Right wing Activist Judges overturning healthcare bill

[thewag777]

I do agree that overturning the ENTIRE bill is a case of right-winged judicial activism. However, the MANDATE portion of the bill really is unconstitutional, and should be overturned. You say the framers never intended the Court to have that authority, but according to Article III, they "have the power in all cases arising in law and equity under this Constitution" They have the authority to overturn unconstitutional laws therefore.

[v2joecr]

The mandate that everyone buys insurance makes as much sense as forcing everyone in america to purchase 5 brand new Macintosh computers every year.

[dmtirino]

@v2joecr Healthcare is something we all have to use and share. Macintosh computers are a luxuary

[xlr8r2010]

Speaking of laws being overturned.....kinda like how the LIBERAL judge who crippled Arizona's illegal immigration bill.....the bill stopped dead in its tracks despite the majority of people wanting it passed.Liberals are really pathetic....it sucks we can't deport these anti American assholes,they serve no useful purpose at all...they are a disease.

[kjack5]

Both parties have become pathetic-the republicans are exteremely pathetic because they are fascistly destroying all of our individual rights and workers rights and sovereign rights and laughing while they do it-just because they are on the 'red' team; while the democrats don't even stand up for there rights and Obama is just a patsy who is cattering to the international banksters and is himself a fascist!!

[MrGreeneggsnham]

Where in the Constitution does it say the federal government can force you to buy a service?

[BurnBeforeEating]

The judge who upheld it defended his position by saying that the government had the right to regulate thoughts and inaction. Not a good defense at all.

[CDubSD]

A judge's job is to interpret the law and he must do so according to the Constitution. An activist judge disregards the constitution for his own view...not enforcing the constitution itself.

Do you just make things up and hope people will believe it?

[mccainisthroughX]

Fantastic video John, as usual. Happy VD too!

[why760nitro]

@mccainisthroughX dumb shit obama ass kisser you still say ChairmanMAObama will get re-elected and then michelle obangi does 8 years in the white house ,, all i can say is NA NA NA ..NA NA NA ,, HEY HEY GOOD BY

BWAAHAHAHAHAHA

[Altimadark]

Why exactly do you push for federally mandated health insurance when all it takes is one judge to overturn it, forcing the legislation to start all over?

Why do you advocate federal action when it can take just one election to put the opposing party in charge of that action?

[dloc231]

ok REVOLT enough said lets take it back to 1776 fuck health care and frankly all you people who say violence isnt the answer its because you are a coward take your salmon colored shirt and shove it up your ass do something band together and realize its black and white not multi colored picture books oh are you offended your feelings hurt? STFU you are the problem stop fighting each other and if you are afraid then stfu because you dont count do the right thing

[HomoCyborgZombie]

@profwito I knew I should have added "so I'm told".

But you're like, responding to everybody it seems, so you can fuck off now.

[HomoCyborgZombie]

Car insurance.

Health insurance.

You're kind of pressured to get both, and you'll be fined more if you don't and have an accident.

[Hyena62]

Lee, it's commical how anyone with a video camera seems to think they're smart enough to offer up commentary contrary to what YOU have to say......AS AN ATTORNEY!!! You know......someone who has gone to college to STUDY the rule of law!!! I...am not an attorney, but do have an opinion as well. I find it amazing how people find ways to twist words about so as to fit their opinion. The Constitution is rather plainly worded, and as being a firm believer in clear, self-evident truths, it works.

[CRTV1982]

You know what, the judge did not take an activist position, the law is un-Constitutional. An activist judge would be someone like Kagan who advocated a ban on political pamphlets. An activist ruling would be Roe v Wade where the government overturned the laws to 49 States with no authority to do so. This current adminstration has nominated a few judicial activists already. Where is your disdain for that?

[matcotech]

As to the Citizens United ruling, that was a scam. Hopefully, a conservative justice will retire (or expire) and a new progressive will be seated. I'm glad to have Sotomeyor and Kegan. We just need one more.

