Justice Sotomayor blocks Obamacare contraception mandate

[Chris]

President Obama’s besieged Affordable Care Act has suffered another setback with a US Supreme Court justice issuing a temporary injunction late Tuesday preventing enforcement of the law’s contraception mandate against a group of Roman Catholic nuns who provide care to low-income elderly patients....

@ Justice Sotomayor blocks Obamacare contraception mandate (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0101/Justice-Sotomayor-blocks-Obamacare-contraception-mandate)


As Jeffrey Rosen argues in The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, judicial temperaments are unpredictable.

[Codename Section]

They'll say it's because she's Hispanic.

[Cigar]

When is the Right having their Repeal Party? :)

[Mainecoons]

"besieged Affordable (ha!) Care Act. . ."

:rofl:

Is that an understatement or what?

[countryboy]

They'll say it's because she's Hispanic.
It'll be interesting to see if libs excoriate her. I must say, I am pleasantly surprised by Sotomayor's action.

[Green Arrow]

Tell us more about the Almighty SCOTUS and the importance of their opinion.

[Codename Section]

It'll be interesting to see if libs excoriate her. I must say, I am pleasantly surprised by Sotomayor's action.

It's because she's Hispanic. :tongue:

[Cigar]

this country spends Billions on Health Care for people all over this planet. Every American can't afford Health Care and im gland there are still people who care for others, not just themselves and "their" people. Leave it to a minority to be the one to stick it big time to the privilege.

It a new world and your world is long gone.

Go ahead, ban me from this thread also. :)

Im still going to tell it like it is and I don't care who's panties get into a bunch.

Its 2014, and the haters are still crybabies and still losers. :)

[Chris]

this country spends Billions on Health Care for people all over this planet. Every American can't afford Health Care and im gland there are still people who care for others, not just themselves and "their" people. Leave it to a minority to be the one to stick it big time to the privilege.

It a new world and your world is long gone.

Go ahead, ban me from this thread also. :)

Im still going to tell it like it is and I don't care who's panties get into a bunch.

Its 2014, and the haters are still crybabies and still losers. :)



The ACA is not about healthcare, cigar, it's about insurance, about making the insurance companies rich.

[Cigar]

The ACA is not about healthcare, cigar, it's about insurance, about making the insurance companies rich.


Let me guess, your point of view is the only one that counts.

So whats new?

[Guest]

When is the Right having their Repeal Party? :)

The way things are going with Obamacare, it could be any day now. LMFAO

[Guest]

Im still going to tell it like it is and I don't care who's panties get into a bunch.

:)

When did you plan to start "telling it like it is"? All I've seen so far is an angry little guy parroting talking parts.

[darroll]

Congress sure pulled a fast one on Obama.
They also made sure his name was all over it.

[jillian]

@ Justice Sotomayor blocks Obamacare contraception mandate (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0101/Justice-Sotomayor-blocks-Obamacare-contraception-mandate)


As Jeffrey Rosen argues in The Supreme Court: The Personalities and Rivalries That Defined America, judicial temperaments are unpredictable.

we all said sotomayor wasn't a leftie. she was a law and order type judge. i haven't seen her decision. but i disagree with the stay, obviously. although she may have figured no harm no foul.

[Chris]

we all said sotomayor wasn't a leftie. she was a law and order type judge. i haven't seen her decision. but i disagree with the stay, obviously. although she may have figured no harm no foul.


We?

Why do you disagree?

[Cigar]

The way things are going with Obamacare, it could be any day now. LMFAO

Look everyone, a 2014 prediction. :)

Is this one as good as the 2013 predictions?. :)

[countryboy]

Congress sure pulled a fast one on Obama.
They also made sure his name was all over it.
Ummmm, huh? Is anything ever going to be Obama's fault?

[jillian]

We?

Why do you disagree?

read my post

[Cigar]

we all said sotomayor wasn't a leftie. she was a law and order type judge. i haven't seen her decision. but i disagree with the stay, obviously. although she may have figured no harm no foul.


It stops nothing, registrations each and everyday continues. :)

But let the right stroke themselves until they wet themselves. :)

[The Xl]

Let me guess, your point of view is the only one that counts.

So whats new?

It's the only one that's founded in any sort of logic.

It's a bill that forces people to buy into a private product. It's a shit bill, and you won't admit it, or the fact that Obama is a corporate boot licker, because you're a mark for him.

[Chris]

Let me guess, your point of view is the only one that counts.

So whats new?

Is that your POV, and is it the only one counts? Oneupmanship is fun, but amounts to nothing.

