:31Z")
He said _in general._ In general, he is correct. The fact that some decisions are clearly political (\*cough Bush v. Gire _cough_) does not mean all of them are. > [@](#): > > President Obama insisted that it’s not a tax. I suppose he’s wrong too. He might be, but it’s irrelevant. Obama didn’t vote on the bill. His comments are not part of the legislative history. ---
**Author:** ![CJJ](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecc23a/32.png) [@CJJ](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CJJ)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/68 "2012-06-19T19:03:41Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree with your assessment that this is just a difference in judicial philosophies. I think it’s an ideological difference and some conservative judges actively rule in favor of conservative causes just as some liberal judges actively rule in favor of liberal causes. And then these activist judges find a judicial philosophy which corresponds to the decision they made. > > This [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html) makes a similar argument (specifically about Scalia): _“Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go.”_ I agree with this. The “balls and strikes” analogy was mentioned by Justice Roberts during his confirmation hearing. He also said that judges should decide cases as narrowly as possible, addressing only the question before them and not using a case as a forum to advance personal agendas by issuing broader decisions. [We saw how that worked out in _Citizen’s United_](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/05/21/120521fa_fact_toobin). As a principle it doesn’t bother me that justices expand the scope of their decisions–even though in this case I didn’t agree with the outcome. But it’s galling to hear conservatives pretend their just doing what the constitution says, and are injecting no bias into their decisions. There are no perfect umpires on the court; they’re fans like everybody else. ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/69 "2012-06-19T19:14:20Z")
> [@onecut39](#): > > The USSC, an institution that was supposed to be non political, has become the most political of all the branches. How? ---
**Author:** ![lance\_strongarm](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/87869e/32.png) [@lance\_strongarm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lance_strongarm)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 7:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/70 "2012-06-19T19:15:20Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > This [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html) makes a similar argument (specifically about Scalia): _“Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go.”_ How do we know where he wanted to go though? ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/71 "2012-06-19T19:32:40Z")
> [@lance\_strongarm](#): > > How do we know where he wanted to go though? Pick the right wing position on any issue. That’s the way he wants to go and that’s the way he’ll rule. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/72 "2012-06-19T20:36:37Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Pick the right wing position on any issue. That’s the way he wants to go and that’s the way he’ll rule. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association: can a state ban the sale of certain violent video games to children without parental supervision? The right-wing position is (I assume) “Yes.” Scalia voted with Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan, saying “No.” ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/73 "2012-06-19T20:39:09Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I disagree with your assessment that this is just a difference in judicial philosophies. I think it’s an ideological difference and some conservative judges actively rule in favor of conservative causes just as some liberal judges actively rule in favor of liberal causes. And then these activist judges find a judicial philosophy which corresponds to the decision they made. > > This [article](http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/19/opinion/19tue3.html) makes a similar argument (specifically about Scalia): _“Justice Scalia likes to boast that he follows his strict-constructionist philosophy wherever it leads, even if it leads to results he disagrees with. But it is uncanny how often it leads him just where he already wanted to go.”_ I can cite a number of cases where Scalia “crossed lines” and voted to sustain a result that was favored by the left. What does that do your theory? ---
**Author:** ![Amasia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ba9def/32.png) [@Amasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Amasia)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/74 "2012-06-19T20:45:59Z")
> [@onecut39](#): > > At any given time the constitution is exactly what a majority of nine old people say it is. > > Decisions have been made reversed and made again. The USSC, an institution that was supposed to be non political, has become the most political of all the branches. > > The present court has an abysmal record of preserving our “freedoms”. > > With friends like these… What do you mean by “non political”? ---
**Author:** ![doorhinge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/a5b964/32.png) [@doorhinge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/doorhinge)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/75 "2012-06-19T22:33:12Z")
> [@Nars\_Glinley](#): > > President Obama insisted that it’s not a tax. I suppose he’s wrong too. Except for Obama’s incessant whining about the SC not doing what he tells them to do, Obama opinion has no standing in this case. Except maybe to pssst them off. ---
**Author:** ![BobLibDem](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/boblibdem/32/3149_2.png) [@BobLibDem](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BobLibDem)\ **Post date:** [June 19, 2012, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/76 "2012-06-19T23:45:47Z")
I don’t see the video game censorship as a right v left issue. There is corporate money to be made by selling games- sucking up to corporations is why the Republican Party exists. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/77 "2012-06-20T00:19:18Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > I don’t see the video game censorship as a right v left issue. There is corporate money to be made by selling games- sucking up to corporations is why the Republican Party exists. Kyllo v. US. Thermal imaging of a house is a search? Ginsburg, Scalia join to say yes. Rehnquist and others say no. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 12:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/78 "2012-06-20T00:29:19Z")
I’m not sure there’s a clear “right-wing” position on searches and seizures. The perhaps more paleoconservative belief in strong law enforcement is balanced by the libertarianish fear of Big Brother. Anyway, **Kyllo** was silly. Scalia was trying to create a rule that would work in a future he couldn’t conceive of. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/79 "2012-06-20T01:25:55Z")
Examples of cases where Scalia joined with the liberals: Kyllo v. United States - Scalia limits thermal scanning. Not exactly a major impact on the average person’s life. Texas v. Johnson - Scalia upholds the rights of radical extremists to look like idiots and discredit the entire left by association. Again, a minor issue that probably effected about ten people. Cuomo v. Clearing House Association LLC - Scalia pushes the balance of power from the federal government to the states. In the Spring of 2009 when the Democrats have taken control of the federal government. I never said Scalia was stupid. He’s able to look past the case in front of him and see the long-term. And he always leaves himself an out by establishing some standard that’s visible only to his eyes. That makes it possible for him to rule the other way in the future by claiming this new case didn’t meet the standard of the previous case. Look at the Cuomo decision. Want to bet Scalia’s interpretation of visitorial rights will change the next time the Republicans are running the Treasury Department? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [June 20, 2012, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510/80 "2012-06-20T02:32:53Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Pick the right wing position on any issue. That’s the way he wants to go and that’s the way he’ll rule. [_Texas v Johnson_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_v._Johnson): the flag burning case. [_Hamdi v Rumsfeld_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld): _habeas corpus._ [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/waiting-for-supreme-court-decision-on-health-care-law/625510.md?page=5)