Re: Central Provision of Health Care Law Is Ruled Unconstitutional
"Mike Findlay" <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.music.dadl.ot |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <A255FEA47A97472CB24CE37A465BE548@MikePC> |
NO it isn’t. And you have it backwards. The only sign of being an activist judge was removing the individual mandate and leaving the rest of the bill intact. It is my understanding that nowhere in its 3000+ pages did the law have a “savings clause”. Without such a clause a judge should rule up or down on the whole bill. This judge did NOT do that and read a savings clause into the law and left everything not dependent on the individual mandate in place. And the partisan thing of these judges is such a bs objection. The other two judges who upheld it were Clinton appointees. Obviously and realistically you get appointed to the federal bench due to your perceived political leanings and none of the three rulings were a great surprise, even if they were a disappointment depending on your perspective. Mike F. From: [email protected] Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 9:42 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Central Provision of Health Care Law Is Ruled Unconstitutional The thing is? As an attempt to use it to repeal health care reform it it is. If they only are going after removing this one part? Then no. But the judge in question was active in fighting the health care reform. So, that makes him more activist than merely "upholding the Constitution." The Judge who overturned prop 8 was less of an activist, yet the anti-gay marriage groups argued his opinion was invalidated because he was gay. By that standard, a judge who actively tried to fight "Obamacare" is definitly not a valid candidate to be making a fair and impartial decision here. Thom http://thomwade.wordpress.com/ http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade http://www.in-one-ear.com _______________________________________ "I want a song to learn and sing, of a life requited."-Echo & the Bunnymen -----Original Message----- From: Bruce Geerdes <[email protected]> To: DADL (off topic) <[email protected]> Sent: Mon, Dec 13, 2010 4:47 pm Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Central Provision of Health Care Law Is Ruled Unconstitutional On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:39 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > I anxiously await conservatives outrages about judicial activism. Adhering to the Constitution is "judicial activism"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot -- dadl-ot mailing list http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot