4 ms·

Texas Judge Strikes Down Obama’s Affordable Care Act as Unconstitutional

13 points by jbegley 8y ago

craftyguy 8y ago
So in this grand system of 'checks and balances', who checks the judicial branch's power to arbitrarily strike down any law passed by congress and signed by the president? I'm asking because it's not clear who, or how, and it seems that the judicial branch continues to become more OP over time.
- Simon_says 8y ago
  The check is to amend the Constitution.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    That's a HUGE amount of effort, more then the effort to check the executive and/or legislative branches...
    - Simon_says 8y ago
      > That's a HUGE amount of effort That's a feature, not a bug.
      - craftyguy 8y ago
        It's a bug, because it depends on which party is in power, and their leanings on the issue. Parties change power at the drop of a hat, constitutional amendments are exceedingly much harder to pull off.
        db48x 8y ago
        That's the point. If the constitution changed every four years, it wouldn't be much use.
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    The best thing we could do is give supreme court term limits, this would make it less of a game of roulette, and more of a fairness factor... Maybe have 9 supreme court justices. A president may pick 2 on the start of his first term. The 5 longest serving rotate out. The Speaker of the house and Senate Majority leader sworn in after the presidential election each get to nominate 1 justice. The last seat is nominated and filled internally by those on the supreme court, but must be approved by congress as does the president's choices. So for instance say there's 9 justices in 2020. 9 - 5(retiring) = 4 4 + 5(new) = 9 Justices may serve multiple terms, and a president could 're-nominate' a sitting judge, but this makes the system more fluid, and less controlled by a single party in power unless they control both chambers, the white house, and supreme court already.
    - Spartan-S63 8y ago
      While that may seem like a good idea in principle, that politicizes the Supreme Court even more.
- whyonearth 8y ago
  Arbitrarily? This judge ruled on a case brought to his court.
  - craftyguy 8y ago
    It's arbitrary because it depends on 1 judge's interpretation of the constitution. Not all judges agree on how it should be interpreted. If it gets appealed, then rinse/repeat. The Supreme Court gets the final say, and it largely depends which 'party' is in power there (which depends on which 'party' controls both executive and legislative branches when it is time to pick a new judge).
    - gremlinsinc 8y ago
      Yeah...that doesn't look good right now, if you're on the left side of politics....
- db48x 8y ago
  You forget that the Supreme Court can only hear those cases that are brought before it, and that Congress can pass new laws to replace ones that have been struck down. In principle, it could even pass the exact same law again. It might get struck down again, but there's no actual penalty for making an unconstitutional law.
jeklj 8y ago
Something tells me Republicans won’t be rushing to complain about “activist judges” on this issue.
jameskilton 8y ago
I'm confused. Is this ruling itself valid? SCOTUS has already ruled twice that ACA, including the individual mandate, is constitutional.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  When congress changed the penalty for not having insurance from N > $0 to $0, they invalidated Roberts' opinion that the ACA was constitutional because its penalty could be passed off as a tax. What Trump is claiming is that they made the ACA unconstitutional by eliminating the penalty, and hence it is no longer constitutional. I'm not sure why the ACA would be struck down as opposed to the tax cut bill that made it unconstitutional, but IANAL.
  - throwaway-86-45 8y ago
    Genuine curiosity here: Why is it that it's the ACA that becomes unconstitutional here and not the tax cut bill? If Trump is signing bills that make other laws unconstitutional is this a violation of his oath to protect the constitution?
    - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
      There must be precedent on this, but drafting unconstitutional bills is not itself unconstitutional, the bills are just invalidated by the courts. Congress is the one responsible for all of this. Trump can only play an ancillary role.
- masonic 8y ago
  Not completely. That ruling affirmed that ACA is a tax and therefore it couldn't be challenged at that point due to preemption (you can't contest a tax that hasn't been collected yet).
panarky 8y ago
Every day it makes less sense for the 326 million US citizens to remain under a single government. 40% want European-style social democracy, and a different 40% want radical individualism and severely limited collective action a la the Wild West. These can't coexist.
- whyonearth 8y ago
  Let's not be so dramatic, nowhere near 40% of Americans want either of those things. I'd guess 70% want the status quo with a nudge to the left or right, 20% don't give a shit, and 10% represent the extremes (on the US political spectrum) that you mentioned.
- benjohnson 8y ago
  Perhaps the two could co-exist by making the social programs voluntary. Those that commit to it can, and those that want no part of it can stay out.
  - panarky 8y ago
    Most social programs are like insurance. You pay in when you don't need it, and it's there for you when you do need it. When my kids were young and I was poor, other people paid for their schooling. Now the kids are out of school, but I'm paying for public schools for other kids. If you make social programs voluntary, then people join when they need it and quit when they don't. That's why you can't buy fire insurance for your house only when it's burning. You have to buy the insurance when it's not on fire, or the entire program doesn't work.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
purplezooey 8y ago
Ah crap. Here we go again.

