Supreme Court on Obamacare

[Joco71]

Ya that's just craziness. You at least should be able to provide that little bit of info. Most people need to show Id to make a purchase at a store.

[DrewZ]

Yeah and it's been proven in the classroom many times with grades that it does not work and in real world economics of other countries.

Well it looks like someone has the Supreme court under their thumb becasue the rulings coming down dont make much if any sense.
The supreme court decided today it's not right anyone should have to show ID or prove citizenship when registering to vote. Really???

Supreme Court Rejects Arizona Kansas Voter Registration Appeal | The Daily Caller

Absolutely ludicrous...

[Metalject]

This is all very simplistic. Of course jurists are people, and many jurists have integrity and try to make the case law/historical story of the law a coherent one, and others cannot help their bias influencing them (after all, how can people not be influenced by what they think is right?) and others still baldly try to legislate - there is no way around this. Law is something done by people and as such is subject to all the vagaries of all the things done by people and not some mechanical process that guarantees some objective end product. Not even science can do that.

The constitution itself is vague, and this is why whether something is constitutional or not is contentious.

The theme I see is that whenever anyone disagrees with an outcome, it's always due to bias and overreaching. Things for which there are competing arguments and positions are somehow always attributed to people deciding what the law "should" mean, as if anyone with a reasoned argument would come to the same conclusion as they do, and if not, then there is foul play. And both sides do it, and they don't realise that they fall prey to the very criticism they lodge against others.

The issue is simple, the court's job is not to legislate or decide what is law. Their job is simply to determine if law passed by congress is constitutional or not. Whether the justice agrees or disagrees with the law on a personal basis isn't and should not be a basis of their decision. And if a law is vague, intent was never meant to be used. In cases of vague, the original idea was to have the law sent back to congress for clarification, and then if needed the court would determine constitutionality.

And yes, there is a way around it - justices have become immovable in the modern era and allowed to sit indefinitely, often till death. But judges can be removed, legally under the constitution...no congress does it though due to the backlash that would be caused...meaning we have a government of cowards.

Anyway, issues of the court, in my opinion, have nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. The issue of agreement exists in the legislative branch. The court merely exist to determine if the law passed is constitutionally legal.

[lovbyts]

The issue is simple, the court's job is not to legislate or decide what is law. Their job is simply to determine if law passed by congress is constitutional or not. Whether the justice agrees or disagrees with the law on a personal basis isn't and should not be a basis of their decision. And if a law is vague, intent was never meant to be used. In cases of vague, the original idea was to have the law sent back to congress for clarification, and then if needed the court would determine constitutionality.

And yes, there is a way around it - justices have become immovable in the modern era and allowed to sit indefinitely, often till death. But judges can be removed, legally under the constitution...no congress does it though due to the backlash that would be caused...meaning we have a government of cowards.

Anyway, issues of the court, in my opinion, have nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing. The issue of agreement exists in the legislative branch. The court merely exist to determine if the law passed is constitutionally legal.

Agree. Have you/anyone ever been on a jury? Same thing. I was on recently and had to keep reminding other members of them and expressing that even I had certain FEELING and beliefs about some issues but because I was going to follow the rules of only making my decision based on the law it was different than what I believed or felt.

As you said it's simple but they have turned from this and are not going of public opinion or personal opinion and beliefs. I like the idea of limiting their time to 8 years and they have to be voted in or out.

[Metalject]

Agree. Have you/anyone ever been on a jury? Same thing. I was on recently and had to keep reminding other members of them and expressing that even I had certain FEELING and beliefs about some issues but because I was going to follow the rules of only making my decision based on the law it was different than what I believed or felt.

As you said it's simple but they have turned from this and are not going of public opinion or personal opinion and beliefs. I like the idea of limiting their time to 8 years and they have to be voted in or out.

I've never been on a jury, but yes in some ways it would be similar. If a known gang member were on trial for murder and all evidence completely cleared him from the crime, he is 100% innocent, despite the fact that he might be a bad person overall that would be no excuse to find him guilty just because you don't like him. Essentially this is what the SCOTUS is doing now.

And I think those that are celebrating, especially when it comes to gay marriage should really take a step back and think about what they're celebrating. Rulings like this give the court unequal power over the other two branches, it nullifies the legislative and executive branches. The people that are happy with this ruling, are they incapable of seeing that this gives the court power to rule in other areas with absolute authority on issues and topics they may not agree with? But we've been progressing towards a court that's a hybrid monarchy for a while.

The larger issue, the largest of all, the 10th amendment. People (public) have little to no concept of the 10th anymore. People see the U.S. as a singular authority, a singular state just as Germany or England is a single state. The concept or importance of individual state authority is lost on most. It's lost just as this idea is lost, that the 10th states that if it's not stated in the constitution then all authority on the issue is differed to the individual states. I cannot wait for the day when the court is stacked with far right justices who rule with ideology. Not that I want any justice to rule that way, but it will be nice to see these progressive tard buckets wallow in their tears for a change.

[lovbyts]

I've never been on a jury, but yes in some ways it would be similar. If a known gang member were on trial for murder and all evidence completely cleared him from the crime, he is 100% innocent, despite the fact that he might be a bad person overall that would be no excuse to find him guilty just because you don't like him. Essentially this is what the SCOTUS is doing now.

And I think those that are celebrating, especially when it comes to gay marriage should really take a step back and think about what they're celebrating. Rulings like this give the court unequal power over the other two branches, it nullifies the legislative and executive branches. The people that are happy with this ruling, are they incapable of seeing that this gives the court power to rule in other areas with absolute authority on issues and topics they may not agree with? But we've been progressing towards a court that's a hybrid monarchy for a while.

The larger issue, the largest of all, the 10th amendment. People (public) have little to no concept of the 10th anymore. People see the U.S. as a singular authority, a singular state just as Germany or England is a single state. The concept or importance of individual state authority is lost on most. It's lost just as this idea is lost, that the 10th states that if it's not stated in the constitution then all authority on the issue is differed to the individual states. I cannot wait for the day when the court is stacked with far right justices who rule with ideology. Not that I want any justice to rule that way, but it will be nice to see these progressive tard buckets wallow in their tears for a change.

Again, agree and this is why even though I dont smoke I fought for business to be able to decide if they want smoking or not and the government should stay out of it. Same with many of the other rulings to control small business because I saw where it was going. I personally know people who have lost their businesses over the years because they can not keep up with regulations and cost. They went from being profitable to loosing money in just a couple of years without a drop in sales.

I believe the bigger picture/plan is to eliminate small business for the most part so they are for the most part owned by larger companies, part of the chain and these are just tools to get it done. God I hate getting old and turning into a conspiracy theorist. I wish I was 20 again with my head buried in the sand.

[Euroholic]

Does this mean in theroy on my next international roadtrip i can mosey over to to a poll booth and vote in a election that will not even effect me? Thats terrible

[lovbyts]

Does this mean in theroy on my next international roadtrip i can mosey over to to a poll booth and vote in a election that will not even effect me? Thats terrible

You will have to register as a voter first if you want to use your real name or you just walk up to any poll if you know someones name who votes there and just say their name and they will mark you off the list and let you vote. Yes.

[Brett N]

Not where I vote. You either need a drivers license or your voter ID card. MO

[lovbyts]

Not where I vote. You either need a drivers license or your voter ID card. MO

Probably not anymore