Sotomayor accuses Supreme Court of bias in favor of Trump administration

All rulings that decide Constitutional questions are a form of "legislating from the bench." McConnell know this. You should too.

 

That is not the purpose for which our courts were established. They are there to ensure that the laws enacted do not violate our Constitutional rights, not to create their own laws.

 

No one is forced to take employer based health benefits. If someone wants to, what the hell business is that of yours?

What sort of horseshit it this? Some accepts an offer for health insurance assistance and you go into an all caps rage? Are you sure you a good choice for throwing around the charge of "insane"?

No it doesn't. I don't want a government worker in charge of my healthcare.

No they haven't.

Nobody cares about it. It's there, if you want it use it.

Sure it is.

Why is it any of your damn business if I want to enter into an agreement with my employer for them to cover some of my healthcare premiums?

The way you folks thirst for the ability to arbitrarily exercise government authority illustrates why you cannot be trusted with it.

Amazon's hiring, right now, and they provide health care coverage even for part time employees, so, if you lost your job, go apply at Amazon. Now, there is a catch, you will actually have to work. But, hard work is a real character builder, you'll be the better for it.

 

All the Europeans will.
Glad I am can go see my doc

 

Sotomayor accuses Supreme Court of bias in favor of Trump administration

Of course. She doesn't think we already know that. It is what happens when you have a court with a majority conservative bent. But thanks, Sonia, you may have informed someone somewhere.

 

I don't want a government worker deciding whether I get a medical procedure or not either. But right now, an accountant in a business office in our health care insurance company is doing that. How is that better?

 

We'll see. My wife has repeatedly told me, many times, the single best medical care she's ever received in her life was during a visit to Canada, when she had emergency surgery. She stayed in an ultra-modern, ultra-clean, hospital for three days, had successful surgery, & when released, only had to pay for the cost of running the TV she watched in her room. Total cost: $29.00. She says nurses came into her room regularly about every hour to check on her throughout the three days. How do you compare that to our dismal medical system here?

 

Because they have to answer to the Free-Market and government employees do not.

If Private employees had repeatedly lied to FISA to illegally spy on the President of the United States, knowingly misleading the court into believing that disinformation from Russian Intelligence was trustworthy Western Intelligence, they would be up on charges, yet, NOT A SINGLE PERSON HAS BEEN INDICTED.

I at least have SOME power and recourse in a market approach, I have NOTHING when facing a faceless bureaucrat that probably thinks Trump supporters, or "climate deniers" or pro-choice, or Conservative Christians are evil. No way in hell I'm going to trust them to determine what health care I should receive. These idiots tried to put Little Sisters of the Poor out of business because they wouldn't provide abortifacients to nuns whose service requires a vow of celibacy. These people hate folks like me and I heartily hold them in equivalent disdain.

 

You are badly confused. You cannot "legislate" constitutional changes, that requires a constitutional convention followed by ratification by 38 State Legislatures.

This is not the job of unelected Judges and Cocaine Mitch is crystal clear on that.

 

1. Not having to answer to the "free market" relieves the decision maker(s) from having to consider profit as part of the equation. Government is more free to allow certain expensive treatments if they are free from that profit consideration. That would appear to favor government over private healthcare, if that was your only concern.
2. The only one who has repeatedly been caught lying in that whole mess, was Trump himself, & he can't be arrested while President.
3. I agree with your point here--partly. We liberals, supporting national healthcare for all, insist on having two people make ALL the decisions--including the FINAL decisions--on specific treatments. Those two people will always be YOU & YOUR DOCTOR. No other choice is acceptable.

 

You're reading my post wrong. I'm not talking about "Constitutional changes." I'm talking about federal, state & local laws for which rulings by the courts are required. If the question requires any legal interpretation of the Constitution as a significant part of the eventual ruling, then those making the final decision, are required to place some personal interpretation on the existing wording of that Constitution in order to make that ruling. Doing that often imposes significant changes in the way we read the meaning of that Constitution, & the laws allowed to thrive under it. That's, in effect, an alternative form of "legislating" a law.

 

She never sided against Obama in a single case. She has her interpretation of the laws, the conservative majority has theirs. Deal with it.

 

It's not my problem if you misstated your point. You posted the following:

When Original Intent is followed the Constitution is NOT changed. When a Court Changes the Constitution through a ruling, they have abrogated a Constitutional Convention, the vote of 34 States and the ratification conventions of 38 States. Trump Judges will NOT engage in this misuse of power.

That isn't what you said. If you are unclear on the distinction between interpreting the Constitution (Originalism) and interpreting Legislation (Textualism), then you should study and ponder that and you will leave that experience much better informed.

Trump judges take a TEXTUAL approach to interpreting legislation.

For that, these Originalist Judges use originalism specifically so they do NOT alter the constitution by abrogating the role of 3/4ths of the State Legislatures. Judges are UNELECTED it is not their role to legislate or alter either the Constitution or Legislation.

No it doesn't. It may require research in order to understand the meaning at the time of ratification or legislation, but that goes with the job. Further, in order to ensure that Citizens have proper notification of what is required in order to remain law-abiding, precedent is used to make sure they are not violating notice requirements.

To simplify: Legislators draft rules that govern FUTURE behavior. Citizens are owed adequate notice and laws clear enough to be easily understood.

Judges apply the Constitution and Law to PAST facts. If while doing this, they change law or the Constitution, the Citizen is deprived of notice and the rules are CHANGED after the act. Even you should be able to figure out why that is an unjust exercise of authority.

Do you take this same view on the title of your home? The rules outlining your mortgage agreement? The limits of your insurance policy? Do you think that the terms of those agreements just "change" without notice? Do you take the same view of your wedding vows?

