Kasich on Gay Marriage - "We Have a SCOTUS Ruling ... Let's Move On"

[Luis Gonzalez]

VERY sad! Courts of Law render VERDICTS each of which are subject to appeal. The appeals court may uphold the lower court, reverse the lower court, or remand the case back to the lower court.

We held an entire revolution to rid ourselves of RULERS!

Except for this kind of course!

The SCOTUS is the platform where individual citizens voice their grievances against what they believe to be unjust and/or unconstitutional laws which violate their rights as citizens. Those law suits are filed by citizens or groups of citizens against the various levels of government.

The SCOTUS is the barrier which protects people FROM rulers.

[AnybodyButaDem]

SCOTUS didn't rewrite a word of anything.

I'll show you the ACA before and after King, and you can show me where it was rewritten.

You really need to stop thinking in memes.

 

http://www.jurist.org/hotline/2012/07/edward-white-aca-rewrite.php

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision [PDF] upholding the Affordable Care Act (ACA) stunned me as it did others. What surprised me the most is that the majority rewrote the law in order to uphold it.

To sustain the ACA, the majority first had to uphold the constitutionality of the individual mandate. The individual mandate, which is the essential component of the ACA, requires virtually all Americans to purchase health insurance from a private company or pay annual penalties. The majority upheld the individual mandate by deciding it was a tax, not a regulatory penalty enacted under an assertion of Commerce Clause authority. Therefore, the Court ruled that the individual mandate was authorized by Congress's broad authority under its taxing power, which is located under Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution.

[Bigun]

The SCOTUS is the platform where individual citizens voice their grievances against what they believe to be unjust and/or unconstitutional laws which violate their rights as citizens. Those law suits are filed by citizens or groups of citizens against the various levels of government.

The SCOTUS is the barrier which protects people FROM rulers.

Right up to the point where they begin to usurp powers not granted them which they have long since done. At that point they become rulers themselves if the other branches of government don't stop them and to date they have failed to do so!

[Jazzhead]

The SCOTUS didn't "rewrite" the ACA, it interpreted the individual mandate penalty as a tax,  mainly because the amount of the penalty was far less than the cost of paying for health insurance.   The ACA doesn't unlawfully compel a person to purchase a product or service,  and this is proven by the fact that thousands if not millions of younger Americans are rationally deciding to pay the tax rather than purchase health insurance they feel they don't need or cannot afford. 

It is important to keep in mind that the idea of an individual mandate is to encourage a wide spectrum of folks to join the insurance pool,  so that rates can be affordable for those with pre-existing conditions (who, but for guaranteed issue, would be uninsurable).   As much as most of us despise the ACA,  we should keep firmly in mind that the alternative, in order to solve the access issue, really is compulsion - the requirement that we must all accept government-run health care financing under a single payer system.

Philosophically, the SCOTUS's ruling was "conservative" in two important ways.   First, as noted above, the practical alternative to the ACA (or similar system based on an individual mandate or tax)  is single payer.  Second, for better or for worse,  the ACA WAS the product of the deliberations of our elected representatives.   I agree with Justice Roberts' conception of the court as deferring to the decisions made by our elected representatives when at all possible.   That's how it's supposed to work in a representative democracy.   As Luis has pointed out,  if we don't like the ACA, we need to elect new Congress-critters who will abolish the law or fix it.   It's not the responsibility of unelected philosopher-kings to do our dirty work for us.   If we can't change the ACA by means of the democratic process,  and instead rely on the SCOTUS as a kind of deus ex machina,  then we've sacrificed a lot of what makes our American system of self-government the envy of the world.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

The SCOTUS didn't "rewrite" the ACA, it interpreted the individual mandate penalty as a tax,  mainly because the amount of the penalty was far less than the cost of paying for health insurance.   The ACA doesn't unlawfully compel a person to purchase a product or service,  and this is proven by the fact that thousands if not millions of younger Americans are rationally deciding to pay the tax rather than purchase health insurance they feel they don't need or cannot afford. 

It is important to keep in mind that the idea of an individual mandate is to encourage a wide spectrum of folks to join the insurance pool,  so that rates can be affordable for those with pre-existing conditions (who, but for guaranteed issue, would be uninsurable).   As much as most of us despise the ACA,  we should keep firmly in mind that the alternative, in order to solve the access issue, really is compulsion - the requirement that we must all accept government-run health care financing under a single payer system.

Philosophically, the SCOTUS's ruling was "conservative" in two important ways.   First, as noted above, the practical alternative to the ACA (or similar system based on an individual mandate or tax)  is single payer.  Second, for better or for worse,  the ACA WAS the product of the deliberations of our elected representatives.   I agree with Justice Roberts' conception of the court as deferring to the decisions made by our elected representatives when at all possible.   That's how it's supposed to work in a representative democracy.   As Luis has pointed out,  if we don't like the ACA, we need to elect new Congress-critters who will abolish the law or fix it.   It's not the responsibility of unelected philosopher-kings to do our dirty work for us.   If we can't change the ACA by means of the democratic process,  and instead rely on the SCOTUS as a kind of deus ex machina,  then we've sacrificed a lot of what makes our American system of self-government the envy of the world.

