The New York Times Agrees that the Obamacare Case is About Limited Government

 

Unfortunately, it is the Supreme Court that the New York Times suddenly wants to limit. According to today’s house editorial, the big question in the Affordable Care Act litigation is whether SCOTUS “will recognize limits on its own authority to overturn well-founded acts of Congress.” Ah, now I see it. Obamacare raises big questions about the limits of the Supreme Court’s power.

There are 18 comments.

  1. Guruforhire Member

    Judicial supremacy has always been controversial.

    • #1
    • March 28, 2012, at 11:46 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. KC Mulville Inactive

    But if the Court overturns it … by definition … it’ll be because it isn’t a “well-founded” act of Congress.

    They’re just trying to parrot the language out of spite. They probably sat in the editorial board room and thought it would be clever to turn the language on “limited government” conservatives. Which only proves they don’t really grasp the concept in the first place.

    By the way, that expert analysis that told us how certain it was that the Court would uphold the law? Heheheheheheheheheh …

    • #2
    • March 28, 2012, at 11:52 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. David Williamson Inactive

    As usual, Prof Reynolds says it best, and most concisely:

    “Seems to be they should just knock down the whole thing and let Congress do whatever it wants next. If that turns out to be inconvenient, well, there’s a good reason not to pass unconstitutional legislation, isn’t it?”

    • #3
    • March 28, 2012, at 11:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. Will Collier Member

    I had the same reaction. At this point, I’m guessing Pinch Sulzberger is having to put “total lack of self-awareness” as a job requirement when he hires his editorial page minions.

    • #4
    • March 28, 2012, at 11:54 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. PJ Coolidge
    PJ

    That “well-founded” should go in logic textbooks as an example of begging the question. Priceless.

    • #5
    • March 29, 2012, at 1:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  6. EJHill Podcaster

    ADAM FREEDMAN

    Please explain something to me… Am I mistaken in the idea that it is illegal to purchase health insurance from an out of state company? I thought you could only purchase from companies that are regulated and licensed by the state you live in. If so, where’s the interstate commerce everyone keeps talking about?

    • #6
    • March 29, 2012, at 1:11 AM PDT
    • Like
  7. DocJay Inactive
    EJHill:ADAM FREEDMAN

    Please explain something to me… Am I mistaken in the idea that it is illegal to purchase health insurance from an out of state company? I thought you could only purchase from companies that are regulated and licensed by the state you live in. If so, where’s theinterstate commerce everyone keeps talking about? · 10 minutes ago

    You are not mistaken but since a California policy would cover a man visiting Arizona it all applies. There are an infinite number of ways to extrapolate this clause to justify the overreach in power they seek.

    The law that protects these state monopolies is a joke and only baseball has similar protection. The free market needs to be just that and the savings from allowing across state policies for purchase needs to be realized as a massive cost saving measure once the fiasco gets overturned.

    Harry Reid strong armed the industry in to signing on to the “act” by threatening the removal of this legalized monopoly and the industry caved which speaks volumes as to how much price gouging and manipulation this bogus law allows private entities to engage in.

    • #7
    • March 29, 2012, at 1:29 AM PDT
    • Like
  8. Aaron Miller Member

    When a law suits them, liberals trumpet the rule of law. When a law doesn’t suit them, liberals trumpet the need for reform.

    Moral of the story: They don’t care about authority. They care about power.

    So Republicans are fools when they place restrictions on authority but not also on power. Democrats will break laws whenever they can get away with it and twist laws to mean whatever they want them to mean.

    • #8
    • March 29, 2012, at 1:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  9. Profile Photo Member

    Why does anyone pay attention to that residence of journalistic flatulence anymore?

    • #9
    • March 29, 2012, at 1:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  10. danys Thatcher

    EJ

    I’ve been wondering about this, too.