13 points by jbegley 8y ago

So in this grand system of 'checks and balances', who checks the judicial branch's power to arbitrarily strike down any law passed by congress and signed by the president? I'm asking because it's not clear who, or how, and it seems that the judicial branch continues to become more OP over time.

Simon_says 8y ago
The check is to amend the Constitution.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- craftyguy 8y ago
  That's a HUGE amount of effort, more then the effort to check the executive and/or legislative branches...
  - Simon_says 8y ago
    > That's a HUGE amount of effort That's a feature, not a bug.
    - craftyguy 8y ago
      It's a bug, because it depends on which party is in power, and their leanings on the issue. Parties change power at the drop of a hat, constitutional amendments are exceedingly much harder to pull off.
      - db48x 8y ago
        That's the point. If the constitution changed every four years, it wouldn't be much use.
- gremlinsinc 8y ago
  The best thing we could do is give supreme court term limits, this would make it less of a game of roulette, and more of a fairness factor... Maybe have 9 supreme court justices. A president may pick 2 on the start of his first term. The 5 longest serving rotate out. The Speaker of the house and Senate Majority leader sworn in after the presidential election each get to nominate 1 justice. The last seat is nominated and filled internally by those on the supreme court, but must be approved by congress as does the president's choices. So for instance say there's 9 justices in 2020. 9 - 5(retiring) = 4 4 + 5(new) = 9 Justices may serve multiple terms, and a president could 're-nominate' a sitting judge, but this makes the system more fluid, and less controlled by a single party in power unless they control both chambers, the white house, and supreme court already.
  - Spartan-S63 8y ago
    While that may seem like a good idea in principle, that politicizes the Supreme Court even more.
whyonearth 8y ago
Arbitrarily? This judge ruled on a case brought to his court.
- craftyguy 8y ago
  It's arbitrary because it depends on 1 judge's interpretation of the constitution. Not all judges agree on how it should be interpreted. If it gets appealed, then rinse/repeat. The Supreme Court gets the final say, and it largely depends which 'party' is in power there (which depends on which 'party' controls both executive and legislative branches when it is time to pick a new judge).
  - gremlinsinc 8y ago
    Yeah...that doesn't look good right now, if you're on the left side of politics....
db48x 8y ago
You forget that the Supreme Court can only hear those cases that are brought before it, and that Congress can pass new laws to replace ones that have been struck down. In principle, it could even pass the exact same law again. It might get struck down again, but there's no actual penalty for making an unconstitutional law.

jeklj 8y ago

Something tells me Republicans won’t be rushing to complain about “activist judges” on this issue.

jameskilton 8y ago

I'm confused. Is this ruling itself valid? SCOTUS has already ruled twice that ACA, including the individual mandate, is constitutional.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
When congress changed the penalty for not having insurance from N > $0 to $0, they invalidated Roberts' opinion that the ACA was constitutional because its penalty could be passed off as a tax. What Trump is claiming is that they made the ACA unconstitutional by eliminating the penalty, and hence it is no longer constitutional. I'm not sure why the ACA would be struck down as opposed to the tax cut bill that made it unconstitutional, but IANAL.
- throwaway-86-45 8y ago
  Genuine curiosity here: Why is it that it's the ACA that becomes unconstitutional here and not the tax cut bill? If Trump is signing bills that make other laws unconstitutional is this a violation of his oath to protect the constitution?
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    There must be precedent on this, but drafting unconstitutional bills is not itself unconstitutional, the bills are just invalidated by the courts. Congress is the one responsible for all of this. Trump can only play an ancillary role.
masonic 8y ago
Not completely. That ruling affirmed that ACA is a tax and therefore it couldn't be challenged at that point due to preemption (you can't contest a tax that hasn't been collected yet).

panarky 8y ago

Every day it makes less sense for the 326 million US citizens to remain under a single government. 40% want European-style social democracy, and a different 40% want radical individualism and severely limited collective action a la the Wild West. These can't coexist.

whyonearth 8y ago
Let's not be so dramatic, nowhere near 40% of Americans want either of those things. I'd guess 70% want the status quo with a nudge to the left or right, 20% don't give a shit, and 10% represent the extremes (on the US political spectrum) that you mentioned.
benjohnson 8y ago
Perhaps the two could co-exist by making the social programs voluntary. Those that commit to it can, and those that want no part of it can stay out.
- panarky 8y ago
  Most social programs are like insurance. You pay in when you don't need it, and it's there for you when you do need it. When my kids were young and I was poor, other people paid for their schooling. Now the kids are out of school, but I'm paying for public schools for other kids. If you make social programs voluntary, then people join when they need it and quit when they don't. That's why you can't buy fire insurance for your house only when it's burning. You have to buy the insurance when it's not on fire, or the entire program doesn't work.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

purplezooey 8y ago

Ah crap. Here we go again.