Current Topics
History's 'Houdini': What the Critics Are Saying
by Golem
Yesterday at 02:55 PM
Israel appropriates massive tract of West Bank land
by rporter314
Yesterday at 01:25 PM
Round Table For Week Of August 31st-September 6th, 2014
by california rick
Yesterday at 12:38 PM
Tesla Motors Dealing as States Play Factory Poker
by rporter314
Yesterday at 12:31 PM
5 current Ferguson officers apart from Brown shooter figure in lawsuits
by NW Ponderer
Yesterday at 11:25 AM
Why aren't atheists allowed in Congress?
by logtroll
Yesterday at 11:12 AM
Miscellaneous humor thread
by Golem
08/31/14 06:55 PM
National Israeli fire on Gaza town raises war crimes claim
by Ardy
08/31/14 06:52 PM
Rams cut Michael Sam, first openly gay player drafted
by Scoutgal
08/31/14 08:55 AM
My Muslim religion has problems that need fixing
by Ardy
08/30/14 08:27 PM
The 10 Biggest Classic Rock Douchebags
by logtroll
08/30/14 07:44 PM
Round Table for the week of August 24-30, 2014
by logtroll
08/30/14 07:37 PM
How Clayton Kershaw compares to the greatest pitchers in history
by Scoutgal
08/30/14 04:07 PM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2014
by Scoutgal
08/30/14 04:02 PM
Gun Tourism Grows in Popularity in Recent Years
by logtroll
08/30/14 01:44 PM
Forum Stats
6003 Members
55 Forums
14300 Topics
247164 Posts

Max Online: 282 @ 05/29/08 01:08 AM
Google Adsense
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >
Topic Options
#218118 - 03/27/12 09:32 PM Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid'
Golem Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 2166
Loc: Orange County, California, USA
Justice Scalia to Obama's Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [AUDIO]
The Daily Caller
March 27, 2012

Quote:
While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. made the Obama administration's case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, "we're not stupid."

More

Top
#218123 - 03/27/12 09:37 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
Phil Hoskins Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/07/04
Posts: 20594
Loc: West Hollywood, CA
That is debatable.
_________________________
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul

Top
#218126 - 03/27/12 09:45 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Phil Hoskins]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 25866
Loc: CA USA
No, not stupid-just corrupt< Justices Scalia and Thomas> rolleyes
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#218127 - 03/27/12 09:51 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Phil Hoskins]
Golem Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 2166
Loc: Orange County, California, USA
Originally Posted By: Phil Hoskins
That is debatable.

Many things are. grin

Top
#218131 - 03/27/12 09:57 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Scoutgal]
Golem Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 03/12/12
Posts: 2166
Loc: Orange County, California, USA
Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
No, not stupid-just corrupt< Justices Scalia and Thomas> rolleyes

I never thought of any of the current Justices as corrupt. I just think of them as people with different viewpoints.

Top
#218132 - 03/27/12 09:58 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
Ardy Offline
veteran

Registered: 12/22/05
Posts: 11617
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA
Scalia's apparent point is that people in a low risk pool (young people) should be allowed to decide not to buy insurance.


This is like saying that people should be allowed to decide when they will start paying social security contributions. The whole reason that social security was made mandatory for all was because it was clear that people often make poor risk analysis decisions.

The fact is that medical risk changes as we age... and that in any case, young people are comfortable taking large risks without even being fully aware of the nature of the risks

Left to our own devices, most young people will not buy insurance, and most older people cannot afford insurance that fully covers their medical risk

If Scalia thinks otherwise, he is stupid.

If he has not thought about it, he is also stupid.


Edited by Ardy (03/27/12 10:01 PM)
_________________________

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Top
#218135 - 03/27/12 10:13 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
Phil Hoskins Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 06/07/04
Posts: 20594
Loc: West Hollywood, CA
Originally Posted By: Golem
Originally Posted By: Scoutgal
No, not stupid-just corrupt< Justices Scalia and Thomas> rolleyes

I never thought of any of the current Justices as corrupt. I just think of them as people with different viewpoints.


As you know, Golem, there is a strong argument that Thomas should not be hearing this case, given his involvement by his wife in the opposition to the health care reform act.
_________________________
Life is a banquet -- and most poor suckers are starving to death -- Auntie Mame
You are born naked and everything else is drag - RuPaul

Top
#218137 - 03/27/12 10:25 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ardy]
itstarted Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 6354
Loc: Florida/Illinois
I watched the first day argument in the entirety on Cspan. The discussion was much more abstract than any of the interpretations that I've seen or heard in the media. The gist of the discussion:

Quote:
The long-run implications are really for other tax cases. If the AIA were non-jurisdictional, then it is both subject to waiver and the creation of judicial equitable exceptions, and thus any tax might be challenged before it was assessed, if the government failed to raise the AIA bar or the courts found an equitable exception.


(AIA - Anti-Injunction Act)

Clearing away all of the rest of the discussion, I believe the case will be settled on this point of law. As with the Citizens United decision, the ramifications of the decision will probably not be connected to anything that resembles the public good, or the moral high ground, but rather like a game, that uses words and theory to determine the intent of previous legal determinations.

Nine people trying to avoid a gotcha.


Top
#218142 - 03/27/12 11:05 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
Quote:
Thomas, as per usual, did not ask questions during the argument.

Isn't asking questions indicative of intellectual curiosity? How can that guy be a SCOTUS justice and just sit there, never ask questions, like a bump on a log, and render judgment? Oh, that's right - he's "earning" a paycheck for life.

We're coming up on 20 years of the same B.S. from him. Twenty years of never asking questions during arguments. That guy has got to go!!
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218155 - 03/28/12 12:08 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: california rick]
itstarted Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 6354
Loc: Florida/Illinois
Advice to the Supreme court... amicus briefs... funded by Koch Brothers
link

Quote:
Several organizations that have filed amicus briefs with the Supreme Court have received substantial donations from the Koch family as well. These groups include:

Competitive Enterprise Institute: $666,420
Pacific Research Institute: $270,000
Texas Public Policy Foundation: $74,500
Freedom Works: $5 million
Cato Institute: approximately $30 million.
Family Research Council: brief co-authored by attorney Nelson Lund, a professor at George Mason University, which has received $29,604,354.
Galen Institute: “partner organization” of the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation; extent of donations unknown.
Landmark Legal Foundation: $5000
In addition, a Court-appointed attorney used a study by the Rand Corporation to show the impact of the individual mandate in the health care bill—even though Rand has received $100,000 from none other than the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation.

