Quote:
Originally Posted by djplong
From: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news...onstitutional-
The judge's words are quoted:
As I predicted, you cannot Constitutionally require someone to buy something simply for EXISTING.
So, for those of you who didn't like "Obamacare" and opposed it with a passion, how do you feel about THIS form of "legislating from the bench"? After all, the law was passed by a majority of those who were elected BY THE PEOPLE.
Ok, sarcasm over 
In all seriousness, from the start, I said that the government has a better argument (Constitutionally speaking) for a single-payer system akin to the UK & Canada due to the "interstate commerce" clause - which the judge refers to in talking about health care being 1/6th the economy - than in requiring an insurance purchase with the 'individual mandate'.
Unfortunately it seems that each side is in an "all or nothing" argument while the idea of the system that are rated far better than ours, Canada's or the UK's (a joint public/private system like in Switzerland and France) don't even get mentioned. |
Unless this is your humor; you have a funny way of twisting things. Congress is not omnipotent. Congress has to abide by the Constitution. When the Court wields it's power correctly, as in this case, it's to remind Congress of this limit to it's power. To strike down a law because it overrides the Constitution, is not "legislating from the bench". This is the Court's actual role in matters like this.
To say Canada's and the U.K.'s health care system is better than our free market system which has revolutionized treatments and medicines for the whole world is preposterous. You would dumb down our medical world as the schools have dumbed down education by bringing us all down to equal; instead of striving to bring those who are down to a higher level.