Do voters have a right to know if a candidate is in poor health?

[fantome profane]

I have to say I think Hillary got the line of the week.

"The good news is my pneumonia finally got some Republicans interested in woman's health"

Even if you don't like Hillary you have to admit, that is a good line.

 

[Koldo]

They don't legislate though. They are judges. They hear a case, they make a judgement. They don't actually create any laws, but can extend the coverage of an existing law, stick down an existing law, but they do not have legislative power to just create new laws.

That's nitpicking, they have the power to determine if a legislated law can be put into effect or not, that's pretty damn close to legislating laws. They have the power to interpret and decide just what a law actually means, often far from the meaning the law was originally intended to have, so that's "dangerously" close to legislating laws

I completely agree with Lyndon here.

 

[4consideration]

Hillary had a claimed bill of 'excellent health' end of July but not stumbled on a day that wasn't that hot or humid leaving a 9-11 service 3 hours early... leaving a shoe behind... I went to a picnic for hours today and it was fairly moderate and pretty nice out in NYe

Now, stories of pneumonia, heat exhaustion, and blood clots to the brain emerge where she can't recally briefings... do the voters have a reasonable expectation of a candidate sharing health issues that can compromise their abilty to work before an election?

I don't think voters have a right to demand the health records, or demand some kind of across the board verification from candidates, like a "clean bill of health" from a doctor. I think that's unnecessarily intrusive.

What I do think voters have a right to, is "undoctored" reports of things that occur. I don't think we get enough of that.

Of course, in reporting editing is necessary. Editing out parts of sentences, and doctoring what was actually said, or being represented as occurring, is along the lines of what I object to.

People are already talking about specifics, so I think we should get accurate reporting on that, not attempts to minimize the conversation occurring from observation of her.

I don't think the media should tweak things, so as to remove information, like editing a part of a sentence out, when it changes the conclusion people may reach from that one sentence. Like this:

I think it's too intrusive to say we should scrutinize a candidate's health records. But, when something specific is occurring and questioned by the public, I think we should be told the truth.

We do have the right to accurate reporting, and we have the right to choose what we consider important in our own decision making.

 

[dawny0826]

Hillary had a claimed bill of 'excellent health' end of July but not stumbled on a day that wasn't that hot or humid leaving a 9-11 service 3 hours early... leaving a shoe behind... I went to a picnic for hours today and it was fairly moderate and pretty nice out in NY

Now, stories of pneumonia, heat exhaustion, and blood clots to the brain emerge where she can't recally briefings... do the voters have a reasonable expectation of a candidate sharing health issues that can compromise their abilty to work before an election?

She can share whatever she wants about her own health situation, but, I don't believe that the American public is entitled to such information. I do not support Hillary Clinton, but, I respect her enough that I wouldn't assume her less capable even if she had some sort of health condition.

If she were dying, I doubt that she'd be wasting her time on this endeavor. Unless she's dying, her health is none of my business.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's nitpicking, they have the power to determine if a legislated law can be put into effect or not, that's pretty damn close to legislating laws. They have the power to interpret and decide just what a law actually means, often far from the meaning the law was originally intended to have, so that's "dangerously" close to legislating laws

The Supreme Court judges are not legislators. They cannot just create or strike down a law. If they are not presented with a case, they don't do anything. It's no different than a city judge, who is unable to strike down or create new laws without these laws being questioned in a court case, as doing otherwise, as a legislator does, is no where in their job description.

 

[Lyndon]

The Supreme Court judges are not legislators. They cannot just create or strike down a law. If they are not presented with a case, they don't do anything. It's no different than a city judge, who is unable to strike down or create new laws without these laws being questioned in a court case, as doing otherwise, as a legislator does, is no where in their job description.

I never said they were legislators, and YES, they can strike down a law, and YES, they can reinterpret a law in a totally new way.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I never said they were legislators,

You said defining the difference was nitpicking, so you kind of did.

and YES, they can strike down a law, and YES, they can reinterpret a law in a otally new way.