Top
#218158 - 03/28/12 12:23 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
Ardy Offline
veteran

Registered: 12/22/05
Posts: 11617
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA
It is an interesting point (IMO) conceivably the court could rule on a point of law that yields impractical results. What happens if, for example, the court throws out only mandatory coverage as unconstitutional... and leaves the rest of the bill intact.

The mandatory coverage provision was a critical part of the "compromise" with the insurance industry. Without mandatory universal coverage, you are left with a situation where people can remain without coverage until they know they are sick... and then pay no penalty and have guarantees access to insurance coverage. It is like buying car insurance after you have an accident.

In any case, if the court rejects mandatory coverage... then there are two major directions the country could move.... either pass some sort of universal single payer government program (which is unlikely to happen) or return to the prevailing trends of the last few decades.... more an more people with no coverage who ultimately wind up as a burden on the system... which raises the cost of insurance... which make fewer people able to afford insurance. It will be a vicious downward spiral with no plausible good ending. We will have the equivalent of gated medical communities where people inside the walls can afford great medical care... and there is absolute chaos outside the walls.

At least that is what it looks like to me.
_________________________

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Top
#218160 - 03/28/12 12:39 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: itstarted]
Ardy Offline
veteran

Registered: 12/22/05
Posts: 11617
Loc: San Jose, Ca USA
Originally Posted By: itstarted
Advice to the Supreme court... amicus briefs... funded by Koch Brothers


I wonder how much money the Koch bros. sent to the wife of Justice THomas? Not that it would influence the way he would vote
_________________________

"Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts."

Top
#218162 - 03/28/12 02:06 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
In our department, one cafeteria manager told me her net income is $1800/mo. Her portion of health insurance is $700.00 making her "net, net" $1100.00. She said every year her "net, net" is less money than the year before - even with a 1.5% raise - because her shared cost of health insurance goes up higher than her increases in salaries.

Effectively, each year she experiences a net loss due to her portion of health insurance premiums deducted from her check.

At the school district, the union employees contracts are up this year. The union is asking the district to hold the line on employee's portion of premiums and if there is an increase to pick it up themselves. The district said: No way - that's our best and final.

Needless to say, negotiations have gone to impasse and a mediator will resolve the issue.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218184 - 03/28/12 11:45 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
Normally, I am pretty forgiving of SC Justices' decisions about recusal, but I think Justice Thomas is over the line on this one. I suspect that Justice Kagan might have recused herself, if he had, but hers is not as serious a conflict, in my opinion. It's close, though.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218186 - 03/28/12 12:09 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
Frankly I think the Solicitor is not stupid, either, and he knows that Justice Scalia is an activist ideologue Justice that likes to toy with petitioners. I am curious how ideologically-driven his decision will be in this case, as from an historical perspective, it is, as most commentators have indicated, not a close call. If the Supreme Court strikes it down, it will be just like being back in 1933, where an ideology-driven court was so opposed to FDR's programs, they struck nearly everything down.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218194 - 03/28/12 12:50 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ardy]
Greger Offline
veteran

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 11848
Loc: Florida
Quote:
more an more people with no coverage who ultimately wind up as a burden on the system... which raises the cost of insurance... which make fewer people able to afford insurance. It will be a vicious downward spiral with no plausible good ending.

I disagree, Ardy, if this rather cumbersome, patched together, and compromised law is struck down then we will probably see another, probably better insurance reform package put together later in President Obama's second term. If that fails to come about before 2016 then the problem will still exist and possibly as many as a third of Americans will have no insurance. It has become an issue which must be dealt with and which is not going away.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."— Oscar Wilde

Top
#218202 - 03/28/12 04:30 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
Justice Kagan might have recused herself

interesting as my recollection is the wh sequestered her from both crafting the legislation and from developing the legal justification for the law ... she would thus be guilty of working in the same building

Quote:
Justice Thomas

marriage to a lobbyist who worked against HR 3950 ... does that constitute a conflict of interest? ... does attending a Koch sponsored event by both Scalia and Thomas (not necessarily at the same time) after which Citizens United was upheld which was also sponsored by the Koch Bros, have the patina of potential ethics problems?
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#218208 - 03/28/12 07:48 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: itstarted]
itstarted Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 6354
Loc: Florida/Illinois
Originally Posted By: itstarted
I watched the first day argument in the entirety on Cspan. The discussion was much more abstract than any of the interpretations that I've seen or heard in the media. The gist of the discussion:

Quote:
The long-run implications are really for other tax cases. If the AIA were non-jurisdictional, then it is both subject to waiver and the creation of judicial equitable exceptions, and thus any tax might be challenged before it was assessed, if the government failed to raise the AIA bar or the courts found an equitable exception.


(AIA - Anti-Injunction Act)

Clearing away all of the rest of the discussion, I believe the case will be settled on this point of law. As with the Citizens United decision, the ramifications of the decision will probably not be connected to anything that resembles the public good, or the moral high ground, but rather like a game, that uses words and theory to determine the intent of previous legal determinations.

Nine people trying to avoid a gotcha.


am reposting, because I truly believe the point of law regarding the AIA is the heart of the argument.

I believe we have a situation where some very important people have become caught up in a web of technical wording to the degree that they have lost track of the implications that their
decision may/will have on the welfare of the country. Despite the analysis in the media, the political battles that focus on conservative vs. liberal, and the attempts to demonize one or another of the justices... the results of the June decision will
not have to do with the healthcare law, but the interpretation of existing laws based on precedent, and perceived intent.

The word web becomes divorced from reality when attempting to apply laws that were designed for a country less than 1/10 of the size of today's population, with a vastly different social structure.

