Reader Comments: Obamacare decision coming up.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Three important question to be decided.

Is it constitutional to require all citizens to buy insurance?***
If it is unconstitutional, does that throw out the entire law?
What should happen to the clause that says that insurance companies must accept anyone who applies for insurance regardless of pre-existing conditions?

For what they are worth, my opinions:

It is unconstitutional to tell us we have to buy insurance. What we do with our earnings is our choice, good or bad.
If a bill contains a provision which is critical to its operation, and that provision is unconstitutional, then--as decided so often in the past--that bill itself is unconstitutional.
Re: Pre-existing conditions, you need to know a few things to make up your mind:

a. The insurance companies are FOR the provision that says they have to take anyone who applies regardless of pre-existing conditions. Why?

b. Because that provision says the that we will pay for it with our taxes, that's why! If it said they had to accept people with no limitations, every insurance company in the country would go out of business because it could not make money.

c. Personally, I am bitterly opposed to any such provision, now or any time in the future, and so should you be unless you want a large portion of your earnings to go in income taxes. Insurance is where you take out a policy in case something happens in the future, not against something that has already happened. How can anyone possibly justify someone taking out--say--car insurance only after he has an accident? . . . . . . ***There's an addition problem here. If the Court decides that it is unconstitutional to make people buy health insurance it could be bad news for Mitt Romney. Don't forget, it was his state (MA) that started this whole thing, and that he was the governor who signed the bill and said he was all for it. That's going to sting.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I believe the court will rule in favor of the states. The States have the right to make laws that the Fed does not as long as it does not violate the Constitution. The Constitution laid out specific responsibilities and left everything else to the states. For the last 130 years, Federalists have been trying to change that and many have been successful. My view of Constitutional Freedom: Life, as outlined in the Declaration of Independence, means, The Government, nor anyone else can or will ever have the power to take "life" away. Liberty, as outlined in the Declaration of Indenpendence and enumerated in the Bill of rights, means, The right and responsiblitiy to speak clearly against the government without fear of retrobution. To be free to worship or not, to have the freedom to choose a religion or none, and to know that no one can take that freedom away, especially the government. Liberty, a right of freedom also grants us the right to write. To put on paper, any thought or expression of the mind, without judgement or reprisal from the government. Especially when it comes to political speech. The Constitution went further than the Declaration of Indepence and guaranteed further encroachments by the Federal Government. (Federal is a key word here and perhaps is a future topic.) The second ammendment intended to keep citizens free from an oppressive government granting them the right to bare arms to protect themselves. Ammendment Three may seem silly, but I picture the day when it could happen, No homeowner can be forced to shelter a soldier. To me this means a persons home is their castle and may be an arguement against property tax. (just thinking) The 4th regarding search and siezure has been interpreted and butchered beyond belief in my opinion. It began as a simple statement. "if you want to come into my home or on my property, in order to find evidence which may (or may not) be used against me in a court of law,....Than you must first go before a judge and give him reasonable cause to believe that a crime has been committed and that you, or those residing in your domocile are guilty. And further, evidence of that crime exists. {how about we run that one through todays courts} Hey, lets move on to the 5th ammendment. Do you know what it really says beyond the protection of self incrimanation?

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I believe I may have gotten off topic a little bit. I'm willing to continue with my opinions but I'll yield to the respondents on this topic.

John Lemon 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Tom; You may be correct when you posted that if Obamacare is declared unconstitutional in part or in total, Romney may lose some support. I will propose that those who dislike Obama's "style" will still dislike his "style". Why? Because Obama has leaned so very far to the left in so many ways. Obamacare becomes symptomatic of a larger philosophy that is repugnant to me and others

Bernice Winandy 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Would it also be unconstitutional to require people to buy car insurance?

A husband and a wife have health insurance through the husband's employer. The man dies and the woman loses (after COBRA) (does COBRA go into effect after a death or only after a job termination) the right to be insured under the employer's plan. She has Cancer, Parkinson's or some othe truly serious health problem. She has a pre=existing condition. She is 45. Does she have to wait until 65 to get health insurance? Does she have to go into serious debt in order to get the health care she so desperately needs?