I didn't say they can't, what I said is they can't do this unless it's presented to them as a case. They just cannot say "Today I'm going to make a law that makes action x legal and strike down this law that bans action y." That is what a legislator does. The Supreme Court interprets the law when a case is presented before them, which is why their decisions are always things such as Loving v. Virginia, or Smith v. Doe, West v. Barnes, or Missouri v. McNeely. Judges just do not legislate.

 

[columbus]

Judges just do not legislate.

Sometimes the rulings are nearly indistinguishable from legislation.

When the SCOTUS decided that ACA was constitutional because a penalty collected by the IRS could be considered a tax, that was darned close to legislation. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting that.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Sometimes the rulings are nearly indistinguishable from legislation.

When the SCOTUS decided that ACA was constitutional because a penalty collected by the IRS could be considered a tax, that was darned close to legislation. There is nothing in the Constitution supporting that.
Tom

That wasn't legislating though, but interpreting the law and making a decision about a law that was already legislated.

 

[columbus]

That wasn't legislating though, but interpreting the law and making a decision about a law that was already legislated.

Technically, you are correct.
Functionally, not so much IMHO. The ACA is simply not Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal Government the power to require citizens to pay private concerns for anything.
Tom

 

[David1967]

I never said they were legislators, and YES, they can strike down a law, and YES, they can reinterpret a law in a totally new way.

And get to choose which laws to consider.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And get to choose which laws to consider.

They don't get to do this. If you read through the history of the Supreme Court decisions, they all involve other parties approaching the Supreme Court as a disinterested party.

 

[columbus]

They don't get to do this.

Yes they do.
If they decide not to take a case, nobody can make them.
Tom

 

[David1967]

They don't get to do this. If you read through the history of the Supreme Court decisions, they all involve other parties approaching the Supreme Court as a disinterested party.

From my understanding they do. You are correct that they are first approached, But they get to decide whether or not to take the case.

 

[columbus]

From my understanding they do. You are correct that they are first approached, But they get to decide whether or not to take the case.

And they can signal which cases they are likely to take and which they won't.
Tom

 

[Shadow Wolf]

From my understanding they do. You are correct that they are first approached, But they get to decide whether or not to take the case.

And that is why they don't legislate and aren't considered legislators. Legislators can create and strike down laws as a part of their job description, judges cannot - they cannot create any new laws, they can strike down laws, but the case must be presented to them and it is not an act of legislation but rather one of interpretation. That's why we have, at the American federal level, an executive branch, a legislative branch, and a judicial branch, because they have their own separate functions and the judicial branch does not legislate but decide on what has already been legislated.

 

[Lyndon]

OK so they judicate instead of legislate, but in the end the effect can be pretty much the same.......

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Functionally, not so much IMHO. The ACA is simply not Constitutional. There is nothing in the Constitution giving the Federal Government the power to require citizens to pay private concerns for anything.

You can easily build off the idea that the Constitution was intended to be non-static and that each new generation should be deciding crucial things (such as health care) for themselves rather than being governed by the dead. That is pretty much why the "original intent" argument fails because the Founders did not want future generations to look back on the Constitution and decide that if it worked for the Founders it is good enough for them now. Personally, I see the whole "original intent" argument to be a major insult to the intelligence of the Founders because in their quest for the "more perfect government" they knew that different times have different issues and the same answer for those issues will not be consistent across different ages. They wanted us to change and adjust because they knew that a static-state ran by the concepts and principles of their times will do nothing more than doom the future.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

OK so the judicate instead of legislate, but in the end the effect can be pretty much the same.......

They aren't the same. One can create and strike down laws as a part of their job and without anyone bringing it to their attention, the other interprets law when the case is presented before them.

 

[Underhill]

They are, however, elected indirectly.
In which case, what difference does it make ?

They can make decisions that aren't popular simply because they do not have to worry about re-election.