The strange part about the SCOTUS discussion is that despite the insistence on the letter of the law, the justices seemed to be torn... about the effects of pro/con decisions on the subsequent resulting conflicts that would necessarily ensue with other established decisions.

The coming months will likely see increasing anxiety, and further partisanship, along with a scramble by all affected corporations to cover for possible future losses. Uncertainty almost always results in negative effects on the economy.

Just another argument to prove there is no perfect form of government.

Top
#218209 - 03/28/12 08:20 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
Had the AIA said "tax" instead of "penalty" the law would not be in front of the Supreme Court right now.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218210 - 03/28/12 08:42 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ardy]
Mechanic Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/19/11
Posts: 802
Ardy,

Don't know about you, but most folks I associate with evaluate/re-evaluate their medical/dental coverage choices as frequently as their other insurances ! When young and single do you really need more than "catastrophic" health insurance ? With age and changing responsibilities, most alter their coverage, at least to the extent they can afford.

The "OC" plan doesn't - at least to my understanding - afford that option ! Its a "one size fits all" ! IOW, its going to soak the non-load young members to provide minimal care to the older "load" members - and perhaps "trim the load" by denying quality of life-extending care to our older citizens to balance its budget. Seems Ms. Palin was far more right in her assessment than many credited. Or maybe its just another of the reasons the lefties vilified her ? >Mech

Top
#218211 - 03/28/12 08:50 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: itstarted]
Mechanic Offline
journeyman

Registered: 04/19/11
Posts: 802
And you point is ...... IS ?

Or do posit the economic success of the Koch brothers enabling them to contribute to various think tanks and institutions supportive of a conservative viewpoint is somehow reprehensible ? Then you should be as equally outraged by the Joyce Foundation's support of our President to name but one ! >Mech

Top
#218212 - 03/28/12 08:55 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: california rick]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: california rick
Had the AIA said "tax" instead of "penalty" the law would not be in front of the Supreme Court right now.


Justice Ginsberg blew that argument out of the water. She stated that a tax is meant to raise revenues and if successful, this law wouldn't raise any revenue.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218213 - 03/28/12 09:01 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Mechanic]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
the Koch brothers enabling them to contribute to various think tanks and institutions supportive of a conservative viewpoint is somehow reprehensible

as usual you failed to understand the criticism (paranoia of conservatives i suspect)

the point is that any justice who would participate in any confab of any political persuasion would be ethically compromised
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#218214 - 03/28/12 09:14 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Mechanic]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
my understanding

as usual you would understand the conservative misrepresentation of HR 3950

Quote:
one size fits all

it is not a one size law ... it is a one program for all

there are several insurance packages outlined which depend on cost and coverage ... in other words there is a base package which addresses your concerns that the young would not have anything but catastrophic coverage ... thus we would have high deducts but some protection from catastrophic health care ... other packages outlined increase in cost and of course the commensurate changes in coverage, including a cadillac package on the high end

Quote:
its going to soak the non-load young members to provide minimal care to the older "load" members

well gee ... this is precisely how all insurance of every kind works ... glad you understand that much

Quote:
"trim the load" by denying quality of life-extending care to our older citizens to balance its budget

you need to read the law first before making such blatantly inaccurate claims

the law is specific that whereas a panel of doctors will design the most cost effective health care methodologies, every patient has the option to reject the most cost effective treatment in favor of any chosen treatment

Quote:
Seems Ms. Palin was far more right in her assessment than many credited

no ... it would appear she was and is incorrect

Quote:
maybe its just another of the reasons the lefties vilified her

or it could be she is the idiot that people recognize her as

there are legitimate criticisms of HR 3950 but you have mentioned none of them
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#218217 - 03/28/12 09:30 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
a tax is meant to raise revenues and if successful, this law wouldn't raise any revenue

doesn't sound right

$695 fine per individual and $2000 per employee if employer has over 50 employees and fails to comply with certain conditions ... sounds like raising money

suppose Congress enacts a law which taxes cigarettes bought and no one buys cigarettes ... was it a tax if no one bought any, i.e. no revenue raised

i suspect the issues involved are a little more complicated than latching onto a superficial comment from a justice
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#218221 - 03/28/12 10:26 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: rporter314]
itstarted Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 6354
Loc: Florida/Illinois
NYT article

I found the reader discussion on this article to be quite insightful, exposing many ancillary topics that would come under the possible (different) decisions that will be rendered in June.

Some unintended results that will most certainly come no matter how the court decides.

I am inclined to think that the sole provider option may become a possibility by 2014, given the probable meltdown of whatever interim solution might be hammered out.

Of course that's just my opinion.

One more thing... A guess about the actual public understanding of the 2700 page Affordable Care Act.

That not one person in a thousand would be able to summarize the major aspects of the plan, or explain what changes are planned to take place, and when.

The single most important point of concern in every poll, and yet the public is almost completely ignorant of even the most basic points.

Healthcare.gov

Top
#218243 - 03/29/12 10:07 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: itstarted]
logtroll Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/25/10
Posts: 6199
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
How Collapse of Health Care Law Could Help Democrats

Another interesting take. Two things stood out for me: one is that a negative ruling could stimulate a Democratic backlash similar to the TEAP backlash (except there are a lot more Democrats than there were TEAPers); the other is that taxing to provide healthcare is being affirmed.

In my opinion, the biggest flaw in the ACA is the bastardizing of the system due to retaining the profit motivated private insurance companies. What place do Vampires have in healthcare, after all? I don't think that bloodsucking is an approved medical practice anymore.
_________________________
"If you would make a person happy, add not to their possessions but take from their desires"
Unknown

Top
#218245 - 03/29/12 10:45 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: rporter314]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
a tax is meant to raise revenues and if successful, this law wouldn't raise any revenue

doesn't sound right

$695 fine per individual and $2000 per employee if employer has over 50 employees and fails to comply with certain conditions ... sounds like raising money

suppose Congress enacts a law which taxes cigarettes bought and no one buys cigarettes ... was it a tax if no one bought any, i.e. no revenue raised

i suspect the issues involved are a little more complicated than latching onto a superficial comment from a justice





Quote:
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said to Long that the Tax Injunction Act, modeled on the Anti-Injunction Act, would not apply to penalties created to induce compliance with a law, instead of serving the purpose to raise revenues.
"And this is not a revenue-raising measure because, if it's successful, they -- nobody will pay the penalty, and there will be no revenue to raise," said Ginsburg.
http://www.thestreet.com/story/11470878/...x-argument.html
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218247 - 03/29/12 10:49 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Mechanic]
2wins Offline
veteran

Registered: 07/29/04
Posts: 7614
Loc: Barely above Sea Level
Originally Posted By: Mechanic
And you point is ...... IS ?

