It is difficult to separate the liberals from the conservatives, but all Republicans are conservatives, because they will not allow a liberal that represents the greater populace to even be in their midst, but run them out as soon as they find out how they vote.  If they will not get into lock step with the conservatives, then they are black balled.

It would be far better if only liberals that represent a liberal agenda of the common populace were on the left side of the aisle in Congress, since all on the right are conservatives representing big business, big corporations, big insurance, big banks and the elite capitalists, but that would be less confusing and the 70% majority populace would be readily able to see that they are not being represented at all in the making and enforcing of legislated law and order.

QUOTE (Ruth Marcus):

“It is facile to think of judges as umpires robotically calling balls and strikes. But it is also dangerous to think of judges as players on a particular team, still wearing uniforms under their robes.”
____________

While they provide the appearance of difference sensibilities, all of the (R) & (D) judges are on the same team together.

Judges use the laws of the corporate state to Constitutionally punish those least criminal, while protecting those who are most criminal.

You’re forgetting that the Democratic Party is heavily dependent on the medical industry and Wall Street for its money (as are the Republicans).  No bill was going to pass which did not seem profitable to them.

Reid, Obama and so on are politicians.  As long was the people put their votes where the money is, the politicians are going to follow or be out of work.

However, the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter in many areas.  I don’t know if this is a good thing; I think we’re going to miss stuff like the Bill of Rights.  Ironically, Single Payer could have easily been written up in an impeccably Constitutional law.
*********************

Yeah, if Reid had the stones to stifle Baucus, Nelson and the other DINOs.

ITW—a great many Constitutional objections were raised to Social Security.  The text of the legislation tries hard to avoid the idea of insurance and focuses on tax.  Unemployment insurance is administered through the states, which have more power in such matters than the Federal government.  The power to compel one private party to do business with another simply doesn’t exist for Congress under any rational interpretation of the text of the Constitution. 

However, the Constitution is pretty much a dead letter in many areas.  I don’t know if this is a good thing; I think we’re going to miss stuff like the Bill of Rights.  Ironically, Single Payer could have easily been written up in an impeccably Constitutional law.

The Commerce Clause has been distorted to cover crops grown exclusively for one’s own private use and in no way entering into interstate commerce or transport, so it can probably be distorted to cover anything including breathing.  The question will come down to whether the HCA benefits the medical industry and Wall Street or not.  I’m guessing they are okay with it and the Republican opposition is a sham.

Gee, I’m forced to buy retirement insurance in every paycheck.  It’s called “Social Security”.
And I’m forced to buy unemployment insurance in every paycheck.
And I’m forced to buy disability insurance in every paycheck.
Plus, if I want to earn a living or be able to get to a grocery store and don’t live in a city with serious public transport, I am forced to buy auto insurance to be able to drive a car.  FORCED, under penalty of potential jail time if I don’t.

Nobody “patriotically” raises Constitutional objections to all these similar “outrages”

Yet, somehow, being forced to buy health insurance is “horrible”, “Unconstitutional”, “Socialist”...all loudly trumpeted by ads funded by…health insurance providers!

It may be dangerous to think of judges as being on particular teams, but they are, as I noticed a few years ago on the ballot that all judges were Republicans, there was no Democrats whatsoever on the ballot for judges. 

Therefore, all the judges were Republican.  I questioned the Election Board as to why they were all Republican, then in the next election all judges affiliation was completely dropped from the ballot, so there was no way of knowing if any Democrats ever got in.

Since all Republicans are Conservative and many Democrats are Conservative, it is difficult to find a difference, but there are Democratic Liberals, therefore it is significant to have their political designation made known. 

The solution is not for judges to no longer publicly claim their political affiliation, so that the public won’t be able to balance conservatism and liberalism in the courts, since there is a Republican Team and a Democratic Team even though neither are working in the best interest of the Populace Team that have no representation in legislated law and order; [I spell populace with an ‘ace’ instead of an “ous” because populace has the proper meaning as ‘ace’, rather than ‘ous’.]  The Populace Team has a better chance with Liberal judges.

As long as judges do not show their political affiliation, I vote them all out, because as long as judges are ashamed of their political affiliation, they do not deserve to be judges, and everyone should do the same.

The courts are packed with Federalist Society Republican ideologues, no doubt, and they favor corporations and the rich over the rest of us, and they are corrupt in every ruling they hand down.  But that doesn’t mean they are always wrong.

In this case, the judge is right.