[matcotech]

Yeah, It was a dick move by the circuit Judge. Certainly we can be compelled to buy car insurance, through the "necessary and proper" clause. Health insurance is no more invasive surely. Gun ownership is part and parcel with the privileges of being American although we consider it a right. It makes life immediately more dangerous, however it is a guarantee against the worst kinds of tyranny. Things can degrade quickly in bad times.

[Ramiiam]

@matcotech

Unless I'm mistaken, car insurance is mandated by state law, not federal law. Nothing I can see in the constitution would prevent a state from mandating car insurance, health insurance, etc. But the question here is what the federal government may do.

[Cennedi]

You are an idiot. The bill is unconstitutional.

[ConservativeResponse]

This is mandating, not incentivizing. You either aren't very smart or just selectively constitutional. Either way it's laughable.

[PoliticallyBlazed]

@j0hnwi11iams Your understanding of judicial process is as defective as your grasp of Obamacare. The Health Care Bill’s individual mandate and correspondingly Judge Vinson’s ruling was not based on anything remote to, ahem, “tax law” but limits of government to control INACTIVITY under the Constitution.

Face it, John, Obamacare is DEAD; a law with no teeth, wholly unenforceable, until SCOTUS rules otherwise. And the latter isn’t likely by all indications.

[QuartuvLarry]

There's nothing activist about the Constitution. Judge did the right thing. Period.

The Constitution is not just an inconvenient document;

it's the LAW!

[j0hnwi11iams]

@profwito It is ridiculous that a simple majority on the supreme court can strike down a law.

[JohananRaatz]

@j0hnwi11iams Well look, the judiciary was originally meant to play umpire. With the advent of activist judges though the judiciary has no choice but to "play sides" to counter the judicial activism on the other side. That's how you end up with right-wing judges doing it as well. It's like that video you had about propaganda in the news and how the other channels do it to but Fox News started it. It's just that in this particular case the left started it with judicial activism.

[Trimbler00]

The Constitution specifically allows our government to lay and collect taxes... no such amendment exists allowing our government to operate healthcare. Simple as that.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@Trimbler00 There is no amendment for ANY government program, including police, fire, schools, etc.

[migkillertwo]

@j0hnwi11iams those aren't federal programs

[matt4787]

@j0hnwi11iams And amazingly our federal government doesn't run police or fire departments. And I agree the constitution does not enumerate the federal government power with schools and hence the Department of Education is unconstitutional until it is amended into the constitution. How come the school system in America has declined to other Nations in since the 1970s (when we established DOE)? Sounds like we aren't getting the bang for the buck.

[matt4787]

@j0hnwi11iams Also in regards to the commerce clause. There is an inherent difference of subsidizing/incentivizing a product/service to someone to go buy it with tax breaks to get that product. But they are not giving tax breaks for it they are giving tax penalties if you don't buy it. The bill was put together poorly. Forcing to buy something is absurd and a very slippery slope. And with that said it is needed for the Healthcare law to make any sort of sense.

[CRTV1982]

@j0hnwi11iams Those are not at federal level either. You really need to read the Constitution. And yes the Federal government funding those entities is un-Constitutional as well. Just as un-Constitutional as ACORN recieving federal subsidies.

[CRTV1982]

@j0hnwi11iams And guess what, Congress and the Adminstration promised us left and right that the individual mandate was not a tax when they were trying to ram the bill through. Now that it is infront of a court it is now a tax? You progressives need to get your story straight.

[Trimbler00]

@j0hnwi11iams These programs are delegated to the States by the 10th Amendment. Healthcare is, of course, not a state issue, but a federal one.

[caferoflz]

@j0hnwi11iams yeah but those are primarily state/local run institutions. Not federal.

[BurnBeforeEating]

@j0hnwi11iams It's called the Tenth Amendment. Those powers are left to the states.

[jkessler410]

@j0hnwi11iams which is why the federal governments don't provide police, fire departments or schools.. last time I checked those where state/city provided.

[Trenaway]

You have absolutely no idea how our government works! There are three branches. The executive the congress and the judiciary. The executive is the watch dog of the judiciary, the congress is the watchdog of the executive branch and the judiciary is the watchdog of the congress. Now the judiciary is the watchdog to make sure that laws are NOT unconstitutional and have the power to strike them down if they are. They tell the congress they must rewrite the law or start over to make if constitution

[j0hnwi11iams]

@Trenaway You need to look at the constitution. Branches of government have SEPARATE powers. They are not "watchdogs". The legislature creates law. The executive enforces the law. The judiciary examines evidence and determines guilt.

[spanky061970]

@j0hnwi11iams "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority". This is the part of the constitution which gives the power of review to the judicial branch. Do you understand what this means?

[MrMarinegold]

People like you pave the way for dictatorships!!!

[Hellsadvocate]

@MrMarinegold No, violent revolutions pave the way for dictatorships. Take a look at history. Russia, Cuba, Iran and Germany all started out as a "Democratic liberal" mask, then turned into an authoritarian state soon after. Just like the current middle east situation.

[spanky061970]

As the judge's opinion stated, the commerce clause does not give the government the right to regulate inactivity. In other words, the legislation can not mandate that citizens engage in commerce. The argument that the legislation would impose increased taxes on those who do not purchase insurance is simply inane. The legislation clearly imposes "fines" for those failing to purchase insurance. You can not call a fine a tax. And since the mandate is not separable from the law, the law is void.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@spanky061970 You are compelled to perform a number of duties according to the constitution, including paying taxes and jury duty, and at one time the military draft. This mandate is rather mild compared to some others, and the punishment is no where near as severe.

[matt4787]

@j0hnwi11iams Taxes and jury duty are in the constitution. Where is the power to force people to buy something?

[spanky061970]

@j0hnwi11iams So now engaging in commerce is a duty in the same sense as jury duty or serving your country in the military? You are reaching with this argument. The commerce clause does not give the congress the power to regulate inactivity. You can not say that because we have to serve on a jury we also have to buy insurance.

[JohananRaatz]

Well the courts have to be able to shoot down unconstitutional laws. Otherwise there would be no way to put a check on laws which are unconstitutional.

But can give tax breaks to promote things, but you can't give tax penalties for people not participate in an activity -like buying health insurance. There is a subtle yet important difference there.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@JohananRaatz A lot of the amendments that have been added to the constitution have been put there because of activist judges. Certainly the constitution is law, but the interpretation of it is not precise and it seems ridiculous to me that a simple majority on the supreme court can overturn law.

[shananagans5]

@j0hnwi11iams You are aware that is one of the functions of the court? I see no way healthcare law is constitutional. Forcing someone to buy coverage? Really? Up tp 33% of their income before the gov helps with that cost. Not to mention that is coming out of someone elses pocket. On a pratical side, can someone making $1,200 a month survive after paying $400 for coverage. $800 a month makes it real hard to pay rent & buy food. What about someone making $1,000 a month?

[JohananRaatz]

@j0hnwi11iams Well that may be so, but the judiciary was originally meant to shoot down unconstitutional laws. Now has it been politicized yes unfortunately, but that is due to judicial activism in the first place. Now that the left does it, the right feels like it must do it as well in order to achieve balance.

As for the healthcare law in particular, I don't think it's constitutional to penalize someone because they didn't do something. It's like claiming ownership on the populace.

[Altimadark]

@j0hnwi11iams Name those for us, please. I'd like to know which federal constitutional amendments were added without any elected representation.

[Wintermute01001]

Of the two judges who opposed the new health care law, one worked for a GOP consulting firm and the other is being ripped to shreds by law scholars from both parties.

[bsharker]

not thumbing up or down. just laughing that a judge who rules with the constitution and opposing your view is an activist judge.

[spanky061970]

@bsharker We used to call those judges "constructionist" or "Originalist". Now they are called activist?

[j0hnwi11iams]

@spanky061970 When an "originalist" like Scalia looks at the 14th amendment written to emancipate slaves and thinks "corporations are people", I think we summize that he is full of shit.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@bsharker Activist is legislating from the bench. Striking down an entire bill is VERY activist.

[PissedFechtmeister]

In 2012 when Palin gets elected President watch her raise taxes on atheists, Democrats, and gun non-owners. Hey, it's just tax law.

[thegillotine09]

@PissedFechtmeister

If Palin gets elected I seriously will take a break from America and just travel the globe for 4 years wearing a Canadian flag.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@PissedFechtmeister I would like to see her try. How long do you think she would last?

[PissedFechtmeister]

@j0hnwi11iams She'd get re-elected.

[Ramiiam]

I predict this argument is going to fail before the Supreme Court. Call it a tax penalty all you want; it is in fact a fine that the federal government will levy. So the question will be: does the federal government have the power to order citizens to purchase a product from a private insurance company, and fine them if they do not? Obama could have avoided this problem if he had fought for his public option.

[Ramiiam]

@Ramiiam

PS. The idea that there are no constitutional limitations on how the federal government may use tax policy is just crazy. If it turns out that it has no right to mandate that individuals buy private health insurance, then it would follow that it may not use tax policy to enforce that mandate. And a mandate it certainly is.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@Ramiiam Think of it as an incentive to buy insurance, not unlike the incentive to own a home by getting a tax break on the interest. That is punitive tax individuals who do not own homes must pay.

[spanky061970]

@Ramiiam A single payer is constitutional while this individual mandate is not. It is funny how, for the sake of political expediency, the President will "Take what he can get". If this were truly about insuring people who can not afford insurance or who have pre-existing conditions, there are ways through medicare and the medicare tax to do this without this unconstitutional monstrosity. No this is about control and the ability to regulate the lifestyle of all Americans.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@spanky061970 The mandate is constitutional. You do not have to buy insurance if you simply refuse. However, your tax goes up if you intend on being willfully stupid.

[Ramiiam]

@j0hnwi11iams

I agree with spanky. But we will see who is right--by a vote of 5 to 4, most likely.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@Ramiiam The supreme court has shown a willingness for do the bidding of corporate america, so my guess is that they will allow it because the private health insurance industry benefits.

[Ramiiam]

@j0hnwi11iams

And in this case...you would be for them doing the bidding of corporate america...?

[HowTheWorldWorks]

1) An activist judge is defined as a Judge that substitues his or her judgement for the actual Constitution. Declaring a law unconstitutional is the legitimate action of a judge;

2) That nonsensical Tax argument is totally baseless as I debunked yesterday. tinyurl --> 4et4lxx

[asleeperj]

@HowTheWorldWorks 1)Agreed.

2)We have an amendment for income taxes, which should be repealed, prior to that amendment, all income taxes, on the federal level, have been deemed unconstitutional.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@asleeperj I would certainly favor more emphasis on tariffs and property taxes. Income taxes are necessary for a modern nation trying to create an internationally competitive infrastructure.

[asleeperj]

@j0hnwi11iams Income taxes are not necessary, they are a hindrance. States without income taxes, and have right to work laws, faired far better, and consequently are not in the same financial dire straights as highly taxed states.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@HowTheWorldWorks The constitution is subject to interpretation. No judge holds the absolute truth when it comes to handing down judgement on constitutionality. I would rather they not. I thought you were in favor of states rights. How does letting the supreme court decide the law of the land empower states at all?

[Hellsadvocate]

@HowTheWorldWorks Interesting how when it suits YOUR needs it's a legitimate action, but when it happens to not suit your needs it's an "activist judge". It's interesting how you don't seem to realize that the constitution is up for interpretation...

[notLordMonckton]

@HowTheWorldWorks, let me quess, you practically live on youtube, or at least post your videos and then sit back waiting for posts that either stroke your delicate ego or which you delete and block the poster. It's not a guess, as you just censored my post on hLqrBvu8ios and BLOCKED me WITHIN SECONDS. What a PATHETIC DEBATING FREE SPEECH WEAKLING you are. Too bad you can't delete THIS post and double block. As for the post you couldn't stand for other's to see I'll REPOST IT HERE (con't)

[notLordMonckton]

@HowTheWorldWorks, (con't) IT'S BEEN OVER 3 YEARS. You started as Advocate1234 for a year before moving those subscribers to HowTheWorldWorks. On par with DrinkingWithBob's 37,000 subs but short of StevenCrowder's 46,000 subs in 2 years.

What about your last predictions, fall 2009?