Or do posit the economic success of the Koch brothers enabling them to contribute to various think tanks and institutions supportive of a conservative viewpoint is somehow reprehensible ? Then you should be as equally outraged by the Joyce Foundation's support of our President to name but one ! >Mech
please show me where the joyce foundation has undue influence in the democratic party. please show me where the joyce foundation has worked to undermine the republican party's efforts, as has the koch brothers worked to undermine the democratic party. please show me where the joyce foundation has worked to undermine checks and balances that attempt to protect the average citizen (the 99, perhaps). please, please, please. if you're going to compare apples to oranges, the least you could do is provide us with an argument worth debating. but alas, i don't think you're able.
_________________________
sure, you can talk to god, but if you don't listen then what's the use? so, onward through the fog!

Top
#218260 - 03/29/12 12:58 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: california rick]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 4267
Loc: North San Diego County
Quote:
one cafeteria manager told me her net income is $1800/mo. Her portion of health insurance is $700.00 making her "net, net" $1100.00. She said every year her "net, net" is less money than the year before - even with a 1.5% raise - because her shared cost of health insurance goes up higher than her increases in salaries.

Sounds like she really, really needs ACA: Down near the poverty line, it supplies tax credits to limit your cost for a policy to 3% of your AGI. If she is sole earner and has a few kids, with $1800/month, her policy would cost her $54/month!

All of the people crying poor-mouth are comparing their low income to the amount they would "be required to pay" pre-ACA for a policy. That comparison is scary, but also wildly inaccurate! BTW: You still get those tax credits to help buy your policy, even if they are more than your tax liability.

Top
#218263 - 03/29/12 01:17 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 4267
Loc: North San Diego County
I think there is an interesting conflict in play in the Supreme Court that will determine the final outcome: The so-called "conservative justices" are not really so much conservatives, as they are whatever the real rulers of the Republican Party need them to be at the moment. For example, "state's rights" is a big conservative value, but whenever a state wants to do something that conflicts with a Republican Party issue, those justices suddenly side against the state. In just about every such case, they take the Republican side when it conflicts with the conservative side!

The Individual Mandate is quite dear to the insurance industry. So even though it is being portrayed by the Republican Party as unconstitutional, I believe that is just propaganda for the rubes. Does the Republican Party care about Individual Liberty, or do they care about the insurance industry's bottom line? They keep talking about Freedom and Individual Liberty but then they consistently line up to kiss Big Business's behind.

I think Justice Kennedy gave away the show when he remarked about how overturning the Individual Mandate would leave the insurance industry stuck with an economic model that would destroy them. I think he, at least, would not vote for keeping the popular ACA provisions like "accept everyone even with pre-existing conditions" without the mandate. That leaves him with all or none: Uphold ACA intact, or overturn it completely which leaves the insurance industry vulnerable to a new single-payer plan that ends their existence.

Top
#218268 - 03/29/12 02:25 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: pondering_it_all]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think there is an interesting conflict in play in the Supreme Court that will determine the final outcome: The so-called "conservative justices" are not really so much conservatives, as they are whatever the real rulers of the Republican Party need them to be at the moment. For example, "state's rights" is a big conservative value, but whenever a state wants to do something that conflicts with a Republican Party issue, those justices suddenly side against the state. In just about every such case, they take the Republican side when it conflicts with the conservative side!

The Individual Mandate is quite dear to the insurance industry. So even though it is being portrayed by the Republican Party as unconstitutional, I believe that is just propaganda for the rubes. Does the Republican Party care about Individual Liberty, or do they care about the insurance industry's bottom line? They keep talking about Freedom and Individual Liberty but then they consistently line up to kiss Big Business's behind.

I think Justice Kennedy gave away the show when he remarked about how overturning the Individual Mandate would leave the insurance industry stuck with an economic model that would destroy them. I think he, at least, would not vote for keeping the popular ACA provisions like "accept everyone even with pre-existing conditions" without the mandate. That leaves him with all or none: Uphold ACA intact, or overturn it completely which leaves the insurance industry vulnerable to a new single-payer plan that ends their existence.


Where do you see support for a single payer system? My guess is that Congress won't touch this issue again for another 25 years. They just aren't that brave.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218269 - 03/29/12 02:28 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: pondering_it_all]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
I think there is an interesting conflict in play in the Supreme Court that will determine the final outcome: The so-called "conservative justices" are not really so much conservatives, as they are whatever the real rulers of the Republican Party need them to be at the moment. For example, "state's rights" is a big conservative value, but whenever a state wants to do something that conflicts with a Republican Party issue, those justices suddenly side against the state. In just about every such case, they take the Republican side when it conflicts with the conservative side!

The Individual Mandate is quite dear to the insurance industry. So even though it is being portrayed by the Republican Party as unconstitutional, I believe that is just propaganda for the rubes. Does the Republican Party care about Individual Liberty, or do they care about the insurance industry's bottom line? They keep talking about Freedom and Individual Liberty but then they consistently line up to kiss Big Business's behind.

I think Justice Kennedy gave away the show when he remarked about how overturning the Individual Mandate would leave the insurance industry stuck with an economic model that would destroy them. I think he, at least, would not vote for keeping the popular ACA provisions like "accept everyone even with pre-existing conditions" without the mandate. That leaves him with all or none: Uphold ACA intact, or overturn it completely which leaves the insurance industry vulnerable to a new single-payer plan that ends their existence.