It's a great precedent. Now instead of banning civil liberties, we can just tax them. Tax guns. Tax free speech. etc. etc. There's really no end to it.

[AnybodyButaDem]

The SCOTUS didn't "rewrite" the ACA, it interpreted the individual mandate penalty as a tax, 

I'm interested to know how "interpreting" something different than what is written is at all "conservative,"  and why the conservative judges on the court disagree with you on this subject.

Then again, you still won't answer how John Kasich is a conservative.

[AnybodyButaDem]

It's a great precedent. Now instead of banning civil liberties, we can just tax them. Tax guns. Tax free speech. etc. etc. There's really no end to it.

It goes further than that.  SCOTUS now can just interpret anything they want in a law, even if it isn't written in the law.

But hey, that's "conservative!"

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It goes further than that.  SCOTUS now can just interpret anything they want in a law, even if it isn't written in the law.

But hey, that's "conservative!"

Well, there's always been a grey area in interpreting law, that's just the nature of the job. Problem is that it can stretch to ridiculous dimensions. BTW I don't know many conservatives who were happy with the decision.

[AnybodyButaDem]

Well, there's always been a grey area in interpreting law, that's just the nature of the job. Problem is that it can stretch to ridiculous dimensions. BTW I don't know many conservatives who were happy with the decision.

I'd say it's ridiculous to read the words "individual mandate" and assume the author meant "tax."

That's quite a leap of logic.  To me, if it had said "tax," then I'd interpret it as a "tax."  Especially when politically and in oral arguments it was proven that the authors deliberately did not call it a "tax" when passing it.

But hey according to Mr. Conservative's Biggest Fan it's super duper conservative decision (that the conservative judges didn't agree with) so I'll just go away now.

[jmyrlefuller]

Bunk.

Same-sex marriage has existed in the US for over a decade now, and nothing has substantially changed.

Let's discuss the Sweet Cakes by Melissa case.

Article 1, Section 20 Oregon's Bill of Rights:

“No law shall be passed granting to any citizen or class of citizens, privileges or immunities which upon the same terms, which shall not equally belong to all citizens.”

The Oregon Equality Act and the Oregon Family Fairness Act were passed in 2007, and established a State-wide ban on any discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Both these laws were in full effect when the Kleins began operating Sweet Cakes by Melissa.

A business, any business, is subject to all applicable and prevailing laws. If the Kleins didn't want to bake cakes for same-sex couples, they should have opened up their bakery in some place other than Oregon.

Under Oregon's laws, then, marriage is itself unconstitutional, because it affords privileges that the eternally single such as myself will never be able to receive.

[A-Lert]

Under Oregon's laws, then, marriage is itself unconstitutional, because it affords privileges that the eternally single such as myself will never be able to receive.

Maybe, but being eternally single you'll never have to share and you can always have peace and quiet if and when you choose, eat when and where you please, wear what you want, participate in and watch as much sports as you please and scratch when and where you want.

[Bigun]

I'd say it's ridiculous to read the words "individual mandate" and assume the author meant "tax."

That's quite a leap of logic.  To me, if it had said "tax," then I'd interpret it as a "tax."  Especially when politically and in oral arguments it was proven that the authors deliberately did not call it a "tax" when passing it.

But hey according to Mr. Conservative's Biggest Fan it's super duper conservative decision (that the conservative judges didn't agree with) so I'll just go away now.

Especially when you look at the legislative history of the bill and it's proponents repeatedly and forcefully denying that it was a tax!

[AnybodyButaDem]

Especially when you look at the legislative history of the bill and it's proponents repeatedly and forcefully denying that it was a tax!

Five liberal activist judges on SCOTUS have set precedent that from now on there is no difference between an individual mandate and a tax.  But hey that's conservative according to Jazzhead!

[Jazzhead]

Well, there's always been a grey area in interpreting law, that's just the nature of the job. Problem is that it can stretch to ridiculous dimensions. BTW I don't know many conservatives who were happy with the decision.

It's not a matter of being "happy" with the decision.  It's a matter of whether the SCOTUS should defer when it's Constitutionally able to the actions of the peoples' elected representatives,  or whether it should legislate from the bench.   To me, a conservative jurist doesn't legislate from the bench.   Now sometimes the court must find a duly-enacted law to be unconstitutional (e.g., when a law violates the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law).

Conservatives despise the ACA because they consider it to be unwise policy.  Now that may well be, but the solution is to work to change the law by electing more conservatives to Congress.  Not by counting on the SCOTUS to substitute its preferences for that of the legislature.  As a conservative, I applaud Justice Roberts restraint in upholding a law even that he doesn't necessarily agree with.   It's not the job of the courts to usurp the role of the people and their elected representatives.     

[AnybodyButaDem]

To me, a conservative jurist doesn't legislate from the bench. 

Yet that is exactly the argument Scalia made in his dissent and his primary criticism of the five liberal judges who legislated from the bench.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

It's not a matter of being "happy" with the decision.  It's a matter of whether the SCOTUS should defer when it's Constitutionally able to the actions of the peoples' elected representatives,  or whether it should legislate from the bench.   To me, a conservative jurist doesn't legislate from the bench.   Now sometimes the court must find a duly-enacted law to be unconstitutional (e.g., when a law violates the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law).

Conservatives despise the ACA because they consider it to be unwise policy.  Now that may well be, but the solution is to work to change the law by electing more conservatives to Congress.  Not by counting on the SCOTUS to substitute its preferences for that of the legislature.  As a conservative, I applaud Justice Roberts restraint in upholding a law even that he doesn't necessarily agree with.   It's not the job of the courts to usurp the role of the people and their elected representatives.     

To me, the Constitution has no mention of anywhere that a health care law is even allowed, and is not allowed as per the 10th amendment.

But in 2016, let's be honest, that's just a conservative wet dream. So I do agree with your conclusion, we need to win more elections, period.

[Luis Gonzalez]

It's not a matter of being "happy" with the decision.  It's a matter of whether the SCOTUS should defer when it's Constitutionally able to the actions of the peoples' elected representatives,  or whether it should legislate from the bench.   To me, a conservative jurist doesn't legislate from the bench.   Now sometimes the court must find a duly-enacted law to be unconstitutional (e.g., when a law violates the Constitution's guarantee of the equal protection of the law).

Conservatives despise the ACA because they consider it to be unwise policy.  Now that may well be, but the solution is to work to change the law by electing more conservatives to Congress.  Not by counting on the SCOTUS to substitute its preferences for that of the legislature. As a conservative, I applaud Justice Roberts restraint in upholding a law even that he doesn't necessarily agree with.   It's not the job of the courts to usurp the role of the people and their elected representatives.     

Here's the money quote from Roberts:

In a democracy, the power to make the law rests with those chosen by the people. Our role is more confined—“to say what the law is.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803). That is easier in some cases than in others. But in every case we must respect the role of the Legislature, and take care not to undo what it has done.

Basically, Roberts tells us that if we want the law gone, we need to elect people that get rid of it.

There was an upside to the ACA, it was hugely unpopular with the voters. It was so unpopular in fact, that its unpopularity overshadowed the huge negatives created by the government "shutdown" and gave the GOP huge wins in Obama's Congressional mid term election. I wonder if it was the reaction to the "shutdown" which stopped the GOP from gaining veto-proof majorities in Congress.

But, all was well, because it was the unpopular disaster that the ACA was, plus Obama's dozen other unpalatable decisions that would make the dream of substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Republican in the White House a reality, and we could finally get something done.

Enter Trump.

I'm thinking we lose our majority in the Senate. Hoping that we don't lose it in the House.

We're not going to get the White House.

Trump supports socialized health care.

We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Here's the money quote from Roberts:

Basically, Roberts tells us that if we want the law gone, we need to elect people that get rid of it.

There was an upside to the ACA, it was hugely unpopular with the voters. It was so unpopular in fact, that its unpopularity overshadowed the huge negatives created by the government "shutdown" and gave the GOP huge wins in Obama's Congressional mid term election. I wonder if it was the reaction to the "shutdown" which stopped the GOP from gaining veto-proof majorities in Congress.

But, all was well, because it was the unpopular disaster that the ACA was, plus Obama's dozen other unpalatable decisions that would make the dream of substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Republican in the White House a reality, and we could finally get something done.

Enter Trump.

I'm thinking we lose our majority in the Senate. Hoping that we don't lose it in the House.

We're not going to get the White House.

Trump supports socialized health care.

We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Jazzhead]

Basically, Roberts tells us that if we want the law gone, we need to elect people that get rid of it.

There was an upside to the ACA, it was hugely unpopular with the voters. It was so unpopular in fact, that its unpopularity overshadowed the huge negatives created by the government "shutdown" and gave the GOP huge wins in Obama's Congressional mid term election. I wonder if it was the reaction to the "shutdown" which stopped the GOP from gaining veto-proof majorities in Congress.

But, all was well, because it was the unpopular disaster that the ACA was, plus Obama's dozen other unpalatable decisions that would make the dream of substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress and a Republican in the White House a reality, and we could finally get something done.

Enter Trump.

I'm thinking we lose our majority in the Senate. Hoping that we don't lose it in the House.

We're not going to get the White House.

Trump supports socialized health care.

We snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

Indeed.  It's just a crying shame - this was shaping up to be the best year for conservatives since 1980,  until the ugliness of Trump and his supporters spoiled the brand.

There's still time to reject Trumpism at the party level before the nation has to.   

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Indeed.  It's just a crying shame - this was shaping up to be the best year for conservatives since 1980,  until the ugliness of Trump and his supporters spoiled the brand.

There's still time to reject Trumpism at the party level before the nation has to.

Only thing that heartens me is that I believe the economy will be due for a recession in the next 4 years, and the voters will blame whomever is in charge. We may be glad that a GOPer is not in office when that happens.