Tom, I know people who have had their health insurance cancelled because they reached the lifetime limit. They had to sell their home in order to meet the wife's continuing health care costs. She had a very serious form of cancer. Talk about a death panel -- has the insurance company become one since because of the insurance company's decision, the woman had to decide whether to reject additional cancer treatment or leave her husband with a humongous debt.

I don't know how the Supreme Court will decide. However, based on some of the latest rulings, I have an inkling. I only hope that they will try to decide on what is best for the majority of the people. Afterall, we are going to have to live with that decision for a long time.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

John,

My comment on Romney was an afterthought. I think he would be wise to say nothing on this subject. Otherwise, he is letting himself in for a lot of criticism for saying one thing one day and something else the next. To be honest with you, I was shocked out of my mind when I saw that Massachusetts had passed their health care law, which was the model for Obamacare.

As Dan says, the states have more freedom in writing laws that the federal government does, but lets remember what the Tenth Amendment says: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

I believe that in that amendment there are implied limits to what states can do. A lot of people quote it to say, "...are reserved to the States respectively, AND to the people." But it does not say that; it clearly implies that some powers are held ONLY by the people when it says "or to the people." And I firmly believe that one of those powers is the decision to buy what, where, and when you wish to buy. It is, after all, your money--AFTER taxes.

This has never been taken to the Supreme Court, and I was hoping that the Massachusetts law would be challenged in court, seen by SCOTUS, and knocked down. With the current right-leaning court that may not be possible, but I believe that a truly non-partisan court would knock down ALL mandatory purchase laws. If the state can make us buy insurance, then it can make us by soy burgers because they are good for us. Legally, there is no difference.

What's happening now is that a right-leaning court has perhaps opened the door with its decision for a later left-leaning (more libertarian) court to finish the job.

As for Mitt, he keeps opening his mouth and talking about Obamacare. How is he going to respond if it comes up in a debate? How will be explain why he signed into law an identical bill which he is now against? Someone needs to give him some a little good advice.

And yes, Obamacare is repugnant to me as well, but read what I have to say to Bernice. We are standing at a crossroad where health care is concerned.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Bernice, If you read the above you will see how I feel about having to buy car insurance. I would buy it anyway if it were not required, but that is a choice. I buy full coverage even though my cars are not new. That's my choice. It's my money. I prefer to be conservative (and it's a pleasure to use that word correctly for once). This is a nation of free choice, not one where we are supposed to be forced to do the "right thing."

Bernice, your second paragraph poses insurance questions about which I know nothing. All I know is that over the entire period of my life I made sure that my family had health insurance. I chose to have less to spend on other things.

As to your other comments, I am well aware--believe me--of the horrible things that can happen in life. And as someone who constantly reads history I know how far we have come in placing a safety blanket under everyone. Not long ago, people were entirely on their own. If they were rich they were okay; it not....

The entire problem with health care rests on two issues. The major one, is how much, and under what circumstances we--as a nation--want to go. The second one is whether or not the resultant health care system with be private, public, or a combination of the two.

It amounts to this: Health care is expensive. Health care for all is very expensive. At the present time--and you can check the numbers!--due to excessive profit taking, cheating, and manipulation of the system (mainly through Washington), we have arrived at a shameful point in our history when the system we have has actually grown to be a larger percentage of our gross national income than the national health care systems in the UK and Canada. It hardly seems to matter any more whether we go to a full national health system, or we stay with what we have, except that national health is now cheaper. (Think of that!!!!!!!) I am ashamed of us, ashamed of us all. How have we allowed such a thing to happen? At this point in time, if a national health care system emulating that over in the UK were offered in a bill by Congress i would favor it in preference to the almost twice as expensive sham we have now.

Remember now. You are reading the words of someone who has fought national health all his life!

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Tomorrow morning, folks!

Tomorrow morning we at last will know how the Supreme Court ruled.