Kennedy's questioning leads me to believe he will not support the individual mandate. He is paranoid about the amount of power it would invest in the Federal government. That concern will outweigh his wish to save the insurance companies.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218278 - 03/29/12 03:42 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
I think the general analysis of the Justices' positions is a little off. But before I go into that, I want to say two things about the ACA:
First, when given the choice about what model to use to take care of a significant drain on the US economy, Congress had essentially two to choose from - Medicare (VA, etc.), a single payer system of general coverage; or the FEBB (Federal Employee Benefit Plan), which is what covers all full-time federal employees, and members of Congress.
Second, they chose the latter, because it was most familiar, has been successful for decades, provides for choice for all participants, and was the method that was advocated for years by Republican and Conservative advocates, and the expectation was that it would therefore garner bipartisan support. I think the complete about-face by the GOP and Conservatives, and the outright vitriol, hypocriticality, and complete dishonesty of the opponents (some of whom are now Presidential aspirants) shocked Obama, the administration, and the Democrats. They thought they were compromising by giving the GOP what it wanted, and had no idea (initially) about how completely debased the party had become.

Now, to the merits of the arguments. This case should be deferred under the AIA, not because it is a tax, but because penalties cannot accrue until some future action takes place. This is a much stronger argument than most people here (and elsewhere) understand. It is not a "taxation/non-taxation" issue, it is enjoining something that hasn't had an impact and whose potential impact is therefore completely speculative. If we get beyond the AIA issue, which it appears we will, it is because the Justices want to address the merits, not because the law requires - or even allows - them to. It would not be the first, and will not be the last, time they do this, because many of them are driven by ideological imperatives not connected to precedent or the rule of law.

On the Commerce Clause issue, this is almost a no-brainer, from a precedential status. Congress has for decades, and the Supreme Court has endorsed, a broad application of the Commerce Clause when a significant economic activity is occurring. This is an issue that affects nearly 18% of our economic activity, and is unarguably of an interstate character. There is no question that the commerce clause applies. The question then becomes if the mechanism is unprecedented, because they call it a mandate. Well, it is not unprecedented, or even extraordinary. The fine line that the objectors are trying to create has not existed for 80 years. They argue that we are trying to force people to enter a market, whether they want to or not. Well, we do that already in a myriad ways - Social Security, for example; mandatory car insurance, for another. Is it different when the State does it, than the federal authority? Not in this instance, because it is within the commerce clause authority of Congress.

So, the basic questions are: 1) Can Congress legislate in the sphere of medical health coverage? Explicitly, yes. 2) Can Congress Mandate activity from citizens? Obviously, yes - for example, you have to get a SS card for a child before that child can even work, or pay a penalty if you fail to do so. 3) Can Congress require one to obtain an insurance policy, or pay a penalty for not doing so? In the same way that States have been doing it for decades.

Finally, there is the matter of where the Justices might come down on each of these questions. I think the decision to bypass the AIA will not be universal, but will probably be 7-2 in favor. There are too many Justices that want to get to it, regardless of the damage that will do to AIA precedents. With regard to the mandate, I think that the vote will be 6-3 in favor of upholding the law, with Kennedy and Roberts joining the majority, and Roberts authoring the lead opinion. There will, of course, be 5 separate opinions, at least. Ginsberg, Kagan and Sotomayor will write a concurrence. Kennedy will write separately. Scalia will write separately, concurring and dissenting and either Alito or Thomas will author a dissent that they join together.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218282 - 03/29/12 03:59 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
By the way, in order to strike down the law, the Court will have to go so far down a path unwinding decades of precedent on the Commerce clause, that we will be entering a long, deep tunnel of economic despair that will make 2008 seem a cakewalk, and the Citizens United decision relatively inconsequential. It will affect the rest of all of our lives as profoundly as the Great Depression affected our parents and grandparents. BTW, any one else seen or read The Hunger Games?
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218287 - 03/29/12 04:19 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
Greger Offline
veteran

Registered: 11/24/06
Posts: 11848
Loc: Florida


Quote:
any one else seen or read The Hunger Games?

No but I'm dying to get my hands on a copy.
_________________________
"Be yourself; everyone else is already taken."— Oscar Wilde

Top
#218288 - 03/29/12 04:24 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
numan Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 10853
Loc: What! Me Worry?
'
"WE'RE NOT STUPID!

Tsk! Tsk! I've only ever heard stupid people say that !

Intelligent people know that they are stupid.
That is how they become intelligent -- by trying to correct the stupidity in themselves which they perceive!
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer

Top
#218293 - 03/29/12 05:19 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
The reason I mentioned The Hunger Games is because its dystopian view of the world would mirror what our nation might become. Instead of a Legislature and President elected by the people, we have a triumvirate (Scalia, Alito, Thomas) + 2 (Kennedy, Roberts), who now dictate our laws to us, rather than some representative body. The world they are creating will look a lot like the Districts in Hunger Games or the mythical town in Santorum's latest Bizarro ad. (Makes Herman Cain's ad campaign seem mainstream. Reminds me of LBJ's daisy ad...)
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218297 - 03/29/12 05:29 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
pondering_it_all Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 4267
Loc: North San Diego County
Quote:
unwinding decades of precedent


Thanks, NWP, for the legal aspects of the speculation.

When you hear Justice Scalia making statements that suggest he would like to eliminate Social Security, Medicare, and the requirement that hospitals have to care for the uninsured indigent, it is easy to see partisan politics as their only motivation. But they really do have to avoid breaking a lot of existing things, even if they have philosophical objections to them.

Top
#218299 - 03/29/12 05:35 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: numan]
Ted Remington Offline
old hand

Registered: 07/09/08
Posts: 4890
Originally Posted By: numan
'
"WE'RE NOT STUPID!

Tsk! Tsk! I've only ever heard stupid people say that !

Intelligent people know that they are stupid.
That is how they become intelligent -- by trying to correct the stupidity in themselves which they perceive!


One must substitute ignorant for stupid wherever it appears in the last two sentences. Ignorance is treatable, while stupid just is. I did NOT say stupid justice, but I was certainly thinking it!
_________________________
Take the nacilbupeR pledge: I solemnly swear that I will help back out all Republicans at the next election.

