3 ms·

Other countries don't have Supreme Court rulings stating that banning campaign finance contributions was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such a ban would abso

Other countries don't have Supreme Court rulings stating that banning campaign finance contributions was a violation of the 1st Amendment. Such a ban would absolutely be challenged and likely struck down in court in the US.

sudosysgen 4y ago
Meh. There are already Supreme Court rulings that state that insurance falls upon the Federal government as interstate commerce, and there is already precedent for banning certain categories of insurance. The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.
- masonic 4y ago
  >manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
  - lesuorac 4y ago
    > The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA. How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority? https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/ https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-oba...
    - masonic 4y ago
      >How much more than the ACA They could have done universal healthcare instead of ACA and with much simpler legislation and less regulatory authoring burden.
  - tstrimple 4y ago
    Thanks a lot Joe. > Lieberman, 67, used his deciding vote in Congress to help strip out a provision for government-run medical insurance, intended to set up competition to the abuses of private companies, by threatening to filibuster the legislation. > Senate leaders agreed to drop the public option for all in favour of allowing people over 55 to buy into an existing government-run scheme for the elderly. In September, Lieberman supported the measure, as he had when he was Al Gore's running mate. But just as it seemed that a deal was done, Lieberman scuppered it by announcing that he had changed his mind and would block any bill that expanded government insurance coverage. Obama gave way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-...

sudosysgen 4y ago

Meh. There are already Supreme Court rulings that state that insurance falls upon the Federal government as interstate commerce, and there is already precedent for banning certain categories of insurance. The only way it would get struck down is if there were activist judges and if there was no political will to repair the Supreme Court. I would assume that in a world where the US political system manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare that would be dealt with or fixable, because those are more urgent issues.

masonic 4y ago
>manages to fix itself enough to pass universal healthcare The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA.
- lesuorac 4y ago
  > The Democrats could have done this of their own volition in Obama's first term, during periods where the Senate had a filibuster-proof majority. Instead, they came up with the ACA. How much more than the ACA (a campaign promise) and stimulus did you expect them to get done in the 4 months of the first term that they had a filibuster-proof majority? https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-obama-had-total-control/985146007/ https://www.beaconjournal.com/story/news/2012/09/09/when-oba...
  - masonic 4y ago
    >How much more than the ACA They could have done universal healthcare instead of ACA and with much simpler legislation and less regulatory authoring burden.
- tstrimple 4y ago
  Thanks a lot Joe. > Lieberman, 67, used his deciding vote in Congress to help strip out a provision for government-run medical insurance, intended to set up competition to the abuses of private companies, by threatening to filibuster the legislation. > Senate leaders agreed to drop the public option for all in favour of allowing people over 55 to buy into an existing government-run scheme for the elderly. In September, Lieberman supported the measure, as he had when he was Al Gore's running mate. But just as it seemed that a deal was done, Lieberman scuppered it by announcing that he had changed his mind and would block any bill that expanded government insurance coverage. Obama gave way. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-barack-obama-us-healthcare https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/dec/16/joe-lieberman-...