This generation's Roe v. Wade, Brown vs. Board---Supreme Court moves on Obamacare.

Supreme Court's Thomas goes 5 years without questions
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAYUpdated 3/1/2011 11:42:38 AM

WASHINGTON — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas hit a milestone Tuesday by not asking a single question during the morning's oral arguments. It has been five years since Thomas uttered a question to a lawyer arguing a case.

Thomas, named to the bench in 1991 by the first President Bush, was generally a silent justice from the start, although he did ask questions on occasion. His last public query came Feb. 22, 2006, in a death penalty case from South Carolina testing when certain forensic evidence should be admitted at trial.



Thomas, 62, has given many explanations through the years for his unwillingness to speak up during the hour-long sessions that supplement the written briefs submitted in a case.

"I had grown up speaking a kind of dialect," Thomas, who was born in Pin Point, Ga., and raised by his grandparents in nearby Savannah, told a group of students in 2000. Classmates "used to make fun of us. ... I just started developing the habit of listening. ... I didn't ask questions in college or law school. I could learn better just listening."

More recently, Thomas said he thought lawyers should be able to do more of the talking during the hour-long sessions, to better explain their legal positions.

"I think there are far too many questions," he said in a 2009 interview with C-SPAN. "Some members of the court like that interaction. ... I prefer to listen and think it through more quietly."

Referring implicitly to how active his eight colleagues are in their questioning, Thomas said, "I think you should allow people to complete their answers and their thought and to continue their conversation. I find that coherence that you get from a conversation far more helpful than the rapid-fire questions. I don't see how you can learn a whole lot when there are 50 questions in an hour."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/supremecourtjustices/2011-02-23-RWthomas22_ST_N.htm#

 

Time to find a new country

 

I think if Kennedy swings in favor, Roberts will too so he can decide who writes the opinion.

 

What the hell are you talking about? No Supreme Court Judge said healthcare can't be regulated. Healthcare currently is regulated in many ways in this country as are other industries. What some judges have hinted at is that you can't force two private parties into a contract solely because of existence.

 

Good stuff here.

 

make it so.

 

Legal realism in a nutshell. What is Constitutional is whatever currently five S.Ct. judges say.

It is amusing, yet enraging to see the radical activism of the conservative judges and failure to follow precedent. After many years of spouting crap about activism and following precedent. And the still do it!! And the media acts like they mean it somehow!!

 

Two things:

1. 57 million of those under 65 have pre-existing conditions that would likely lead to denial of coverage. That's 22% of Americans under 65. That number does not include those whose pre-existing conditions would raise rates or trigger a diminished amount of coverage. Nor does it cover the number of uninsured who have not had conditions diagnosed because, you know, they don't have coverage. I think such a large percentage of Americans has an effect on the national economy that broccoli eaters don't.

http://www.familiesusa.org/resources/publications/reports/health-reform/pre-existing-conditions.html

2. Nobody thought this was unconstitutional until Obama took it up. The basic idea was generated by Republicans, lined out by the Heritage Foundation, and implemented by the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination when he was a governor. As soon as it passed and signed by Obama, it became the evil socialist takeover even though it bends over backwards to keep the private insurance companies in play. This "Constitutional challenge" started on the fringe and is going to end up as a close decision in the Supreme Court and that tells you everything you need to know about the current Republican Party... Don't like a President? let's impeach him. Don't like a President? Let's arbitrarily interpret the Constitution and precedent only in the way that favors our immediate political interest and have our Federalist Society lackeys support our conclusions.

 

The government created this mess, end of story.

 

The mess exists as a fundamental property of civilization: organizing efforts to meet the needs of the people. The people need healthcare, the people are prepared to pay for the healthcare of the indigent rather than see human suffering. You can do it under the current tax supported structure that allows for a large level of freeloaders or you can do it in a way that spreads the burden as universally as possible.

pretty simple

 

image upload

Basically what I pointed out yesterday.

 

You can pay for your own crap. Even more simple.

 

your butthurtedness notwithstanding, there is a simple solution to the "problem" you outline. pass a healthcare bill that is constitutional. universal healthcare may or may not be a "right", and were it to fail that test, it might still be a "good thing." some might differ, for various reasons. but, should you feel strongly that your opinion on the matter, and the opinions of your confreres, should prevail, elect legislators, and a president, who will enact a bill that will pass constitutional muster.

this one still might. if it does not, it does not follow that we should jettison our entire system of government to achieve an outcome that you, and yours, would favor.

do it right, or don't do it.

 

Question if the supreme court strikes down the mandate will Romneycare and the health insurance mandate in Massachussets be deemed unconstitutional?

Other than it's a state issue and not on a federal level it's the exact same debate. In Mass you must have insurance or you are penalized through your state taxes.

 

What are you talking about? The problem is the politics of the moment have more bearing on what is constitutional than the Constitution. Until the bill was passed, nobody questioned whether this would pass muster or not. Everyone agreed it would.

Likewise, we're not advocating an overthrow of the system, we're just asking that the rules be followed. Otherwise, how would Congress ever know what would pass muster? The country would be ruled by the whims of the men on the court and the rule of law would change as frequently as the seasons.

 

What % of people in this thread at least listened to the oral arguments?

 

Who is this " everyone" of which you speak. Can you provide some contemporaneous link to support your contention?