Bernice Winandy 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Tom, I did not question whether you buy car insurance, nor did I ask why you buy it. I asked whether a mandate that everyone buy car insurance is constitutional. I think I know the answer, how about you?

The whole Obamacare issue is very confusing. You listen to one commentator and he/she says one thing. You listen to another commentator and he/she says almost the opposite about the same issue. Therefore, I have come to the conclusion that unless one has read and analyzed the entire bill (which is quite lengthy as attested by one Supreme Court judge) one really does not know what the thing is about.

We do know that the current way of handling health care is overly costly and dysfunctional. Steps should be taken to repair it. Frankly, a decision from the Supreme Court will possibly end some controversy, but it is not going to get to the root of the problem. It might throw out Obamacare, but something needs to be done. So far, I have not heard anything that sounds like a replacement (good or bad, better or worse) from anyone. It is easy to take pot shots. It is difficult to come up with a solution.

P.S. These comments are not meant to be taken personally. :-)

John Lemon 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Tom and SantaBerry: I agree with both of you. Tom, I am very upset with the place our country is now at and upset because of where we are heading. Many years ago I postulated something that I entitled "The Centripetal Theory of Democracy". No "democracy" or democratic republic has lasted more than 200 years before changing radically. Imploding, if you will, due to the nature of people. Without boring you with details which you probably can figure yourself, I wonder if the US is at or past that tipping point. It makes me profoundly sad to think that I may be correct.

Pat Randall 10 months, 3 weeks ago

John, Sometimes it is hell to be right.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

"Tom, I did not question... I think I know the answer, how about you?"

Bernice, I think you missed the point.

"Bernice, If you read the above you will see how I feel about having to buy car insurance."

What I said "above" was:

"I believe that in that amendment there are implied limits to what states can do. A lot of people quote it to say, “…are reserved to the States respectively, AND to the people.” But it does not say that; it clearly implies that some powers are held ONLY by the people when it says “or to the people.” And I firmly believe that one of those powers is the decision to buy what, where, and when you wish to buy. It is, after all, your money—AFTER taxes."

Read that paragraph, especially the last sentence, and there'll be no doubt in your mind how I feel about anyone being forced to buy anything.

To put it as plainly as I can, I believe that the Tenth Amendment reserves the right to buy, or not to buy, anything to the people, not to the states, and that mandatory car insurance is unconstitutional.

Sometimes I say so much that the point may not come across. It's called diarrhea of the keyboard. :-)

"Frankly, a decision from the Supreme Court will possibly end some controversy, but it is not going to get to the root of the problem."

Amen! Smartest thing I've read in a month.

There are two solutions, I think:

Stay with the mix of public and private insurance and "safety net" programs we have. (Medicare, medicaid, ER's which must treat anyone who walks in, and so on.) Reform the system by strict regulation of costs, regulation which looks into pricing and puts some common sense into it. With that we could easily cut our expenditures to 15 to 25 percent of what we are now spending, with no loss in quality of care. The excess profit taking is just beyond belief. I just bought three eye drop medicines for my operation that cost me very little ($45 for all three), but cost the government over $250. The cost of all three online? $96. And I would be willing to bet that all three could be produced for a total of under $25. We simply cannot, as a nation, afford that kind of open fraud.
The other solution is to give up on free enterprise health care. The bare bones truth is that we spend nearly 18% of our GDP, or $2.5 trillion dollars a year, on health care. We just can't afford to do that. It comes to $7,290 per capita. The UK spends 8.4%, or $2,992 per capita, Canada, which is nowhere as well off as us or the UK, spends 10.1%, or $3,895, Germany spends 10.4%, or $3,588, and France spends 11%, or $3,601. We just can't go on taking almost one fifth of everything we make and putting it in the hands of corporations, which are the bottom line winners in this mess. Nor can we afford the crappy private/public mix of Obamacare, which solves nothing, and costs more than the mess we have.**

**Link to data, if wanted:

http://www.finweb.com/insurance/average-health-insurance-cost-by-country.html

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

John, I agree with you wholeheartedly. We are in trouble.

