The Great Universal Health Care Debate w/Poll (note: it just passed both houses)

[Flash]

"Activist Judges" is a term for judges that legislate from the bench. Instead of reading the Constitution (or the law, depending on the level of judge), they just rule based on what they think is "fair" or "right". For instance, when the Mass. SC told the Mass. congress to pass a law regarding same sex marriage (sorry, I forgot the details and am too lazy to look them up tonight). That's judicial activism. They are getting out of their lanes (judiciary interprets the law.....Legislative writes the law).

Well, Brett327 put it best:

And thus ultimately irrelevant. Nobody gives a rat's ass what some local yokel county judge rules. Important issues will be decided by federally appointed appellate judges and SCOTUS. The whole idea of "legislating from the bench" is something that is made up by people who don't happen to agree with a particular ruling.

Brett

 

[Harrier Dude]

Well, Brett327 put it best:

Local judges do not typically rule on Constituional issues. Empowering the federal judiciary to "decide issues" is de facto legislation from the bench. The legislative branch of the government is supposed to decide issues. They are elected by the people and are accountable to them. The Supreme Court is not.

The Supreme Court is there to decide on whether any challenged law is in accordance with the Constitution or not. Hence it is Constitutional vs. Unconstitutional. Not "right versus wrong" or "legal versus illegal" or even "good versus bad". Whenever they use liberally (definitional, vice political sense of the word) interpreted rulings to override the will of the people as expressed in plain language in the Constitution, they are out of their lane in my opinion.

I am a strict constructionalist. I do not agree when the court is used to infer unwritten "meaning" into the Constitution beyond definitional terms. This has been most often used as a tactic to circumvent the legislative process when proposed ideas are not supported by the will of the people. If the people no longer agree with the writing of part of the Constitution, then we have a mechanism to fix that. Amend the Constitution.

I can certainly understand the theory that people who oppose activist judges (or further the concept in the public dialouge) are dissatisfied with a particular ruling. I think that maintaining a strict constructional mindset across the political spectrum of issues makes the case more believeable.

 

[Spekkio]

The Supreme Court is there to decide on whether any challenged law is in accordance with the Constitution or not. Hence it is Constitutional vs. Unconstitutional. Not "right versus wrong" or "legal versus illegal" or even "good versus bad". Whenever they use liberally (definitional, vice political sense of the word) interpreted rulings to override the will of the people as expressed in plain language in the Constitution, they are out of their lane in my opinion.

You can't just blame the courts, though. Congress can pass an amendment, and the President can just ignore the decision entirely if Congress is in agreement with the policy.

There are times throughout history where the Supreme Court was ignored, such as when they said that segregation was un-Constitutional. We have a system of checks-and-balances. The SC is not all-powerful, no matter how much it tries to pretend it is. There is a supposed Andrew Jackson quote regarding a SC decision.

So the question isn't that the MA SC legislated from the bench, the question is why did the other two branches of government listen to it instead of take the appropriate action? My guess is that the population of MA really didn't have much of an issue with gay marriage, so they let it go.

As far as separation of church and state:

You're right that the Constitution does not specifically say that. However, the 1st amendment was founded clearly on the basis that people should not be forced into worshipping a particular religion by the government. Since schools are run by the state government, and each state has adopted and agreed to adhere to the Constitution, you cannot have schools forcing children to recite prayers.

Again, I don't care if schools offer prayer as an optional service/activity for students (or mandatory with parental consent). However, to force all children to recite a particular prayer in school, which is what often occurred before the court decisions, is, in my opinion, against the spirit of the 1st amendment.

 

[Harrier Dude]

You can't just blame the courts, though. Congress can pass an amendment, and the President can just ignore the decision entirely if Congress is in agreement with the policy.

There are times throughout history where the Supreme Court was ignored, such as when they said that segregation was un-Constitutional.

The Executive Branch is charged with enforcing the laws. Their failures are not the fault of the court (as you stated) but they are at least subject to retribution by the electorate.

WRT your example, which time period are you referring to? Remember, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue at least twice, most notably Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) and Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954). There were exact opposite results. Both were after the proposal of the 14th Amendment (1866) and it's subsequent ratification (1868).

 

[Spekkio]

I was referring to Brown v. Board of Ed.

You can't have the SC subject to the electorate because what they feel is the right decision may not always be the popular one.