Top
#218304 - 03/29/12 06:21 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
By the way, in order to strike down the law, the Court will have to go so far down a path unwinding decades of precedent on the Commerce clause, that we will be entering a long, deep tunnel of economic despair that will make 2008 seem a cakewalk, and the Citizens United decision relatively inconsequential. It will affect the rest of all of our lives as profoundly as the Great Depression affected our parents and grandparents. BTW, any one else seen or read The Hunger Games?


What would happen if a majority thought that that 1938 Wheat case was incorrect and they wanted to use this case to rein in Congress? Let's face it, anybody with a backyard garden could be stopped using that ruling. That ruling has created the commerce clause powers that threaten the US today.

I disagree with your optimism, the mandate gets killed and maybe the whole schbang!
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218312 - 03/29/12 08:45 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
logtroll Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/25/10
Posts: 6199
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...Let's face it, anybody with a backyard garden could be stopped using that ruling....

Oh. My. Gawd! They are coming for our gardens! It's a slippery slope, we have got to make sure the insurance companies keep screwing us!!!

Did I get it right?
_________________________
"If you would make a person happy, add not to their possessions but take from their desires"
Unknown

Top
#218319 - 03/29/12 09:35 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
itstarted Offline
old hand

Registered: 01/27/03
Posts: 6354
Loc: Florida/Illinois
NWP... re your analysis... Bow

Will keep a copy, and wait to see how well you did. smile

Top
#218325 - 03/29/12 10:22 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
Predicting an outcome from this court is dangerous. But when I am next at my computer with some time to provide links, I will provide some citations that show even conservative legal authorities (e.g., Reagan's Solicitor General) think the arguments are bogus. But, this is the same group that threw out 70 years of precedents to get to Citizens United, so I will be disappointed, but not shocked, to be wrong. Nonetheless, if this Court does seek to return us to pre-New Deal jurisprudence, it will certainly be a legacy - along the lines of Dred Scott, or Plessy v. Ferguson rather than Kansas City Board of Education or Miranda.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218327 - 03/29/12 10:39 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: logtroll]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
Originally Posted By: logtroll
...What place do Vampires have in healthcare, after all? I don't think that bloodsucking is an approved medical practice anymore.


Enter Karen Ignagni. She's the gatekeeper! Hmm

Quote:
In June 2009, Ignagni addressed President Barack Obama: "You have our commitment to play, to contribute and to help pass health care reform this year". In October 2009, AHIP issued a report projecting sharply rising costs with or without reform. The study was conducted by PricewaterhouseCoopers. As described by Ignagni, "The report makes clear that several major provisions in the current legislative proposal will cause healthcare costs to increase far faster and higher than they would under the current system". Ignagni defended the report on PBS Newshour against the accusation by Nancy-Ann DeParle, the director of the White House Office of Health Reform, that the "industry puts their special interest ahead of the national interests here."
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218328 - 03/29/12 10:42 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: pondering_it_all]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
offtopic
Originally Posted By: pondering_it_all
Quote:
one cafeteria manager told me her net income is $1800/mo. Her portion of health insurance is $700.00 making her "net, net" $1100.00. She said every year her "net, net" is less money than the year before - even with a 1.5% raise - because her shared cost of health insurance goes up higher than her increases in salaries.

Sounds like she really, really needs ACA: Down near the poverty line, it supplies tax credits to limit your cost for a policy to 3% of your AGI. If she is sole earner and has a few kids, with $1800/month, her policy would cost her $54/month!

Want some irony? Nearly all of the cafeteria lady's children qualify for the National School Lunch Program - because their family income is so low.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218329 - 03/29/12 10:51 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
...mandatory car insurance...

A lot of people have used car insurance as an example for AIA. Here's why it doesn't work:
  • Driving is a privilege
  • Not all people can afford cars
  • Not all people need a car
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218330 - 03/29/12 10:59 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
I promised some links: Reagan’s solicitor general: ‘Health care...End of story.’
Neal Katyal on defending Obamacare
Quote:
I think the challengers have framed this as an issue of individual liberty, and one of the government forcing individuals to buy private products, and I do think that’s very innovative. In 230 years, the Supreme Court has never accepted such an argument. So what they’re doing is asking for a new rule.

Obamacare Goes to Court, Day Three: Republicans Come for Medicaid
Argument recap: A lift for the mandate?
Quote:
The Supreme Court spent 91 minutes Wednesday operating on the assumption that it would strike down the key feature of the new health care law, but may have convinced itself in the end not to do that because of just how hard it would be to decide what to do after that. A common reaction, across the bench, was that the Justices themselves did not want the onerous task of going through the remainder of the entire 2,700 pages of the law and deciding what to keep and what to throw out, and most seemed to think that should be left to Congress. They could not come together, however, on just what task they would send across the street for the lawmakers to perform. The net effect may well have shored up support for the individual insurance mandate itself.

Renee Landers On The Individual Mandate: Towards A Single-Payer System Or Public Option?
Quote:
The provisions of the Affordable Care Act, mandating that individuals maintain insurance health insurance coverage in exchange for affordable access to coverage with no restrictions based on health conditions, recognize the interdependent nature of economic and social relationships. Under this view, untreated infectious disease or late-diagnosed cancer is perceived as a danger to the health of us all and as raising health insurance premiums for everyone.

And, I think a pretty thoughtful piece, although not from a conservative source: Precedents Support This Law
Quote:
While the Roberts court has not hesitated to reach broadly when it could have gone narrow — see Citizens United — the justices are undoubtedly aware that the eyes of the American public are upon them. Conservative justices like John Roberts and Antonin Scalia and the swing voter Anthony Kennedy will find it difficult to avoid the force of opinions supporting federal power that they either wrote or joined — even if they might be politically, privately opposed to the health care reform law.

The groundwork has been laid for conservative jurists to uphold the mandate. Two conservative court of appeals judges — the George W. Bush appointee Jeffrey Sutton from the Sixth Circuit and the Ronald Reagan appointee Laurence Silberman from the D.C. Circuit — provided compelling, conservative arguments for the mandate’s constitutionality.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218333 - 03/29/12 11:26 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: logtroll]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: logtroll
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...Let's face it, anybody with a backyard garden could be stopped using that ruling....

