Detroit Councilwoman to Obama: We voted for you, now bail us out

[racrguy]

No, they can determine if something is constitutional. Absolutely. These cases where the fed sues the states, should have the SC as their first stop. Same thing when states sue one another or when Calderone decides to sue Az. They also can't decided that since the person isn't making a good case for themselves, they'll find for the government using an argument that the government isn't even using (Obamacare as a tax instead of what the government claimed).

Same for Roe Vs Wade. They had no authority.

I'm pretty sure in the Obamacare arguments, they argued the individual mandate was a tax.

Why didn't they have authority in Roe v Wade?

[YALE]

No, they can determine if something is constitutional. Absolutely. These cases where the fed sues the states, should have the SC as their first stop. Same thing when states sue one another or when Calderone decides to sue Az. They also can't decided that since the person isn't making a good case for themselves, they'll find for the government using an argument that the government isn't even using (Obamacare as a tax instead of what the government claimed).

Same for Roe Vs Wade. They had no authority.

If they can determine constitutionality, that's interpreting.

[stinginstang]

Close Frost. The UAW ran the heavy industry out of Detroit. There is hardly anything left of the car industry there. Here is a great example of the Unions killing the hand that feeds them! It fed them very well for many years until it became "not worth it" for the big 3.

There's also the racial aspect. Detroit was a pioneer in white flight. I don't feel sorry for them. they've had 30 years to figure out how to fix Detroit but I guess it can't be done without whiteys help.

[Forever_frost]

I'm pretty sure in the Obamacare arguments, they argued the individual mandate was a tax.

Why didn't they have authority in Roe v Wade?

I'll let the Court tell you why they didn't have the authority:

Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. White wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[35][36]



As to the individual mandate, they didn't argue it was a tax. Obama went on a lot of talk shows and explicitly stated it wasn't a tax. They argued it was permitted under the Commerce Clause. The SC said it wasn't but Roberts came up with the tax idea out of thin air. It wasn't even argued as a tax.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/supreme-court-rejects-obamas-commerce-cl

[YALE]

White's quote doesn't say they don't have the power to review the constitutionality of abortion. He was complaining about the way it was handled.

[Forever_frost]

White's quote doesn't say they don't have the power to review the constitutionality of abortion. He was complaining about the way it was handled.

Actually, he said there was no constitutional right, the Court created one. The Court has no authority to create rights. "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes"

[racrguy]

I'll let the Court tell you why they didn't have the authority:

Justices Byron R. White and William H. Rehnquist wrote emphatic dissenting opinions in this case. White wrote:

I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment. The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant women and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the woman, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.[35][36]



As to the individual mandate, they didn't argue it was a tax. Obama went on a lot of talk shows and explicitly stated it wasn't a tax. They argued it was permitted under the Commerce Clause. The SC said it wasn't but Roberts came up with the tax idea out of thin air. It wasn't even argued as a tax.

http://reason.com/blog/2012/06/28/su...as-commerce-cl

You do realize that the SCOTUS can write dissenting opinions if it wants to, right? And you do know who the Wade part of the Roe v Wade is, don't you? You would also know that the decision isn't "announcing a new constitutional right for pregnant women" it's reinstating a freedom that shouldn't have been removed in the first place.

The administration was going to argue both sides of the coin.

11:45 a.m. In U.S. Solicitor General Donald Verrilli’s turn to address today’s issue, the Wall Street Journal reports:

Justice Samuel Alito jumps in and appears bothered by difference between what the federal government is arguing Monday versus what it will argue Tuesday. He notes that for jurisdictional purposes, the government is arguing the insurance mandate penalties are not a tax. But he points out that on Tuesday, the government will argue that, for constitutional purposes, the penalties do function like a tax. Mr. Verrilli responds that the arguments are different because the two legal questions are different.

[Forever_frost]

What freedom would that be? Last time I checked, the Constitution protected life.


And the administration WAS going to argue both sides, but didn't. And the prompting that the liberal judges gave Obama admin was absurd.

[racrguy]

They didn't have to argue both sides, that's why they didn't.

If you define life at the moment of conception, you're a mass murdering psychopath.

[onemeangixxer7502]

Its just sickening to see all these worthless people holding their hand out..... IF you want something get off your ass and do it.

[racrguy]

Its just sickening to see all these worthless people holding their hand out..... IF you want something get off your ass and do it.

/agree

[onemeangixxer7502]

/agree

If they're holding out their hand some one should put a fucking broom or shovel in it and put these asshats to work earning all the shit they get for nothing. I never understood something for nothing.

[Forever_frost]

They didn't have to argue both sides, that's why they didn't.

If you define life at the moment of conception, you're a mass murdering psychopath.

Psychopath, probably. Mass murderer? Define the number at which point I earn that title. You have never asked at what point I believe life begins. Assumptions Racr.

[racrguy]

Psychopath, probably. Mass murderer? Define the number at which point I earn that title. You have never asked at what point I believe life begins. Assumptions Racr.

No, I didn't assume a goddamn thing. Did you skip over the "If" part of my statement? It's the first fucking word of the sentence.

[Forever_frost]

Yes, but as you aren't aware of where I define life, it renders your post moot. Also, even with my definition of life, depending on your count for bodies, I may still be a mass murdering psychopath