If you want to change the Constitution, a Constitutional Convention or 2/3rds majority of both Houses of Congress followed by 3/4ths of States ratifying. EVERYONE one involved in this process are ELECTED officials. This is NOT the proper role of UNELECTED Judges. Trump and McConnell both understand this.

If you want to change Legislation, majorities in both ELECTED Houses of Congress, signed by the ELECTED President is required. This is NOT the proper role of UNELECTED Judges. Trump and McConnell both understand this.

Nobody thrives under arrogated misuse of power.

No it isn't. Applying the law to PAST circumstances without altering the meaning of the law as passed and signed is the OPPOSITE OF legislating from the bench.

Your inability to recognize the difference has no effect on it's ontological state.

 

No. The States regulating Insurance Carriers require them to maintain reserves adequate to service their policies. And this wasn't the concern I expressed. I don't want a Government Worker telling me what I can and cannot have.

You have completely lost your way in this discussion. If that's what you want to discuss, find an appropriate topic and discuss it.

There is nothing "Liberal" about Left-Wing Authoritarianism.

Subsidized policies are available for those that want them. Those in poverty are entitled to medicaid. You are insisting on implementing a solution without a legitimate need.

Have you had any dealings with folks covered by Medicare/Medicaid? Because that is NOT how it works.

 

Interesting post, & one I disagree with wholeheartedly. But that's the advantage of living in a democracy--we're all entitled to an opinion.

 

1. For the past five years, up until January of this year, I was on an exorbitantly expensive medication I couldn't afford, but my insurance company refused to cover for me. I won't discuss the work-around solution I had to deal with, but sufficient to say, it was unpleasant. And, this wasn't the first time in my medical life I faced this problem. Whatever your concerns about any national healthcare system telling you what treatments or medications you're entitled to, I assure you, our current system has the same problem in spades. I'm shocked you find it so easy to defend them.
2. Agreed. But as a "liberal," I am uncompromisingly opposed to "authoritarianism" altogether. Please note, there's nothing enticing about right-wing authoritarianism either.
3. In 2010, when the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was first enacted, there were about 46.5 million Americans uninsured for healthcare access. Obamacare gradually reduced that to just under 27 million by 2016. Obamacare was at best, a partial solution. But Republican opposition since 2016, has reduced Obamacare's effectiveness to the point that it's again climbed far back up into the higher digits. Republicans have also riddled Medicaid, making it far less effective that its former self. All this leaves an ever increasing portion of our poorest population barred from attaining medical treatment. That's not the story of a successful medical system for any country sorry enough to own it.
4. You are correct on this particular point. I do have family members on Medicare. It's not perfect, but it's a gigantic improvement over the coverage available for those who are uninsured. I agree with Bernie Sanders & Eliz. Warren, in that access to healthcare should be a human right. We need to treat it that way.

 

There is no logical grounds for disagreement with the fact that:
i) Judges apply the law to past facts, properly operating, they do not write law nor change the constitution, those functions are reserved for the elected branches.

Here is just one real life example of the incredible harm to human rights that can occur when judges presume to not follow the law as written: United States v. Games-Perez.

On 24 July 2009, a judge had told Games-Perez, when he was pleading guilty to armed robbery,

"Here is what will happen today, if I accept your plea today, hopefully you will leave this courtroom not convicted of a felony."​

Less than one year later, on 9 May 2010, Games-Perez was caught by members of the Denver police force in possession of a .380 caliber pistol. The prosecutor then charged him with being a felon in possession of a fire arm. The statute he was charged with required that he knowingly do two things simultaneously:

1. Be a felon, and
2. Be in possession of a firearm.

As the judge has expressly told him he was NOT a felon, he argued that he could not be found guilty of this statute.

The prosecutor argued that no, that this law modified an older law that required only proving that the felon was in possession of a firearm, not that he also knew that he was a felon. Further, the prosecutor argued that in light of the problem of gun violence, that it would simply be too burdensome for the government to be required to prove the first prong of the statute. The prosecutor argued that it would be "unreasonable" to apply the statute as written, in the end the court agreed and off he went to federal prison.

The court agreed that knowingly modified the 2nd prong and had no interest in the obvious fact that it also modified the first prong.

A textualist would never indulge in that kind of consequentialism, where you don't like the outcome that results from following the law as written so you pretend that some esoteric process may be followed instead that violates the obvious reading of the law. Such an approach is an arrogation of the law making authority that is reserved for the elected branches and robs those who wish to lawfully order their lives of the advance notice necessary to do so.

If Congress does not like the results of the laws they write, they have both the ability and the power to redraft them, but, it's not the proper role of an un-elected judge to ghost write the law, with no notice, in order to obtain the outcome they want. That is purposivism not textualism, an era we are now leaving as Judiciary again self-restrains in order to more perfectly secure our Freedom and Liberty and return law making where it belongs, with the ELECTED branches.

 

Nobody said there was. Constitutionalism is anathema to Authoritarianism

They've done nothing but allow those who not wish to be covered to not be subjected to a penalty if they are uncovered. This is consistent with SCOTUS who ruled that the act was only constitutional with a tax rather than a penalty.

No they haven't.

Nobody is barred from treatment in America.

If you want to live under a more dictatorial system, that violates the constitution, this is the wrong country for you. Move.

I don't know what state you are in, but more Americans live in CA than any other state, so let's look there.

Just under $1200/mo income and you qualify for Medicare.

Up to 4 TIMES the Federal Poverty ($4,253/month) level qualifies you for premium assistance. That's pretty damn generous.