Oh. My. Gawd! They are coming for our gardens! It's a slippery slope, we have got to make sure the insurance companies keep screwing us!!!

Did I get it right?

My distrust of the federal government has been constant. Placing unlimited power in their hand, and upholding the individual mandate would do just that, is insane.

The Supremes are not ruling between insurance companies and Obamacare, they are ruling on whether the government can force Americans to do whatever they tell us to do. It sound melodramatic, but evenn the lawyer who was supposd to argue the case couldn't place a realistic limit on that power if the mandate is allowed to stand.

Given the choice between getting screwed by insurance companies and giving the government unlimited power to tell Americans how they have to spend their money, I will take my chances with the insurance companies. I mean, if I die from lack of insurance it will probably be a short term afliction, where as a federal government with unlimited opower is a life long curse. and yes, once they get that power they will use it. My proof? Look at how much the commerce clause has been expanded. Remember, that stoped a wheat farmer from growing wheat for himself and his animals. That wheat was never going into the marketplace, yet the FDR Supreme Court found a way to force some poor schmuck to spend money he shouldn't have had to spend. All in the name of the commerce clause.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218334 - 03/29/12 11:29 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: california rick]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: california rick
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
...mandatory car insurance...

A lot of people have used car insurance as an example for AIA. Here's why it doesn't work:
  • Driving is a privilege
  • Not all people can afford cars
  • Not all people need a car


You forgot the most important part, auto insurance mandated and regulated by the individual states.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218336 - 03/29/12 11:37 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 25866
Loc: CA USA
We are forced by the federal government to not discriminate. segregate, or commit murder. And to register our guns.
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#218340 - 03/30/12 12:59 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
Ma R, your dystopian fantasy world puts Rick Santorum's to shame. And is as divorced from reality. THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND. Well, the 21st Century, anyway. Gosh, we may all be forced to be protected from financial ruin, improve the economy, and join the civilized world. I'm shaking all over!
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218342 - 03/30/12 01:11 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
You forgot the most important part, auto insurance mandated and regulated by the individual states.

One more time: Driving is a privilege. Secondly, the Constitution already deals with commerce between states and the SCOTUS has made several addendums.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218348 - 03/30/12 08:24 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Ma R, your dystopian fantasy world puts Rick Santorum's to shame. And is as divorced from reality. THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND. Well, the 21st Century, anyway. Gosh, we may all be forced to be protected from financial ruin, improve the economy, and join the civilized world. I'm shaking all over!


NW, I usually consider your opinion as somewhat valid, but on this you have swallowed the Koolaid. Forget for a moment that allowing the mandate to stand could allow (most likely would eventually) the Federal government to dictate how every American spends their paycheck. What is also does is create a rotating dictatorial council that gets replaced two years.

You are a true believer in the power of good and powerful central governments, I am a true believer in the power of a limited and supportive central government. A government that follows the guidelines set down in the Constitution as secondary to the States. The mandate is a path toward domination and would eventually lead to a violent revolution, or a society of lemmings.

The commerce clause has gone from regulating an individual's right to grow food to trying to regulate a person's behavior from birth to death. What could go wrong with it in the future?
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218350 - 03/30/12 09:04 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
that stoped a wheat farmer from growing wheat for himself and his animals

wow you almost had me convinced that my garden was under attack by the federal government

Wickard v. Filburn was a direct result of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. As you should know, that law was enacted to subsidize farmers for various agricultural products among them wheat. After a lower court concurred with Filburn the SC overturned that opinion, stating the federal government could regulate his wheat production from AAA of 1938 based on interstate commerce clause. This law has been superseded by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which is directed by Congress to subsidize farmers.

Since i am not a farmer, i do not qualify under the law to be regulated by the federal government and thus i can without fear grow whatever i want in my vegetable garden.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#218353 - 03/30/12 10:38 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: rporter314]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: rporter314
Quote:
that stoped a wheat farmer from growing wheat for himself and his animals

wow you almost had me convinced that my garden was under attack by the federal government

Wickard v. Filburn was a direct result of the Agricultural Adjustment Act of 1938. As you should know, that law was enacted to subsidize farmers for various agricultural products among them wheat. After a lower court concurred with Filburn the SC overturned that opinion, stating the federal government could regulate his wheat production from AAA of 1938 based on interstate commerce clause. This law has been superseded by the Farm Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002, which is directed by Congress to subsidize farmers.

Since i am not a farmer, i do not qualify under the law to be regulated by the federal government and thus i can without fear grow whatever i want in my vegetable garden.



Actually, by planting a garden you probably can be considered a farmer. Let's face it, Filburn was growing wheat to feed his family and his livestock. By your definition he wasn't a farmer either.