Also, I just read the campaign finance thing:

The whole issue surrounding campaign finance reform is that Congressman are supposed to represent the will of the majority of their constituency. When they accept large amounts of donations from a select few people to run their campaigns, they start to favor the donors over the general will of their constituents. It's not hard to see how this breeds corruption.

However, this is also the fault of the general populace in general. Very few people pay any attention to Congressional elections, or bother to look up their representative's voting record.

I don't see how finance reform violates the first amendment, which provides freedom of speech, not freedom of political donations.

 

[Harrier Dude]

I was referring to Brown v. Board of Ed.

Ok, then. That was a failure on the part of the Executive Branch. Or, one could look at it, that the Executive just took too long to eventually enforce the law.

You can't have the SC subject to the electorate because what they feel is the right decision may not always be the popular one.

The Supreme Court is not subject to the electorate because the Constitution says that they aren't (Article III, Section 1). In any event, their job is to determine Constitutionality of a law, not right or wrong or popular or unpopular.

Also, I just read the campaign finance thing:

The whole issue surrounding campaign finance reform is that Congressman are supposed to represent the will of the majority of their constituency. When they accept large amounts of donations from a select few people to run their campaigns, they start to favor the donors over the general will of their constituents. It's not hard to see how this breeds corruption.

However, this is also the fault of the general populace in general. Very few people pay any attention to Congressional elections, or bother to look up their representative's voting record.

I don't see how finance reform violates the first amendment, which provides freedom of speech, not freedom of political donations.

What you say about the influence of special interest groups may be true. I wholeheartedly concur about the ignorance of many of the electorate. Either way, the Constitution doesn't say that Congress can limit the spending of any particular person. Therefore it can not.

If the states want to enact something like this, then they could under the 10th Amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A case against this law could be made by construing the 1st Amendment to protecting political monetary support as a form of speech, but that's not what the amendment literally (and I think fairly simply) says. As a strict constructionist, I would reject that argument.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

You can't just blame the courts, though. Congress can pass an amendment, and the President can just ignore the decision entirely if Congress is in agreement with the policy.

What?? Please go back and read up on how an amendment is passed.

 

[firefriendly]

I would have no problem if my classmates wanted to say a prayer in the morning when I was in school. I would, however, be very upset if I were forced to partake in the act.

So, how can you have this opinion and not translate the same logic to UHC? Just replace a few words in there: "I would have no problem if US citizens chose whether or not to have health care coverage. I would, however, be very upset if I were FORCED TO PARTAKE IN THE ACT of paying into their coverage."

 

[Spekkio]

People's chances of dying are not correlated with praying.

Apples and oranges.

 

[Steve Wilkins]

People's chances of dying are not correlated with praying.

Prove it.

 

[raptor10]

People's chances of dying are not correlated with praying.

Apples and oranges.

Actually the jury is still out on that one...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/778564.stm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/03/23/AR2006032302177.html/
http://www.prayerinamerica.org/

 

[Red Anjin]

Anyway, this thread has tired me out. Thank you to all willing to share their opinions with me and I thank all those who participated in the civil exchange.

Happy Holidays. Take Care.

Thank God. The stupidity can stop. Now lets worry about our Rep. "Civil". Nice. I wonder who you're talking about.

/me dodges poke with sharp stick

Nice try.

 

[Random8145]

Okay I didn't read the whole thread, but IMO "Universal Health Care" is a terrible idea.

Canada outlawed private healthcare years ago, and they have since had people come to America for care and also bureaucrats being caught skirting around the healthcare system there.

Now they are either considering or already have re-implemented private healthcare again (or parts of it anyway).

Healthcare is not a right. It's a service.

Saying healthcare is a right is like saying the 2nd Amendment means the government should supply each of us with a weapon.

 

[Son of a Grunt]

Saying healthcare is a right is like saying the 2nd Amendment means the government should supply each of us with a weapon.

Good point +1 rep

 

[DesertRat]

Universal Healthcare is a step the United States needs to take. Canada has excellent healthcare. We're not talking about taking a step back in medicine. It would be a step forward, but we'll never see it. There are too many lobbyists paid by too many HMOs making contributions to too many politicians.
Protecting and Defending the constitution shouldn't mean just focusing abroad, it should also be focusing within our borders to help our fellow citizens.