The Supreme Court gives no fucks about the Constitution (what a shock)

[AnCap Dave]

Source

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Thursday upheld the individual insurance requirement at the heart of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

The decision handed Obama a campaign-season victory in rejecting arguments that Congress went too far in requiring most Americans to have health insurance or pay a penalty.

Chief Justice John Roberts announced the court's judgment that allows the law to go forward with its aim of covering more than 30 million uninsured Americans.

Gee, is anyone surprised by this?

[MrBogosity]

I was actually thinking that this was so ridiculously unconstitutional that not even the Supreme Court could figure out a way to allow it. Guess I was wrong. What is GovCo going to make us buy next?

[AnCap Dave]

I was actually thinking that this was so ridiculously unconstitutional that not even the Supreme Court could figure out a way to allow it. Guess I was wrong. What is GovCo going to make us buy next?

Cars. I'm sure GM will fuck up again soon enough.

[MrBogosity]

I've been reading the decision. While they acknowledged that the individual mandate is not covered under either the Commerce Clause or the Necessary and Proper Clause, they said that it is allowed under the power to lay and collect taxes. How about that! The government can "tax" you by forcing you to give money to big corporations! And while they cite precedents supporting them calling it a "tax," not a single one of those precedents has money going to anywhere other than the Treasury. Now, forced payments to corporations can be considered a tax. How can ANYONE consider that a good thing?

[AnCap Dave]

Also, for anyone interested, here is the full ruling.

Page 31 through 40 is very telling.

That is not the end of the matter. Because the Com-merce Clause does not support the individual mandate, itis necessary to turn to the Government's second argument:that the mandate may be upheld as within Congress'senumerated power to "lay and collect Taxes." Art. I, §8,cl. 1.

So the Supreme Court has decreed that the government can call anything it wants a tax, even if it means forcing you to pay a corporation for a service.

[Gumba Masta]

I think you're all neglecting the outrage amongst your citizens.

[AnCap Dave]

Fail quotes, Idiot Extraordinaire, Biggest Bogon Emitter, General Douchebag Award, Motherfuckus Maximus, any of those could apply to Patrick Gaspbard.

[FSBlueApocalypse]

I know a guy who has been working on a privately funded colonization of Mars for awhile now, I think I'll give him a call later on today.

[Gumba Masta]

Don't do it man. Don't you know he works for an evil alien sea witch?

[MrBogosity]

Gov. Gary Johnson Opposes Supreme Court Ruling On Health Care

June 28 2012, Santa Fe, NM – Libertarian presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's health care ruling:

"It has been clear for a while that we need a new President and a new Congress. Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court.

"Whether the Court chooses to call the individual mandate a tax or anything else, allowing it to stand is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today.

"There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access. Only competition and the price transparency that competition will bring can accomplish the imperatives of affordability and availability. Whether it is the President's plan or the Republican prescription drug benefit, the idea that anyone in Washington can somehow manage one of the most essential and substantial parts of both our quality of life and the economy is, and always has been, fundamentally wrong.

"We can never know how many Americans are out of work today because of the uncertainty the monstrous health care law has caused. The Court has done nothing to remove that burden.

"Nothing about today's decision changes the basic reality that it is impossible to eliminate deficit spending and remove the smothering consequences of federal debt without dramatically reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have given the slightest hint of willingness to do so."

[evensgrey]

Gov. Gary Johnson Opposes Supreme Court Ruling On Health Care

June 28 2012, Santa Fe, NM – Libertarian presidential nominee and former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson released the following statement in response to the Supreme Court's health care ruling:

"It has been clear for a while that we need a new President and a new Congress. Now it appears we need a new Supreme Court.

"Whether the Court chooses to call the individual mandate a tax or anything else, allowing it to stand is a truly disturbing decision. The idea that government can require an individual to buy something simply because that individual exists and breathes in America is an incredible blow to the bedrock principles of freedom and liberty. It must be repealed, and Congress needs to get about doing so today.

"There is one thing we know about health care. Government cannot create a system that will reduce costs while increasing access. Only competition and the price transparency that competition will bring can accomplish the imperatives of affordability and availability. Whether it is the President's plan or the Republican prescription drug benefit, the idea that anyone in Washington can somehow manage one of the most essential and substantial parts of both our quality of life and the economy is, and always has been, fundamentally wrong.

"We can never know how many Americans are out of work today because of the uncertainty the monstrous health care law has caused. The Court has done nothing to remove that burden.

"Nothing about today's decision changes the basic reality that it is impossible to eliminate deficit spending and remove the smothering consequences of federal debt without dramatically reducing the costs of Medicare and Medicaid. And neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have given the slightest hint of willingness to do so."

At some point somebody will decide to copy the favorite method of Provincial governments in Canada for limit health care spending:  Arbitrarily setting the price for services (and setting the number of training paces for doctors as well, and then wondering why there aren't enough doctors to go around).

[Goaticus]

And the Supreme Court Justice swing vote was Justice Roberts. That's why Republicans claim we have to vote for Romney no matter what. The winner will probably name another two justices. Because Republican Supreme Court Justices always vote constitutionally.

[Ibrahim90]

Fuck.....

[Gumba Masta]

All hail the new Chief Justice.

Source

[bp_28]

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/26/magazine/26wwln_idealab.html?pagewanted=all
this is about Antonin Scalia and his rulings since he just died, though that's not when the article was written (2006).
Quote from the article:
Less noted, however, is the fact that Justice Scalia, especially in the last decade, has frequently taken an expansive view of the Bill of Rights, thus supporting defendants in criminal cases. Scalia is one of the intellectual godfathers of a strand of Supreme Court decisions, crystallized by Apprendi v. New Jersey, that revolutionized sentencing laws. Following a strict interpretation of the Fifth Amendment's guarantee of due process of law and the Sixth Amendment's right to trial by jury, Scalia has insisted that any fact used to extend punishment beyond normal statutory limits must be specified and proved to a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Despite his fevered support for capital punishment, Scalia also joined a court majority in holding that the Constitution requires a death sentence to be decided by a jury, rather than by a judge, effectively setting aside every capital sentence still on direct appeal in five states.

Nor are Scalia's pro-rights decisions limited to one arcane area. In Kyllo v. U.S. (2001), Justice Scalia, writing for the court, deemed police use of heat-seeking technology to detect whether marijuana was being grown inside a house a violation of the Fourth Amendment's prohibition on unreasonable searches. In a 2004 opinion, Scalia spoke for a court majority in finding unconstitutional the widespread practice of using recordings or prepared statements to the police as a substitute for the testimony of unavailable witnesses. And last term, supported by the court's four more liberal justices, Scalia held that a defendant wrongly deprived of the lawyer of his choice gets a new trial, no matter how overwhelming the evidence of his guilt.

This is the New York Times, and I thought Liberals from sites like these were supposed to be in favor of things like this, but they're siding against Scalia, even though he surprisingly has some good positions- except for capital punishment, that needs to be done away with forever