Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (480609)	4/4/2012 11:23:18 AM
From: TideGlider	Respond to of 793622

53% of Republicans See Tea Party As Political Plus; 32% of Democrats Say Same of Occupy in Politics Email thisShareThis Related Articles Daily Presidential Tracking Poll 46% Think Tea Party Will Hurt GOP in 2012 Elections, Most Republicans Disagree 51% See Occupy Wall Street Protesters As Public Nuisance 41% Say Their Views Closer to Tea Party’s Than to Wall Street Protesters’ Tea Party Mitt? By Scott Rasmussen Sign up for free daily updates Wednesday, April 04, 2012 Voters continue to have a slightly more favorable opinion of the Tea Party compared to the Occupy Wall Street protesters. But Republicans are the only ones who see either of the groups as much of a political benefit in the upcoming elections. The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters hold at least a somewhat favorable view of Tea Party activists, while 49% share an unfavorable opinion of them. This includes 23% with a Very Favorable view and 29% with a Very Unfavorable one. (To see survey question wording, click here.) The national survey of 1,000 Likely Voters was conducted on April 2-3, 2012 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology. Rasmussen subscribers can log in to read the rest of this article. OR Become a member and get full access to all articles and polls starting at $3.95/month. in Politics Email thisShareThis Rasmussen Reports is a media company specializing in the collection, publication and distribution of public opinion information. We conduct public opinion polls on a variety of topics to inform our audience on events in the news and other topics of interest. To ensure editorial control and independence, we pay for the polls ourselves and generate revenue through the sale of subscriptions, sponsorships, and advertising. Nightly polling on politics, business and lifestyle topics provides the content to update the Rasmussen Reports web site many times each day. If it's in the news, it's in our polls. Additionally, the data drives a daily update newsletter, the Rasmussen Report on radio and other media outlets. Some information, including the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll and commentaries are available for free to the general public. Subscriptions are available for $3.95 a month or 34.95 a year that provide subscribers with exclusive access to more than 20 stories per week on Election 2012, consumer confidence, and issues that affect us all. For those who are really into the numbers, Platinum Members can review demographic crosstabs and a full history of our data. Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, has been an independent pollster for more than a decade. To learn more about our methodology, click here.

To: Alan Smithee who wrote (480609)	4/4/2012 11:40:42 AM
From: TideGlider	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793622

Obama's Supreme Court comments off the mark President Obama was wrong on several counts when he said that it would be 'unprecedented' for the court to overturn the 2010 healthcare law. But Justice Kennedy's view is too narrow. Los Angeles Times April 4, 2012 Borrowing a line from conservative critics of the judiciary, President Obama declared that the Supreme Court would be engaging in "judicial activism" if it threw out the 2010 healthcare reform law. Responding to a question at a news conference Monday, Obama said it would be "an unprecedented, extraordinary step" if the court overturned "a law that was passed by a strong majority of a democratically elected Congress." He added that such a move would be a good example of the lack of judicial restraint that conservative commentators have bemoaned for years. There are several things wrong with the president's remark. For one thing, it's simply not true that it would be "unprecedented" for the court to overturn such a law. Since Marbury vs. Madison in 1803, the court has seen "judicial review" of laws as part of its responsibility, and over the years it has ruled many unconstitutional. That's entirely appropriate. Furthermore, the implication of the remark was that the number of votes in favor of a bill was somehow relevant to its constitutionality. It's not. Otherwise, whichever party or point of view is in the majority would be free to tyrannize the minority. That doesn't mean that the court can do as it pleases. For much of the past century, it has deferred to Congress' judgment about how to regulate commerce. On Tuesday, Obama noted those precedents and said that "the burden is on those who would overturn a law like this." And that's correct: The justices start every review from the presumption that the law in question is constitutional. During oral arguments last week, however, JusticeAnthony M. Kennedy suggested that another burden would apply when considering the healthcare law's requirement that all adult Americans carry insurance. If the court found that the mandate was an unprecedented use of federal power to force people into a market they hadn't chosen to participate in, Kennedy asked, wouldn't the government face a "heavy burden" to show it was constitutional? The administration has argued — correctly, we believe — that Kennedy's view is too narrow. The law regulates the healthcare market, which virtually everyone participates in, and not just health insurance. But if a majority of the justices frame the issue Kennedy's way, they could find that lawmakers had gone beyond the boundaries the court had previously set for Congress' power to regulate commerce. There's a natural tension between the Supreme Court's role as the ultimate arbiter of a law's constitutionality and Congress' power to set policy through statute. It's appropriate for the court to tread carefully and with restraint as it reviews this landmark change in healthcare policy. But again, just because Democrats in Congress rallied behind it doesn't mean the court shouldn't ensure that the law complies with the Constitution. Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times