1. Have 20,000 subs by January 2010 but came up 3,000 short

2. have more subs than ThunderF00t by January 2011, but sill 90,000 short. 75% sub growth in 2010 is great but won't catch ThunderF00t's 100% increase

[Trimbler00]

@notLordMonckton No wonder your comment was blocked, these are infantile personal attacks. Let's keep the dialogue on Doren's political arguments, not his popularity.

[notLordMonckton]

@Trimbler00, why should anyone care about your empty opinions?

What EXACTLY in the above post (ie "IT'S BEEN OVER 3 YEARS...") is "infantile" and not purely factual? You conveniently don't say. You can't back up your hollow opinions.

As for restricting dialogue to "Doren's political arguments", there are no such arguments in his video hLqrBvu8ios only skewed claims, which my factual comment above addresses. Lee hates facts trumping his distortions, which is why he censors and blocks.

[3101010]

@HowTheWorldWorks Lee Doren is an idiot and has me blocked becouse he sucks dick like a little fag.

[matcotech]

I don't think the supreme court will strike it down. I really don't have a problem with it needing to pass constitutional muster. I'm thankful we have such checks protecting us from the republican clown party.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@matcotech I certainly think civil rights are worth protecting, but rights have precedence which the right would like to completely ignore. Certainly the protection of LIFE is more important than the right for people to be stupid.

The law does this in a manner that is not overly punitive and purely through tax laws.

[asleeperj]

In the Vid you said "First of all an activist judge is one who overturns the rule of law, as determined by the legislature. That's not what our founders intended. They intended for the court to rule on law not to judiciate from the bench..."

ANY COURT can determine a law UNCONSTITUTIONAL. That decision can only be overturned by a HIGHER court, Then it is appealed to the Supreme court. Get you US government straight before you make a video.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@asleeperj I was stating what the founders intended, not what is in practice today. Striking down laws is the moral equivalent of making law, and that was to be the sole responsibility of congress. The courts overstepped their bounds very early in this country and continue to do so. The courts are to weigh evidence against law, not weigh law against their particular interpretation of the constitution.

[asleeperj]

@j0hnwi11iams Judges are bound first by the Constitution. If a law violates it, they can over turn it. It's funny that you argue for an implied power given to congress in the commerce clause, and yet don't keep things consistent when it comes to article III and VI. Chisholm v. Georgia, The court ruled directly on the constitution, then the 11th amendment was passed, you want more government regulation in healthcare, get an amendment.

[asleeperj]

@j0hnwi11iams You use TAX laws? IT"S A constitutional amendment! the 16th to be exact, and it should be REPEALED. Prior to that amendment, income taxes have been struck down in court as unconstitutional SEVERAL TIMES. Learn your history. Certain tax breaks for certain behaviors, is another form of government bureaucratic, and lobbyists meddling in the economy. All economic problems in this country have been directly caused by government intervention.

[asleeperj]

You use TAX laws? IT"S A constitutional amendment! The 16th to be exact, and it should be REPEALED. Prior to that amendment, income taxes have been struck down in courts, as unconstitutional, SEVERAL TIMES. Learn your history. Certain tax breaks for certain behaviors, is another form of government bureaucratic, and lobbyists meddling in the economy. All economic problems in this country have been directly caused by government intervention.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@asleeperj When you start using superlatives like "ALL ECONOMIC PROBLEMS" I know you are basically talking out of your ass.

[Trenaway]

@matcotech and I am glad that we are (Conservatives) the majority in this country or we would not have one. You people on the left hate this country and our Constitution. Please leave, you traitor and take your President wannabe dictator with you! Bye!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[j0hnwi11iams]

@Trenaway You have been listening to too much Rush Limbaugh. The "left" as you put it does not hate the country, we simply think that the country would be better off as a democracy rather than an oligarchy.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@matcotech With the radical right wing in the supreme court judging in favor of citizens united, it's clear to me that neither precedent nor Scalia's precious original intent matter much to these corporatists.

[migkillertwo]

Look up United States V. Butler. 

[SecularNumanist]

@migkillertwo

>>Look up United States V. Butler.

This.

[j0hnwi11iams]

@migkillertwo It is a well known fact that the conservative court during the great depression did nothing but obstruct FDR at every opportunity.