Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 3:07:20 PM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:


Sen. Rand Paul doesn’t think the Supreme Court gets the last word on what’s constitutional.

The Kentucky Republican belittled the high court’s health care decision as the flawed opinion of just a “couple people.”

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,” the freshman lawmaker said in a statement. “While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system,” added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor. “This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.”

( SOURCE )


Maybe someone should ask Sen. Paul which part of the goverment has the last word on whether something is consitutional or not. Maybe hand him an ACTUAL US Consitution, and not the 'conservative/libertartian version'....

More so, I wonder if he, as a doctor, actually read the bill? Or if like so many other typical tea baggers in our goverment, just said 'no' and never bothered to read what he was voting on.
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 3:26:03 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:


Sen. Rand Paul doesn’t think the Supreme Court gets the last word on what’s constitutional.

The Kentucky Republican belittled the high court’s health care decision as the flawed opinion of just a “couple people.”

“Just because a couple people on the Supreme Court declare something to be ‘constitutional’ does not make it so. The whole thing remains unconstitutional,” the freshman lawmaker said in a statement. “While the court may have erroneously come to the conclusion that the law is allowable, it certainly does nothing to make this mandate or government takeover of our health care right.”

“Obamacare is wrong for Americans. It will destroy our health care system,” added Paul, who frequently rails about government overreach on the Senate floor. “This now means we fight every hour, every day until November to elect a new President and a new Senate to repeal Obamacare.”

( SOURCE )


Maybe someone should ask Sen. Paul which part of the goverment has the last word on whether something is consitutional or not. Maybe hand him an ACTUAL US Consitution, and not the 'conservative/libertartian version'....

More so, I wonder if he, as a doctor, actually read the bill? Or if like so many other typical tea baggers in our goverment, just said 'no' and never bothered to read what he was voting on.

this came out about 30 seconds after he said it...
I think the bagger knows not what he is talking about





Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 4:29:30 PM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline 		He's correct. It takes a full five people to decide.

Seriously, does this guy have any clue how the government works? Where did he come up with "a couple people" anyway?

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 4:45:02 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline 		five people did decide:)
you would think with his dad being who he is, he would have a better argument


_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 7:19:49 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

It will destroy our health care system,”

One can only hope

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 7:40:05 PM   
kdsub


Posts: 12180
Joined: 8/16/2007
Status: offline 		I hope no one is gullible enough to believe the Supreme court is a true… just… impartial… interpreter and defender of the Constitution.

They are as political as any other branch of government… What we need as a country is to program IBM’s Watson to interpret and evaluate constitutional law and make the final rulings… It would do a better job I’m sure…or let me do it.

Butch

< Message edited by kdsub -- 7/3/2012 7:50:52 PM >

_____________________________

Mark Twain:

I don't see any use in having a uniform and arbitrary way of spelling words. We might as well make all clothes alike and cook all dishes alike. Sameness is tiresome; variety is pleasing

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 8:01:34 PM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

They are as political as any other branch of government…


Nope. They occasionally do let their political inclinations color their rulings, but by and large they do a decent job of interpreting laws within the framework of existing law. The other branches are partisan as hell.

_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to kdsub)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/3/2012 11:24:46 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

They are as political as any other branch of government…


Nope. They occasionally do let their political inclinations color their rulings, but by and large they do a decent job of interpreting laws within the framework of existing law. The other branches are partisan as hell.


I'm not sure what my opinion is of the Court at this point. I think Roberts is a corporatist who upheld the mandate to the benefit of the insurance industry. But the fact that nobody really likes his interpretation might be a good thing down the road.

Even the insurance industry isn't really happy with the ACA because the mandate wasn't strong enough. But at least they got that while we, the people lost out on a public option.

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/4/2012 12:09:11 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		I hope that what Paul meant that the Supreme Court isn't infallible, see Dred Scott and Plesi(sp) Vs Fergeson.
Otherwise this means he is as much of a wacko as his dad.

(in reply to erieangel)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/4/2012 5:28:00 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		It's possible that this could just be yet more sour grapes:


_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/4/2012 6:37:35 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

Rand Paul: USSC shouldn't decide what is constitutional


Then maybe Republicans shouldn't take cases there.

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/4/2012 7:12:45 AM   
Owner59


Posts: 17033
Joined: 3/14/2006
From: Dirty Jersey
Status: offline 		I tell ya..........for an MD.....he`s pretty dopey......

_____________________________

"As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals"

President Obama

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/4/2012 7:00:23 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline 		I see the point the Senator has. At first there is a very bad law (everybody agrees with that, even liberals), then it goes to the Supreme Court (this fact itself tells something is wrong), the court says the law is OK and everybody has to suffer the rest of their lives. 

(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/4/2012 7:35:11 PM   
erieangel


Posts: 2237
Joined: 6/19/2011
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I see the point the Senator has. At first there is a very bad law (everybody agrees with that, even liberals), then it goes to the Supreme Court (this fact itself tells something is wrong), the court says the law is OK and everybody has to suffer the rest of their lives. 


First of all, liberals do not agree that ACA is a very bad law. if anything, liberals don't like ACA because it gave too much power to the private health insurance industry, didn't provide a public option or single payer. Liberals wanted much more than we got, but most of us will settle for this first step in the right direction.

Secondly, the Court didn't say the law was "fine", they said it is Constitutional...big difference.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/5/2012 3:49:40 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic






I LOVE that pic of granny Ginsberg (first row, farthest right), Lucy!

The white lace thing she's wearing is just killer!

You didn't sell that to her, did you? You should get a stock of those things, in any case. Just killer.

Ginsberg possesses 90% of the smarts of the entire court all by herself, and she wears it in style, not to mention.


< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/5/2012 4:03:39 AM >

(in reply to Lucylastic)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/5/2012 5:58:49 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I see the point the Senator has. At first there is a very bad law (everybody agrees with that, even liberals),


Moronic,puerile wishful thinking.


quote:

then it goes to the Supreme Court (this fact itself tells something is wrong),



Why does this fact tell us that something is wrong?
quote:


the court says the law is OK and everybody has to suffer the rest of their lives. 


Are you talking plessy or brown here?

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/5/2012 6:18:28 AM   
DarkSteven


Posts: 28072
Joined: 5/2/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

I see the point the Senator has. At first there is a very bad law (everybody agrees with that, even liberals), then it goes to the Supreme Court (this fact itself tells something is wrong), the court says the law is OK and everybody has to suffer the rest of their lives. 


Um. The steps are as follows:

1. The law is proposed in Congress. It has to clear both Houses.
2. The President is allowed the option to veto the legislation. if he declines to veto, it becomes "on the books" law, untested.
3. If he does veto, then Congress has the option to override. If they do, it also becomes an untested law.
4. If there is any question regarding the ability of the law to pass Constitutional muster, it gets challenged in court.
5. If the court's ruling is not seen as definitive, it can get appealed to SCOTUS.
6. SCOTUS rules (or refuse to hear).

So I disagree with you on the following grounds:

A. I'm not sure if this is a bad law or not. There is no question that its lawfulness is borderline. It's not clearly supported by the Constitution, nor is it not supported. The fact that it went to SCOTUS is not an indication that it is a bad law, simply one that is not clearly acceptable or not.
B. Everyone's acting like the Supreme Court just made law. Nope. The Supremes never even saw the law until both the Executive and Legislative branches had worked on it, and it had been challenged at the lower courts' levels.

Saying that the Supreme Court is responsible for this law is like saying that the guy who ran the last leg of a relay race is solely responsible for his team winning or losing.


_____________________________

"You women....

The small-breasted ones want larger breasts. The large-breasted ones want smaller ones. The straight-haired ones curl their hair, and the curly-haired ones straighten theirs...

Quit fretting. We men love you."

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/5/2012 7:10:47 AM   
Edwynn


Posts: 4105
Joined: 10/26/2008
Status: offline
Notice that he apparently has no issue with the Supreme Court putting a president into office in 2000, nor does he have any clue about the three branches of the Constitutionally prescribed government, as written, and the 'balance of power' intended therein.

If there is 'something wrong with a law' simply because it might find its way to the Supreme Court, then we have a ton of such 'troubled laws,' not to mention an amendment or two fitting that description.



< Message edited by Edwynn -- 7/5/2012 7:12:26 AM >

(in reply to DarkSteven)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/5/2012 7:38:01 AM   
Moonhead


Posts: 16520
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwynn
Notice that he apparently has no issue with the Supreme Court putting a president into office in 2000...

Of course he doesn't: that was a Republican. It's only if a Democrat gets something resembling a favourable result from the Supreme Court that it becomes a problem.

_____________________________

I like to think he was eaten by rats, in the dark, during a fog. It's what he would have wanted...
(Simon R Green on the late James Herbert)

(in reply to Edwynn)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional - 7/5/2012 7:44:50 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Rand Paul shouldn't decide what the supreme court can and cannot decide unless he and his father are wearing attestably certified tinfoil. 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Moonhead)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Rand Paul: USSC shouldnt decide what is consitutional Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.078