There is nothing in the commerce clause that can be reasonably construed, or any other constitutional grant of authority, which would allow the federal government to compel citizens to purchase a product or service from a for-profit business which sets its own fees.  Just think about the implications of that policy by Obama, and how far it is likely to be stretched in coming years.

For example, can the federal government compel citizens to buy software from connected education software companies, at $1,000 per child, for each year of a child’s education?  2 kids, $24,000 paid to some useless corporate insider who would kick back a percentage to the politicians?  The theory would be essentially the same:  education (health care) is important for our future (commerce), and the only way we can afford to educate (provide healthcare to) everyone is to compel the citizens to pay for a part of it. 

The truth is that education and healthcare both are fundamental rights and should be provided to all citizens free of charge, and paid for out of the general income tax revenues.  Each citizen should be entitled to full medical (and dental), just as each citizen is entitled to 12 years of education at no direct cost to the citizens.

What this policy by Obama is doing is simply furthering the goals of privatization of basic government services.  All of our tax money is stolen and given to millionaires in tax cuts, used for corporate subsidies, and war.  So now they want the working people to begin paying out of pocket for basic services that should be provided by the government.  This is just a sneaky way to push through privatization of everything.  We should oppose it.

Class is war, but the helots don’t seem to be fighting back much these days.

Ruth, there’s a class war going on in this country. It’s been accelerating for the last few decades. The oligarchs, (with whom, I think, your own interests and those of your well-paid husband are linked), so far appear to be winning. When you call for bipartisanship and for austerity in such an environment, as you are wont to, you are taking the side of the oligarchs.

There’ll be no kumbayah moments for quite a while now, as much as you might want them.

I’d guess the HCA will get through the SC just fine, because of the mandates, assuming the Heath Care industry and Wall Street want them.  Although they may be Constitutionally dubious, they were effectively a bribe to the industry which was the crux of getting the Act through the very well paid-off Congress.  The rest of the drama should entail a lot of mindless polemic in which the Republicans claim to be fighting against the Act tooth and nail, followed by a 5-4 Supreme Court decision in its favor and general forgetfulness.  In short, you’re being played, as usual.

Hudson’s ruling was wrong but he was hardly doing Cuccinelli’s bidding. In fact, he declined the Virginia attorney general’s request to strike down the law in its entirety. 

Hudson should be impeached because he didn’t recuse himself, being compromised by connect to businesses that profited from his ruling.

But he believes in the tooth fairy so that’s alright.

Sure Kath!

The Feds have mandated that Citizens purchase stuff all the time! It’s easy to name hundreds of times, just list one.

As for the rest of your post, it’s an example of how dumbed down most of the populace has become.

If you’re against the Feds mandating purchases from for profit companies then you’re for spending a trillion dollars invading foreign lands 8000 miles away.

Many in this country deserve to be ruled by despicable lying thieving slugs who wouldn’t know honor and integrity if they were shoved up their collective arses.

Where do you fit in?

(“just another form of tax revenue”= paying wellpoints ceo salary for 24 minutes with 1/2 year of your hard work-that’s where. If you’re a “democrat” you were tricked into supporting a republican wet dream. People should feel sorry for the likes of you)

It was my impression that the HCA was not faring well in the courts.  It is pretty obvious that the mandates represent a considerable extension of Federal power well beyond even such dubious cases as Gonzales, and consequently the controversy will go to the SC.  In fact, it would save a lot of time if they would take it there right now.

Reading Marcus column, I realized how easy it would be to fix homelessness!

How has this not been thought of before? Our elected representatives are, after all, mostly brilliant. Aren’t they.

Mandate that everyone buy a house!

And now that I let my mind wander a bit, I’m beginning to imagine how our “leaders” could fix a multitude of issues.

GM in trouble again? Next year, (maybe under a (R) to make it fair) Everyone could be mandated to buy a Chevy!

OMG!

And why would anyone go hungry when they could be fined by the IRS for not buying the proper amount of food! And why stop there? Kraft overextended in derivatives and needs a bailout? Just require proofs of purchase of cheese with your 2015 1040! If you don’t buy cheese and help rescue the needy, you should be harassed anyway. Don’t you agree?

DO YOU SEE WHAT I SEE HERE!

It’s over. All problems can be over. With a few votes! It’s so simple I’m beginning to wonder why the Feds haven’t required us peons to buy stuff before. Sheesh.

I’m so excited with my new found answer to everything I’m going off to some more Poli-Forums to spread the word.

Thank YOU Ruthie!