[Chris]

read my post

Have, twice, see no explanation why you disagree, only that you do. If you can't articulate it, that's ok you know, just asking.

[Chris]

It stops nothing, registrations each and everyday continues. :)

But let the right stroke themselves until they wet themselves. :)


If it sticks, it means more organizations will be exempt from the ACA.

[The Xl]

If it sticks, it means more organizations will be exempt from the ACA.

What a mess of a bill. There were far better solutions, ever better big government solutions, to the healthcare problem. What a clusterfuck.

Obama and Congress are just paid corporate prostitutes. Despicable.

[jillian]

What a mess of a bill. There were far better solutions, ever better big government solutions, to the healthcare problem. What a clusterfuck.

Obama and Congress are just paid corporate prostitutes. Despicable.

yeah, how stupid for them to use a right wing solution thinking that would get bi-partisan support.

[countryboy]

yeah, how stupid for them to use a right wing solution thinking that would get bi-partisan support.
How many times are you going to repeat that lie?

[The Xl]

yeah, how stupid for them to use a right wing solution thinking that would get bi-partisan support.

Ah, you unwittingly hit the nail on the head.

Both parties are functionally the same on every issue, and bought by big money and influence. You might not like to hear that, but it's the truth, and all evidence points to it. Democrat foreign policy and this clusterfuck of a bill are two of the biggest obvious examples.

[Chris]

yeah, how stupid for them to use a right wing solution thinking that would get bi-partisan support.



What right wing solution, jillian? Are you returning to your oft-debunked theory the ACA is based on a Heritage Foundation paper?

[countryboy]

Ah, you unwittingly hit the nail on the head.

Both parties are functionally the same on every issue, and bought by big money and influence. You might not like to hear that, but it's the truth, and all evidence points to it. Democrat foreign policy and this clusterfuck of a bill are two of the biggest obvious examples.
Yeah, except that her talking point is a lie.

[Chris]

Yeah, except that her talking point is a lie.

Let's say it's wrong. I don't think she intends it.

[countryboy]

Let's say it's wrong. I don't think she intends it.
You're entitled to your opinion.

[The Xl]

Yeah, except that her talking point is a lie.

I was a child in the 90s, but didn't the Republicans champion some psuedo Obamacare like bill where you needed to buy into private insurance, mandate and all of that? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Romney also basically passed Obamacare in his state, and then was nominated by conservatives.

[Peter1469]

I was a child in the 90s, but didn't the Republicans champion some psuedo Obamacare like bill where you needed to buy into private insurance, mandate and all of that? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Romney also basically passed Obamacare in his state, and then was nominated by conservatives.

Remember federalism.

[The Xl]

Remember federalism.

I'm not a fan of state tyranny either. I think both are equally Unconstitutional and violations of natural law. No state, province, whatever, has the right to force you to buy a private product.

Romney wanted to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. Gee, I wonder with what? Probably his own version, which was nearly identical.

[Peter1469]

I'm not a fan of state tyranny either. I think both are equally Unconstitutional and violations of natural law. No state, province, whatever, has the right to force you to buy a private product.

Romney wanted to "repeal and replace" Obamacare. Gee, I wonder with what? Probably his own version, which was nearly identical.

Do you have a cite for the bolded part?

[jillian]

I was a child in the 90s, but didn't the Republicans champion some psuedo Obamacare like bill where you needed to buy into private insurance, mandate and all of that? Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Romney also basically passed Obamacare in his state, and then was nominated by conservatives.

the heritage foundation plan, which later became romneycare and was largely incorporated into the ACA featured an insurance mandate which was heralded by the right for forcing people to take "personal responsibility" for their health care as opposed to uninsured people inundating our hospitals with things that really should be addressed by non-emergency means… at a much lower cost.

[jillian]

Let's say it's wrong. I don't think she intends it.

while i first thank you for acknowledging that it wasn't a lie. i would suggest that i was not wrong but that you disagree… which you are certainly entitled to.

[The Xl]

Do you have a cite for the bolded part?

I'd argue it's a pretty massive violation of the 9th Amendment. Statists don't like to acknowledge its existence, but it's there.

There is nothing that is a bigger violation to a free people or rights in general than forcing people to part with their money to buy a product they don't want. I'd say that's an unalienable right, and the type of thing the founders had in mind with that Amendment.

[Guest]

Ah, you unwittingly hit the nail on the head.



Unwittingly is the only way this drone hits anything.

