SCOTUS: ObamaCare Decision

I think you are wrong. I think there are groups in both parties that are serious about getting the country's fiscal house in order. Unfortunately they are demonized for daring to just get the conversation started. Pretty sad, but that is the truth.

 

Yep.

If you are a Democrat who acknowledges entitlements will have to be tweaked, or a Republican who accepts it ain't all coming out of expenditures, you've bought yourself a lot of trouble.

 

Just a clarification ... "getting fiscal house in order" is not necessarily the concern of "economic libertarians," assuming I am correct on what an economic libertarian is (i.e., not different from libertarian in general).

 

I swear I am not trying to be difficult here, but could you render this into English?

 

I'd think fiscal responsibility would result from drastically cutting government, according to economic libertarians, but fiscal responsibility is not a driving force in the movement.

 

1. As other posters have already pointed out, the law invites an increased scrutiny on one particular race. That, to me, has been banned in at least one old 14th Amendment case. (Yick Wo v Hopkins).
2. I don't understand why you make the distinction between "citizen (or lawfully present alien)"...and, I guess to distinguish them from illegal immigrants? The Constitution applies to anyone who is here, lawfully or otherwise. (it's why terrorists are held at Guantanamo Bay and not supermax).
3. My main point was that one cannot assume (or find probable cause or reasonable suspicion for) illegal immigration status solely on the basis of race. That violates the 14th Amendment Equal Protection Clause. As applied (if I understand the AZ law correctly) it still raises some 14th Amendment red flags. Are they asking people of all colors if they are here illegally? If not, why not? Does this lead to longer detention times for Hispanic Americans who were born here and, thus, don't carry papers proving they are allowed to be here?

 

As expected, a guy from church blames Obama for the SCOTUS decision. He seriously wants to know when Irish Americans will get special favors.

 

They are not asking anyone if they are here legally. If someone has been stopped/detained for some other matter, they are contacting immigration to verify that that someone is here legally. If, as a matter of practice, they begin detaining Hispanics just so that they can run the immigration check, then yes, that's a clear equal protection issue. Indeed, that's what the Supremes have warned Arizona (and other states contemplating similar statutes) to NOT do. But nevertheless, what the Supremes let slide today is what has been let slide for many, many moons.

 

We turn the rivers in the biggest American cities green once a year. What does he want?

 

I'm fond of the Irish for multiple good, personal reasons . . . but converting a zillion of the nation's police forces rock-solid job sinecures wasn't a good start?

 

So ... in spite of all the things he's doing, the conclusion is that he's doing nothing? Convenient argument, that.

 

Does this ruling in any way affect the Alabama law? I do t really know if it was modeled after Arizona.