The issue isn't the judge's background or his political connections... if he isn't fit to be a judge he should be removed on that basis. Earl Warren was a Republican appointed as a U.S. Supreme Court Judge and he was pretty darn fair. I am sure he must have had all kinds of business and political connections we wouldn't like. I drew a Republican Judge in Lansing's Ingham County Circuit Court--- a real reactionary bastard politically--- but, he ruled the "Red Squads" unconstitutional. I also sued the FBI in Federal Court, drew a Reagan appointee... another thoroughly reactionary bastard... but, his legal rulings were fair.
So, what is there in this ruling that is not fair? Since the judge has NO precedents to go by it can't go against precedent.
Not liking a judge's ruling doesn't make the ruling not right.
I maintained from day one, the first time I read this legislation that it was unconstitutional based upon the fact that the government was forcing American citizens to purchase insurance from a for profit insurance company with penalties for failing to do so.
There is no precedent for anything like this.
The only way it would be constitutional is if the government established its own insurance company.
This is not like forcing people to have automobile insurance; people don't have to drive.
This is blatantly unconstitutional on its very face.
If the United States Supreme Court or an Appellate Court reverses this ruling this will then become a very dangerous precedent. If anyone doesn't believe this they had better think about it since there are a bunch of corporate controlled politicians running things.
In fact, in a way, the United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this at the time the right wing challenged Social Security... the Supreme Court pointed out that if Social Security was a private fund the government could not levy a tax.
Now, think about this if you like this legislation: What happens if they decide to privatize Social Security and you are forced to pay into a fund owned and managed by a private firm/s? If this legislation stands I predict Social Security is going to fall to the Wall Street vultures real fast.
Good luck.
So, what is there in this ruling that is not fair? Since the judge has NO precedents to go by it can't go against precedent.
Not liking a judge's ruling doesn't make the ruling not right.
I maintained from day one, the first time I read this legislation that it was unconstitutional based upon the fact that the government was forcing American citizens to purchase insurance from a for profit insurance company with penalties for failing to do so.
There is no precedent for anything like this.
The only way it would be constitutional is if the government established its own insurance company.
This is not like forcing people to have automobile insurance; people don't have to drive.
This is blatantly unconstitutional on its very face.
If the United States Supreme Court or an Appellate Court reverses this ruling this will then become a very dangerous precedent. If anyone doesn't believe this they had better think about it since there are a bunch of corporate controlled politicians running things.
In fact, in a way, the United States Supreme Court has already ruled on this at the time the right wing challenged Social Security... the Supreme Court pointed out that if Social Security was a private fund the government could not levy a tax.
Now, think about this if you like this legislation: What happens if they decide to privatize Social Security and you are forced to pay into a fund owned and managed by a private firm/s? If this legislation stands I predict Social Security is going to fall to the Wall Street vultures real fast.
Good luck.
No comments:
Post a Comment