[The Xl]

the heritage foundation plan, which later became romneycare and was largely incorporated into the ACA featured an insurance mandate which was heralded by the right for forcing people to take "personal responsibility" for their health care as opposed to uninsured people inundating our hospitals with things that really should be addressed by non-emergency means… at a much lower cost.


That's what I've heard as well.

[Green Arrow]

Remember federalism.

Federalism be damned. Force is bad, whether that force is done by a state or the federal government.

[jillian]

You're entitled to your opinion.

and you're entitled to make up whatever you want to, i guess.

[Peter1469]

Federalism be damned. Force is bad, whether that force is done by a state or the federal government.

I didn't state the state ought to; I said it had the authority to do it. Elect the good people to local office.

[Chris]

the heritage foundation plan, which later became romneycare and was largely incorporated into the ACA featured an insurance mandate which was heralded by the right for forcing people to take "personal responsibility" for their health care as opposed to uninsured people inundating our hospitals with things that really should be addressed by non-emergency means… at a much lower cost.



That is utterly false, jillian. The Heritage Foundation paper's suggestion of a mandate was entirely different than the ACA. Think not, then once again you are challenged to cite the paper. Well?

[Chris]

while i first thank you for acknowledging that it wasn't a lie. i would suggest that i was not wrong but that you disagree… which you are certainly entitled to.

Then demonstrate you are right, not by citing opinions from which you get your opinion, but the actual Heritage Foundation paper.

Oh, that's right, you've been challenged on this and shown wrong.

You're of course entitle to your wrong opinion.

[The Xl]

If anyone would like to, with sources, show the differences between the two plans, feel free. I'd like to see the differences.

[Chris]

That's what I've heard as well.



Except it's simply not true. It's an old gotcha argument progressives threw out there. But it has no basis in fact. Surprised?

[Chris]

I didn't state the state ought to; I said it had the authority to do it. Elect the good people to local office.


Not the right, but the might, the force.

[The Xl]

Except it's simply not true. It's an old gotcha argument progressives threw out there. But it has no basis in fact. Surprised?

Wouldn't shock me. I'd like to see the comparison, though.

[Peter1469]

Not the right, but the might, the force.
Well, they do have the right under US jurisprudence regarding the authority of states.

We may wish that they don't. But the best we can do for now is get involved and elect good representatives.

[Chris]

If anyone would like to, with sources, show the differences between the two plans, feel free. I'd like to see the differences.



Sure, the Heritage Foundation plan mandated each household purchase insurance just the same as automobile insurance. It amounted to purchasing catastrophic insurance--it's pretty cheap, had that for son for a while. Each household could freely pick and choose insurance companies and plans--healthcare is left to the responsibility of the individual. That's it.

There's more to the paper, summarized as follows:

http://i.snag.gy/qPCZI.jpg


That is nothing at all like the ACA.


Oh, the paper: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf

Feel free, jillian, to use it as source for your claim...

[Chris]

Wouldn't shock me. I'd like to see the comparison, though.

I've provided the contrast. Let's leave the comparison to jillian.

[Chris]

Well, they do have the right under US jurisprudence regarding the authority of states.

We may wish that they don't. But the best we can do for now is get involved and elect good representatives.


Right, by a monopoly on force.

[Peter1469]

Right, by a monopoly on force.

Pretty much a good summary of human history.

[The Xl]

Sure, the Heritage Foundation plan mandated each household purchase insurance just the same as automobile insurance. It amounted to purchasing catastrophic insurance--it's pretty cheap, had that for son for a while. Each household could freely pick and choose insurance companies and plans--healthcare is left to the responsibility of the individual. That's it.

There's more to the paper, summarized as follows:

http://i.snag.gy/qPCZI.jpg


That is nothing at all like the ACA.


Oh, the paper: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf

Feel free, jillian, to use it as source for your claim...

It's not as bad, but it's quite similar, nearly as ridiculous, and just as Unconstitutional.

It's still forcing someone to buy a private product, is it not?

[countryboy]

the heritage foundation plan, which later became romneycare and was largely incorporated into the ACA featured an insurance mandate which was heralded by the right for forcing people to take "personal responsibility" for their health care as opposed to uninsured people inundating our hospitals with things that really should be addressed by non-emergency means… at a much lower cost.
Was the Heritage Foundation's plan thousands of pages long?

[The Xl]

Pretty much a good summary of human history.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that states can force its citizens to buy a private product.

[countryboy]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that states can force its citizens to buy a private product.
So you are against mandatory auto insurance?

Does the Constitution prohibit states from forcing citizens to buy a private product?

[The Xl]

So you are against mandatory auto insurance?

Yep.

[countryboy]

Yep.
That's cool, but that still doesn't negate the fact that obamadontcare is nothing like the Heritage Foundation plan.

[Chris]

It's not as bad, but it's quite similar, nearly as ridiculous, and just as Unconstitutional.

It's still forcing someone to buy a private product, is it not?

Agreed, on constitutionality--but the similarity is very superficial. There's a mandate to purchase catastrophic insurance whereas this topic is about striking mandating coverage for contraceptives, at the risk of penalties. The mandate is for household responsibility where the topic is about a mandate for employers. I could go on, about the only similarity is the word mandate.

[The Xl]

That's cool, but that still doesn't negate the fact that obamadontcare is nothing like the Heritage Foundation plan.

It's ridiculously similar. Is it exactly the same? No. But it's close, and was likely the blueprint for this clusterfuck.

[countryboy]

Sure, the Heritage Foundation plan mandated each household purchase insurance just the same as automobile insurance. It amounted to purchasing catastrophic insurance--it's pretty cheap, had that for son for a while. Each household could freely pick and choose insurance companies and plans--healthcare is left to the responsibility of the individual. That's it.

There's more to the paper, summarized as follows:

http://i.snag.gy/qPCZI.jpg


That is nothing at all like the ACA.


Oh, the paper: http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/1989/pdf/hl218.pdf

Feel free, jillian, to use it as source for your claim...
Hey, whaddya know? The HF's paper outlining their plan is 9 pages long. How many pages is obamadontcare? How can anyone, with a straight face, compare the two plans?

[countryboy]

It's ridiculously similar. Is it exactly the same? No. But it's close, and was likely the blueprint for this clusterfuck.
You're entitled to your opinion, I disagree.

[The Xl]

Agreed, on constitutionality--but the similarity is very superficial. There's a mandate to purchase catastrophic insurance whereas this topic is about striking mandating coverage for contraceptives, at the risk of penalties. The mandate is for household responsibility where the topic is about a mandate for employers. I could go on, about the only similarity is the word mandate.

The worst part of both bills is the mandate forcing people to buy a private product. That's more than enough. It's obviously more nuanced than that, but the most damaging, biggest precedent setters are present in both bills.

[The Xl]

You're entitled to your opinion, I disagree.

That's what makes the world go round. It would be boring, otherwise.

[Chris]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that states can force its citizens to buy a private product.

For that matter, remember the Obama administration was adamant it was permitted under the commerce clause and not a tax and the court found it the opposite.

Both stretched the Constitution to the breaking point. If the Constitution was a rubberband that would have hurt like hell! But it's just words on paper, robbed of meaning, though the paper may have some value.

[The Xl]

For that matter, remember the Obama administration was adamant it was permitted under the commerce clause and not a tax and the court found it the opposite.

Both stretched the Constitution to the breaking point. If the Constitution was a rubberband that would have hurt like hell! But it's just words on paper, robbed of meaning, though the paper may have some value.

If the Constitution was a rubber band, it wouldn't have just snapped by now, it would have fucking exploded.

[Chris]

The worst part of both bills is the mandate forcing people to buy a private product. That's more than enough. It's obviously more nuanced than that, but the most damaging, biggest precedent setters are present in both bills.

Agree, so the main similarity then is unconstitutionality.

[The Xl]

Agree, so the main similarity then is unconstitutionality.

The mandate, forcing people to buy a private product, in this instance, insurance, and the precedent it sets, are the biggest similarities. And yeah, it's all Unconstitutional.

[Chris]

If the Constitution was a rubber band, it wouldn't have just snapped by now, it would have fucking exploded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aXjr592dYSY

[nathanbforrest45]

Ummmm, huh? Is anything ever going to be Obama's fault?

I understand his kids weren't his fault either

[texan]

It could be true that its about insurance and missing the HC point if it isn't affordable as the name states. When you add things like not well thought out items to plans when they are not required like "the Mexican" judge ruled on elderly people not needing baby coverage you open up things for new rulings. What is amazing is if all judges don't vote the same way.

I admire judges that do the constitutional thing, they don't always step out there. Cigar, maybe you are too entrenched into this battle to admit the right and wrong things this act is causing, I am just not sure.

[Peter1469]

For that matter, remember the Obama administration was adamant it was permitted under the commerce clause and not a tax and the court found it the opposite.

Both stretched the Constitution to the breaking point. If the Constitution was a rubberband that would have hurt like hell! But it's just words on paper, robbed of meaning, though the paper may have some value.