    EJHill:ADAM FREEDMAN

    Please explain something to me… Am I mistaken in the idea that it is illegal to purchase health insurance from an out of state company? I thought you could only purchase from companies that are regulated and licensed by the state you live in. If so, where’s theinterstate commerce everyone keeps talking about? · 42 minutes ago

    • #10
    • March 29, 2012, at 2:10 AM PDT
    • Like
  11. David Williamson Inactive
    danys: EJ

    I’ve been wondering about this, too.

    EJHill:ADAM FREEDMAN

    Please explain something to me… Am I mistaken in the idea that it is illegal to purchase health insurance from an out of state company? I thought you could only purchase from companies that are regulated and licensed by the state you live in. If so, where’s theinterstate commerce everyone keeps talking about? 

    I have also been wondering about this. I am insured with a Blue Cross/Blue Shield plan in Arizona, whereas my employer is in California – it’s called an out-of-state plan.

    I guess it must be legal – and they do pay the bills :-)

    Does sound suspiciously like inter-state commerce, though?

    • #11
    • March 29, 2012, at 2:36 AM PDT
    • Like
  12. Bill Waldron Inactive

    No, deeper red.

    DocJay: dittoheadadtYep, in the NY Slimes vernacular that qualifies as ‘well-founded.’

    Is this the Pink Slime I’ve been hearing about? · 3 hours ago

    • #12
    • March 29, 2012, at 3:50 AM PDT
    • Like
  13. The Cloaked Gaijin Member

    In a related story, the The Washington Post has an article entitled “Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care is interstate commerce. Is this a regulation of it? Yes. End of story.” 

    Man bites dog? No, this Reagan’s solicitor general voted for Barack Obama. However, The Washington Post conveniently forgets to mention this important piece of information.

    • #13
    • March 29, 2012, at 12:05 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. DocJay Inactive

    That rag could ruin a good fish and chips. Unconstitutional is just that and the well-intentioned liberals with their well-founded ideas written by their well-funded lobbyists have been found wanting.

    • #14
    • March 29, 2012, at 12:10 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Adam Freedman Contributor
    Adam Freedman Post author
    Will Collier: I had the same reaction. At this point, I’m guessing Pinch Sulzberger is having to put “total lack of self-awareness” as a job requirement when he hires his editorial page minions. · 22 minutes ago

    I’ll have to go back to the NYT to read all those impassioned editorials decrying the Warren Court’s activism. 

    • #15
    • March 29, 2012, at 12:21 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. dittoheadadt Inactive

    “Well-founded: Based on sound judgment, reasoning, or evidence; adequately substantiated” ~ http://www.thefreedictionary.com/well-founded

    How can the bill be “well-founded?” The damn thing was passed with most of its proponents not having READ it! It was passed with one of the two political parties completely opposed to it. Its passage was assured only when all manner of political bribes were offered. And in the 2 years since its passage it has seen well over a thousand organizations receive waivers of its enforcement, not to mention plenty of real-world evidence proving its selling points to be grossly wrong.

    Yep, in the NY Slimes vernacular that qualifies as ‘well-founded.’

    • #16
    • March 29, 2012, at 12:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. DocJay Inactive

    dittoheadadtYep, in the NY Slimes vernacular that qualifies as ‘well-founded.’

    Is this the Pink Slime I’ve been hearing about?

    • #17
    • March 29, 2012, at 12:41 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. Will Collier Member
    Adam Freedman
    Will Collier: I had the same reaction. At this point, I’m guessing Pinch Sulzberger is having to put “total lack of self-awareness” as a job requirement when he hires his editorial page minions. · 22 minutes ago

    I’ll have to go back to the NYT to read all those impassioned editorials decrying the Warren Court’s activism. · 22 minutes ago

    No need to go back that far… the position switches of the Old Gray Nag regarding the word “filibuster” over the past 20 years alone are enough to give anyone a serious case of whiplash.

    • #18
    • March 29, 2012, at 12:55 PM PDT
    • Like