A constitutional convention might solve the problem, but nothing will solve it until someone with the power to capture the attention of the people, and to teach them what they do not now understand, somehow manages to get in office.

What don't the people understand?

A few things. A government not based and operated on the principles of honesty and fairness will inevitably fall into the hands of those who are unfair and dishonest. Government and business must be rigidly separated; they are mutually destructive. Freedom of individual action is more important than what is "good" for people. Nothing is perfect, and trying to make the world or the nation perfect is the surest way to make it imperfect. The fundamental cause of wars, shortages, and environmental degradation is the uncontrolled growth of humanity. If we do not teach our children the nature of government, they will not understand it, and if they do not understand it they will be forever controlled by those who do. And finally, without true equality under the law, democracy will remain what it is now--a word.

Pat Randall 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I have a problem with all the people that wait for the Drs. offices to close then run to the emergency room when it is something as simple as a broken little toe, or cold, or a small scratch that happened that morning. Drs. do not have to treat walk ins with no insuranse or money.

The ones that go to ER know they will be treated and never pay it. They sit in the ER and laugh about it. I have seen it many times, here in Payson and Mesa. Then we go in with insurance and possibly life or death problem and the hospital makes up the slack on our insurance or cash. Oh to be illegals or citizens who don't want to work. They have it made. The cost of a flight on the helicopter from Payson to Mesa went from $2500. to over $16,000 in 5 years here in Payson.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Pat,

That is exactly the kind of thing I am talking about. Too much of our tax money intended for health care is going into private pockets.

"Then we go in with insurance and possibly life or death problem and the hospital makes up the slack on our insurance or cash."

That also, is very true.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Prepare yourself for the shock of a lifetime, folks.

Having had a little time to digest what Chief Justice John Roberts did by siding with the liberal justices in deciding that the obviously unconstitutional requirement that everyone must buy health insurance is constitutional, I just broke out into a broad grin.

Folks, what you just saw was a stroke of genius.

Look. What would have happened if he had sided--correctly--with the justices who believed that it was unconstitutional? There would have been no major issue around which the GOP could rally, and literally no way that Mitt Romney could have won. Mitt has shot himself in the foot so thoroughly that he had no chance of finding an issue which was big enough to get all Republicans--and many independents--to rally around him.

But now?

A heaven sent issue just dropped into his lap.

If you doubt what I am saying, tell me this?

Having heard the decision aren't you mad as hell? Aren't you all fired up about an election that was going nowhere? Wouldn't you check those boxes straight down the right hand side if you could vote right now? Aren't you only likely to get more angry as the months roll by? Isn't this the single issue that will decide your vote--getting rid of Obamacare? Aren't you just waiting to hear the elections returns?

And consider this: If you were a Democrat, and were sitting around feeling let down by a Supreme Court decision that Obamacare was unconstitutional, what would you be doing now? Wouldn't you be rallying around the President and getting ready to fight just that much harder for his reelection? Wouldn't you just be waiting for election day? Waiting for a little revenge?

But look what that decision did. It took all the fire out of the Democratic position, and lit a veritable bonfire under the GOP. Just wait till you hear the comments from Congress!!

Result?

If Romney will just play his cards right, he can win, and he can bring in a Republican Congress on his coat tails.

Folks, I tell you again: What you just saw was a stroke of political genius.

And what makes it even funnier are all the media types running around right now who are praising Roberts for NOT being partisan.

My comment?

Ho! Ho! Ho!

His vote has literally decided the election.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Tom, do you think pressure was put on Roberts? If so by who, the Dem or Repubs? I agree this decision was the sadest since Roe V Wade and I don't believe our forefathers ever intended the Supreme Court of the Land to be political. Here is what scares me. By a vote of 5-4 the Supreme Court has given the Fed the Power to tax what we don't do. How is that different than taxing or (penalizing us for what we should do) It is beyond me to understand where States rights prevail under this ruling. States have the right to require us to do what the state believes is proper and needed. Car insurance requirement is a States right. The State controls the vehicles, drivers and road repairs therefore has the right to make sure users pay their fair share through taxes. The Commerce clause, was intended to keep an even playing field between states and gave the Fed the power to keep states from hurting each other. No State getting an unfair advantage where commerce was concerned. ( I'll accept an arguement to the contrary.) It took an ammendment to the Constitution to give the Fed the power to tax income. Where and how did the Fed get the power to tax behaviour? The Supreme Court just gave it to them. If this ruling ( which cannot be challenged, it's the highest court in the land) is not corrected in the Congress, The house and senate by repeal, Then the home of the brave and land of the free is over. in 1964 i saw my friends say we have rights too. i saw my friends say we have a voice and can make a change. what i never saw was a friend of mine who had a vested interest in the outcome of a free society. it was about i want not i will. oh to change that mindset, oh to change that error, how sad that the children of sixties were mislead to believe that the many should control the few and not that control is not the answer. let me be free.

If we do not put the brakes on now, I fear for my children and grandchildren. I won't be here to worry but they will be slaves to a power that knows no end. It will take generations to raise the awareness again and cause a revolt. Don't they see that the elite in our Government think they are as powerful as the King of England was over us in 1776. They make the rules, we follow. No hunting in the royal forests. (No driving in the national forests), No owning land, it belongs to us and you must pay taxes and work it ,and increase it's value so that we can force you to pay more tax. If you fail to pay the tax we take it back. WaKE Up. This is getting real scarry real fast.

Pam Mason 10 months, 3 weeks ago

It is a given that we should seek improvements in health care availabiility for all but what is being proposed scares the you know what out of me.

Having lived and experienced the British National Health Service (UK) and by keeping up to date reading BBC News online, it is still terrible. I don't consider sub standard care, service, hygene and the rationing of treatment, surgery and drugs is something we should wish to emulate.

Excuse me while I go back to hiding under the covers!

frederick franz 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I agree Tom,

Romney now has a chance to break out of the stagnation of this campaign. But the whole issue of Obamacare is destined to go right back to the SCOTUS, in 2015, when the objections to mandated insurance are protested.

By then, the Republicans could be in a position of leadership in congress, and we could be able to back out of this horrible mess!

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

"Tom, do you think pressure was put on Roberts? If so by who, the Dem or Repubs?"

I don't know, Dan. Having observed him, I suspect that he would put pressure on himself. He strikes me as being a person with a fixed point of view.

"By a vote of 5-4 the Supreme Court has given the Fed the Power to tax what we don't do."

To tax AND regulate what we don't do. Reading the long winded load of crap that was used to justify that decision is enough to show that it is based on building a house of arguments on a foundation of partisanship. There is no substance. No reaching out to our fundamental beliefs.

If you read the arguments made by Scalia et al you can see that. The dissenting opinion makes it plain enough that the majority decision is a load of wind.

"Car insurance requirement is a States right."

Sorry, Dan. There I will have to disagree with you. The Tenth Amendment does not say that powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States AND the people, meaning that all the powers we have as individuals are equally granted to the states. It says "...powers not granted to the federal government nor prohibited to the States by the Constitution are reserved to the States OR the people," which means that some powers are granted to the states, and the rest are OURS, and ours alone.

Clearly, because the founding fathers used the word OR instead of the word AND, they intended that there be a clear-cut distinction between the power granted to the state and the powers retained ONLY by the people. It takes but a moment's thought to see where the line has to be drawn. It has to be drawn at the point where the people become the slaves of the state, required by the state to do anything the state says. THE most fundamental right we have, after the right to life, is the right to keep whatever we earn. When the state tells us what we must do with our money--beyond taxing us for those things which are needed to apply the will of the people--then we are in essence slaves. We are no longer free. We work for the government. It was on that exact point that we went to war in 1776.

What we need is a good solid case--like mandatory car insurance--to be taken to the Supreme Court (if it ever gets working again). There is NO overriding need for car insurance--or any kind of insurance. Why? Because the person harmed is the person who chooses not to take out the insurance.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I believe that Roberts, seeing that, has set things up so that there will be a case, like an auto insurance case, brought to SCOTUS and decided, with the end result that Obamacare will fall as the result of that case--after the election.

There is plenty of precedent in SCOTUS cases for it to have decided against Obamacare. Here are a couple:

New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992): SCOTUS decided that the federal government cannot use the commerce power of the federal government to "directly compel states" to take an action.

In 1997, the Court again ruled that the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act fell for the exact same reason.

If, under the 10th amendment, the federal government cannot compel STATES to comply with such things, how can it then compel us to do it?

In other words, the federal government is stepping into the area reserved to the people.

"If this ruling ( which cannot be challenged, it's the highest court in the land) is not corrected in the Congress, The house and senate by repeal, Then the home of the brave and land of the free is over."

Dan, you just hit the nail on the head! Before this decision, the election lacked interest. There was no compelling reason to get a GOP president and GOP Congress. Now there is. And you watch what happens. It only takes one overpowering issue to determine the result of an election, and Roberts just handed one to the GOP.

Pam, I lived in England for four years and saw what health care is like when it is nationalized. It reminded me of the poorly lighted, damp, cold, plain wooden floors, dirty windows, "wait your turn, peasant; you're getting all this free" charity clinics of the 1930's.

All we really need is cuts in greedy overcharges and outright fraud. We don't need to scrap the whole system to get that, do we?

The only downside to all this is that once we get the GOP in power we may find ourselves trapped in another four years in which all power is again vested in the business clique, governed again by corporate America.

Well, I'd rather have that than Obamacare.

If only we could find some way to separate "business" from "greedy businessmen" in people's minds so that we could promote business and get rid the %$#@! greedy men who use business for enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of us. If we could just get people to see that what is good for some greedy S.O.B. is not necessarily good for business.

don evans 10 months, 3 weeks ago

My opinion. Roberts was legacy building for himself in history and protecting the "prestige and perceptions" of the Supreme Court. Due to all the major controversial social issue and fiscal cases that have come down in the last decade especially. The Supremes are well aware of the current and growing cultural and politictal divisions in the country. Their being percieved as mere lifetime appointed political hacks for one of two ideology's concerns them. They must appear above it all, as phony as it is. I have little respect anymore for the judiciary and it's camoflaged false independence. They have personal and political agendas in many of their decisions but expect we uninformed masses will pay great homage and belief in their titles and stated mission of blind justice for all. All one need do is look carefully into the local county judiciary machinations to unmask the hipocracy of the entire system! What to do about all of this that is bringing down our Nation as we know it should be? What are we really willing to do? And the answer is __ (fill in the blank with your one or two word solution). It may not be a pleasant pill to swallow for many. But it is building momentum rapidly. Quietly thought about and spoken in closed trusted circles for now. Let's all hope the November elections have a positive outcome for our country and it's future direction.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

I have of late been working so many hours that I've not been able to stay current with all that is happening. However, today I heard a reference that I believe was to SCOTUS and Justice Roberts, saying that SCOTUS is not the safety backboard for poor political decisions of the people.

If that is true than Tom, you are exactly right. Roberts has electrified the electorate.

For far too long we have voted for the popular choice to send to DC and more likely than not, with little more than what it takes to be prom King or Queen. The mess in Washington is our fault, not the courts. The mess in the States legistures is our fault, not the courts. If we truly want the people to govern, we (meaning every adult American citizen who believes in our freedom)must get back to being involved.

One other decision by SCOTUS on the same day saddens me. The court has said the first ammendment protects liars. By shooting down the Warriors reputation or whatever protection bill, sorry should have been better prepared to comment, They said as long as it is not for fraud (financial gain) that a person can say they are a purple heart winner, a bronze star winner, or any other lie and it's okay.....It's okay...Lying is okay.