If it was a tax, the law had to originate in the House rather than the Senate. Also, I find it odd to divorce the federal government's tax authority from its actual operating expenses and its operations in furtherance of the limited and enumerated powers given to it by the States.

[nathanbforrest45]

Even if the Heritage Foundation suggested mandated health insurance that does not make this correct. Even if the Heritage Foundation suggested Obamacare it would still be wrong for the American People. I have not seen a complete report from Heritage Foundation regarding mandating insurance. I have seen snippets which may or may not have been taken out of context. It still does not matter, Obamacare is an abomination on the land and should be repealed as soon as possible.

[Cigar]

When's the last time you seen a Hot Nun :laugh:

[zelmo1234]

It's because she's Hispanic. :tongue:

And Catholic!

[Cigar]

And Catholic!

and a Woman :laugh:

[Mr. Freeze]

When's the last time you seen a Hot Nun :laugh:

1999 Sister Mary Appolonia I had wood every time I walked into 9th grade History.

[darroll]

How deep is the left EERP involved in this?

[Chris]

If it was a tax, the law had to originate in the House rather than the Senate. Also, I find it odd to divorce the federal government's tax authority from its actual operating expenses and its operations in furtherance of the limited and enumerated powers given to it by the States.

I don't understand the Robert's ruling, seemed to come out of nowhere. As surprising the SCOTUS deciding the Bush election.

[Chris]

1999 Sister Mary Appolonia I had wood every time I walked into 9th grade History.

Sister Mary Elephant gave us wood, a yardstick across our backs.

[Mr. Freeze]

I don't understand the Robert's ruling, seemed to come out of nowhere. As surprising the SCOTUS deciding the Bush election.

When appointed officials decide the outcome of an election you must tremble for the future. I am always quite sad because America's earliest political writings were so eloquent and awe-inspiring.

[Guest]

When appointed officials decide the outcome of an election you must tremble for the future. I am always quite sad because America's earliest political writings were so eloquent and awe-inspiring.

That's exactly what I was thinking when the highly partisan Democratic Supreme Court for the State of Florida declared that there needed to be a recount. Somebody had to make a ruling...and it turned out that it was a good thing the Florida court wasn't the last word on this.

Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Legislature).

[sachem]

:eek:

[Chris]

That's exactly what I was thinking when the highly partisan Democratic Supreme Court for the State of Florida declared that there needed to be a recount. Somebody had to make a ruling...and it turned out that it was a good thing the Florida court wasn't the last word on this.

Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Legislature).


Disagree, it was a FL matter and should have been decided there.

Not that I think the outcome would have mattered, Gore, Bush, meh. But the intrusion of the federal court set precedent for just more centralized government.

[Chris]

:eek:

:huh:

[jillian]

Disagree, it was a FL matter and should have been decided there.

Not that I think the outcome would have matter, Gore, Bush, meh. But the intrusion of the federal court set precedent for just more centralized government.

until bush v gore, the law was that the highest court of each state determine matters of their own election law so long as there wasn't a federal issue involved (e.g., discrimination, etc.). bush v gore is the only decision i've ever heard of where that was violated. the court knew it was so bad that it stated, in the decision, that it is not precedent for any other case that may come before it.

[Codename Section]

That's exactly what I was thinking when the highly partisan Democratic Supreme Court for the State of Florida declared that there needed to be a recount. Somebody had to make a ruling...and it turned out that it was a good thing the Florida court wasn't the last word on this.

Three concurring justices also asserted that the Florida Supreme Court had violated Article II, § 1, cl. 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_Two_of_the_United_States_Constitution#Clau se_2:_Method_of_choosing_electors) of the Constitution, by misinterpreting Florida election law that had been enacted by the Florida Legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_Legislature).

You're against Federalism?

[Chris]

until bush v gore, the law was that the highest court of each state determine matters of their own election law so long as there wasn't a federal issue involved (e.g., discrimination, etc.). bush v gore is the only decision i've ever heard of where that was violated. the court knew it was so bad that it stated, in the decision, that it is not precedent for any other case that may come before it.


Problem is that won't stop the court from assuming fiat authority again. It's ignoring Amendment X in so many cases is abhorrent.

[Guest]

You're against Federalism?

Not really. My main point was misunderstood. I was responding to someone who didn't like appointed officials deciding elections. I agreed with that, and merely pointed to the extremely partisan Florida Supreme Court in Bush vs. Gore as why I agreed with him.