So the real problem with this action proves beyond a reasonable doubt what our forefathers said when the gave us the law. Only a moral society can uphold this Constitution.

And the Frenchman Alexis de Tocqueville told us more than 200 years ago where we'd be if we lost sight of that. " A democratic government is the only one in which those who vote for a tax can escape the obligation to pay it." and this quote, which to me says it all. "America is great because she is good. If America ceases to be good, America will cease to be great."

Let's plug in to the electricity provided by these decisions and take our Country back. And I mean any way we can.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Don,

Very perceptive look into the judiciary. And as to Roberts, you may just be right. The trouble is, as you say, that we should not be having to try to second guess the reasons for decisions. A look at the past shows that they were always very transparent. We might not have agreed with all of their decisions as far as their having done what we wish they had done, but it was always possible to see why the decisions had been made.

But now? Half the time what we read in those decisions is not an explanation of why they had to be made as they were, but a set of excuses for why they were made, and why we shouldn't look upon them as partisan. Roberts' walk around the park is the worst example I have seen. Furthermore, it violates one of the oldest concepts of the Court--never going beyond the issue at hand. When a Justice says, "Well, we can't justify this piece of crap on the grounds we were given, so we'll search out some other grounds and justify it that way," you know full well that he is only making excuses for what he did.

As to what we will do about all this...?

Have fun. I'll be gone, but I'll be with you.

"They said as long as it is not for fraud (financial gain) that a person can say they are a purple heart winner, a bronze star winner, or any other lie and it's okay…..It's okay…Lying is okay."

That decision is an example of poor thinking. It's obvious, of course, that the government cannot regulate any purely moral issue, so lying in general, while obviously immoral, cannot be made illegal because that would create a morality police, and a national mess, the likes of which we have never seen before. It would be a hundred times worse than Prohibition. We'd have more people in prison than out.

But lying about a specific, national issue concerning the value of our medals could have been treated differently than it was. The Court could have, instead of just deciding against the government, done what Roberts did in his phony Obamacare decision. It could have pointed out that the charge was made under the wrong law and returned the case for retrial under that charge, instead of just making the recommendation that the current Stolen Valor law be changed.

In any event, it felt lousy reading that decision.

Bernice Winandy 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Roberts is getting attacked unfairly. Please remember that it was while he was the head honcho that the decision was made to allow super PACs. That decision was far from being "left leaning." He is not simply some person who gives in to pressure from the left. I believe his uninfluenced thought processes made him vote as he did whether I approve or not.

I find it interesting that I felt the Supreme Court would throw out the Affordable Health Care Act because I felt that the right leaning court could do nothing other than to throw it out. "Afterall they made Super Pacs possible. " My husband, on the other hand, felt that it would be okayed. "They have to redeem themselves for making Super PACs possible." He only erred on the attributing the deciding vote to Kennedy rather than Roberts. :-)

Let's wait to see what develops next before making dire predictions and making unfounded statements for the reasons for voting.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Could be that Roberts is being attacked in the media for being "left leaning," but it sure isn't happening here on the forum. And anyway, why should a Justice be attacked these days for leaning left or right? Isn't that why they're chosen? To lean in the correct direction? What's correct? In the direction of the white house guy and law makers who chose him. After all, the government does run on the buddy system, doesn't it?

Hey! Who needs, or wants, a Supreme Court that makes its decisions according to the Constitution? If all we wanted were laws that were correct and appropriate we could have Congress and the President do that--if we had a Congress and President.

"I find it interesting that I felt the Supreme Court would throw out the Affordable Health Care Act because I felt that the right leaning court could do nothing other than to throw it out."

I find that interesting too. I would say that it parallels the thinking of most people.

“They have to redeem themselves for making Super PACs possible.”

He's right. That's the way things work. It's a whole new system of jurisprudence. Instead of wasting time deciding each case correctly, what you do is decide one incorrectly in one direction, and then balance things out by going equally nuts in the other direction. Consider how much time that saves. You hardly have to think at all. And think of all the work it saves. No reading through the minutes of the Constitutional Convention, or the arguments put forth back in the old days to see what they really meant. Just take a whack at it, and if you screw up, so what? Just screw something up in the other direction.

Fair is fair, no?

That's called "balanced thinking."

However, I'm sorry. I'm about to make a whopper of a prediction on another string, though I don't know how "dire" it will be. Since I sit in the middle of the road all I care about is that neither of our two parties run the Welcome Wagon over me.

What a great country! Justices, law makers, and white house guys swearing an oath to "...hold up the Constitution of the United States."

And they do it too! Don't you ever that feeling? The one that says you're being held up?

You know. Like at the ATM at night.

Dan Haapala 10 months, 3 weeks ago

Okay Tom how about this. If the Court (SCOTUS) Now says that lying (with no personal financial gain) is protected under the first ammendment, then how to explain the law of perjury? If it deals with being under oath to tell the truth? Where is the justification for being under oath? It's not God, that would also violate the first in their eyes, so this ruling seems to mean that even in court you can lie if you are not making money. Would someone point out to me where I'm wrong or the Court just stepped in it.

Tom Garrett 10 months, 2 weeks ago

Dan,

The decision was a good one. The reporting of the decision has been very poor. It focuses on one comment and leaves out the parts with which we would all agree--if the media had chosen to report on them.

I'll quote some parts of the decsion, and you'll see what I mean.

• First, a rule of thumb regarding whether or not a law that controls speech is Constitutional.

"The Constitution 'demands that content-based restrictions on speech be presumed invalid . . . and that the Government bear the burden of showing their constitutionality.'"

So, in this case the government had to prove that its law was Constitutional.

• Next the reasons why the Court has previously restricted free speech:

"Content-based restrictions on speech have been permitted only for a few historic categories of speech, including incitement, obscenity, defamation, speech integral to criminal conduct, so-called “fighting words,” child pornography, fraud, true threats, and speech presenting some grave and imminent threat the Government has the power to prevent."

• Next, an explanation of why the government's examples of other restrictions of free speech, including perjury laws, do not apply in this case:

"-Even when considering some instances of defamation or fraud, the Court has instructed that falsity alone may not suffice to bring the speech outside the First Amendment; the statement must be a knowing and reckless falsehood.

"-The criminal prohibition of a false statement made to Government officials in communications concerning official matters, 18 U. S. C. §1001, does not lead to the broader proposition that false statements are unprotected when made to any person, at any time, in any context.

"-As for perjury statutes, perjured statements lack First Amendment protection not simply because they are false, but because perjury undermines the function and province of the law and threatens the integrity of judgments.

"-Finally, there are statutes that prohibit falsely representing that one is speaking on behalf of the Government, or prohibit impersonating a Government officer.

"-These examples, to the extent that they implicate fraud or speech integral to criminal conduct, are inapplicable here."

Tom Garrett 10 months, 2 weeks ago

• Then a comment on what is fundamentally wrong with the law:

"The Act seeks to control and suppress all false statements on this one subject in almost limitless times and settings without regard to whether the lie was made for the purpose of material gain. Permitting the Government to decree this speech to be a criminal offense would endorse government authority to compile a list of subjects about which false statements are punishable. That governmental power has no clear limiting principle."

This is the comment the media jumped on. Its actual thrust is to show that the law, if approved, would set a precedent which would make it possible to for the government to punish any form of false speech without limitation.

• Then the Court showed that there is no cause and effect relationship:

"While the Government’s interest in protecting the integrity of the Medal of Honor is beyond question, the First Amendment requires that there be a direct causal link between the restriction imposed and the injury to be prevented. Here, that link has not been shown."

As you can see, the Court's decision is good one, based on the Constitution, the intent of the First Amendment, and the fact that the arguments offered by the government did not apply.

The problem arises in the fact that the media has chosen to harp on two words in the entire decision: "material gain."

The bottom line? Lousy, rabble-rousing, yellow sheet journalism, which any Journalism 101 professor would have tossed back at a student's head.

Hope that helps.