If the mandate is upheld, there are no limits on what the Federal government can compel Americans to purchase, no matter what it is, because it is part of commerce. Chevez has that power and look at how that democracy has floundered. No government should have that much power over the citizens, especially an American government founded on the idea of a central government with limited powers. This is a disaster and telling 300,000,000 Americans that they have to allow their country to become a dictatorship because some President wants to cover less than 5% of its citizens under health insurance, with many of that 5% being young and choosing not to buy it, is a transformation from power being placed in the citizens hands to power being absolute under the Federal government. Which moonbat Senator was it that said that Congress can do anything it wants under the Commerce clause? Pete Stark I think it was, and just that statement alone should scare the bejesus out of anybody.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1-eBz8hyoE&hd=1
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218354 - 03/30/12 10:52 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
The point I was making, Ma R, is threefold: First, this is not the "unprecedented" expansion of federal power that its detractors make it out to be. Did the government take over every aspect of American life after the enactment of Social Security in 1935? Did we even dictate all retirement planning for all citizens, or do most rely on supplementing the guaranteed stipend of SS with 401k's, pensions, or IRAs? Do we tell everyone what they can spend their SS checks on every month, or can they use them to make car payments, buy food, pay the mortgage, or as my grandmother did, set aside every payment for seven years as a legacy to leave her grandchildren in a trust fund? It's a ridiculous argument. Did the wheat or dairy decisions of the '30s result in the collapse of the comodities markets and the imposition of socialism?
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218356 - 03/30/12 11:03 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
Second, have the citizens of every country in Europe, Canada, Japan, and most of the East (and especially Germany, which has the system closest to the ACA) become mindless automatons who allow the state to control every aspect of their lives, and are incapable of a capitalist thought or innovative enterprise, or has the freedom of having guaranteed health care freed them individually, and the corporations they work for, to be more competitive in the global marketplace? Are they rioting in the streets because they can't tolerate the state's imposition on their freedom of when they can get treatment for cancer, or heart attacks, or a broken bones, or because their infant mortality rates have plummeted and their longevity has increased?
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218359 - 03/30/12 11:10 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
And third, do you feel that you have no choice of insurance, and are deprived because your employer steals money from you to pay for your colleague's bypass surgery? Have you never used your sponsored insurance policy to set a child's broken bone, get low cost prescriptions for your heart condition or high cholesterol? Are you willing to forego your insurance and pay for all of your meds and health needs out of your pocket? Are you going to not accept your SS checks out of principle? Does your employer offer a variety of plans that you can enroll in based upon you and your family's needs?
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218361 - 03/30/12 11:13 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
And I guess, most importantly, are you really so self-centered that you'd prefer to deprive others of the opportunity for the kind of insurance coverage you have, just because they are unlucky enough to work for a company that can't afford to provide it?
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218363 - 03/30/12 11:18 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
The point I was making, Ma R, is threefold: First, this is not the "unprecedented" expansion of federal power that its detractors make it out to be. Did the government take over every aspect of American life after the enactment of Social Security in 1935? Did we even dictate all retirement planning for all citizens, or do most rely on supplementing the guaranteed stipend of SS with 401k's, pensions, or IRAs? Do we tell everyone what they can spend their SS checks on every month, or can they use them to make car payments, buy food, pay the mortgage, or as my grandmother did, set aside every payment for seven years as a legacy to leave her grandchildren in a trust fund? It's a ridiculous argument. Did the wheat or dairy dedisions of the '30s result in the collapse of the coodities markets and the imposition of socialism?


It doesn't matter that it hasn't happened yet, because like that fictional asteroid, it will. I admit that people do not have health insurance who need it. But what this law suggests is that I should give up my freedom of choice and allow the government to impose its will upon me and my family with a theoretical limitless regulatory power. I am paranoid at times, but in this I am clear eyed and certain; if this is passed the government will find new and inventive ways to force Americans to purchase. What immediately comes to mind is wind and solar power, maybe the cell phone example that the Chief Justice brought up.

It doesn't matter that you believe it hasn't happened yet, because it actually has. The EPA is an all powerful entity who can destroy people at its whim, can create rules without input from Congress and can crush any industry it wants. But you believe that the Federal government wouldn't use that newly appointed power?

One more thing, this cuts both ways. Imagine, if you will, that the mandate is held Constitutional and a Republican as radical and partisan as Obama takes power with a friendly congress. I shudder to think of four more years of Obama, I shudder even more when I imagine four years of somebody like Rick Santorum. You might think it would never happen, but a well place scandal a month before the election would kill any sitting President, or another financial meltdown, or maybe some other unknown event that would turn the country off and put the challenger in office.

I place my trust in the people and do not trust the Federal government.


BTW:
Social Security is a pyramid scheme that if you or I tried to run one, with the same rules and payouts, we would be thrown in jail. The premise of more people were going die than collect was lost years ago and that makes the fund unsustainable.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218364 - 03/30/12 11:24 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
And I guess, mkst importantly, are you really so self-centered that you'd prefer to deplive others of the opportunity for the kind of insurance coverage you have, just because they are unlucky enough to work for a company that can't afford to provide it?


NW,
We are talking about a very small percentage of the population. Also, if fearing the government ability to abuse power makes me self-centered, then I guess I am self-centered. It would only take a decision by my boss to make me unemployed and at my age it would be hard to find a job that even pays close to what I am earning today. Still, if it were all to happen, I would not place my trust in the government.

Find another way (I seem to remember having this conversation before). This one is unacceptable.
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218365 - 03/30/12 11:39 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
logtroll Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/25/10
Posts: 6199
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
...It would only take a decision by my boss to make me unemployed and at my age it would be hard to find a job that even pays close to what I am earning today. Still, if it were all to happen, I would not place my trust in the government.

Stockholm syndrome
"In psychology, Stockholm Syndrome is an apparently paradoxical psychological phenomenon in which hostages express empathy and have positive feelings towards their captors, sometimes to the point of defending them. These feelings are generally considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims, who essentially mistake a lack of abuse from their captors for an act of kindness.[1][2] The FBI’s Hostage Barricade Database System shows that roughly 27% of victims show evidence of Stockholm Syndrome."

27%... Say, isn't that the exact number of people who self-identify as Reeps? The same people who can't recognize that they are being screwed by the oil and insurance companies?
_________________________
"If you would make a person happy, add not to their possessions but take from their desires"
Unknown

Top
#218366 - 03/30/12 11:49 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
AustinRanter Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 3643
Loc: Austin, Texas
Originally Posted By: Golem
Justice Scalia to Obama's Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [AUDIO]
The Daily Caller
March 27, 2012

Quote:
While Solicitor General Donald Verrilli, Jr. made the Obama administration's case for the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the health-care law Tuesday, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia interrupted, telling Verrilli, "we're not stupid."

More


They are also NOT EXEMPT from exercising incredible power to alter American government policy based on it's dominate philosophical leaning.

Partisanship games in the Supreme Court is dangerous. But unfortunately, they are real. Decisions based on politics as we all know - distorts and/or circumvents the fundamental purpose of the Court's existence. To me...THIS IS STUPIDITY and HORRENDOUS DISHONESTY.

If Justices have as much trouble trying to interpret laws as they relate to the Constitution - as people trying to interpret religious doctrine...we are in a world of s***.
_________________________
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" wink

Yours Truly - Gregg



Top
#218367 - 03/30/12 11:57 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: AustinRanter]
logtroll Offline
old hand

Registered: 04/25/10
Posts: 6199
Loc: New Mexico (not old Mexico)
I thought it was interesting that some of the justices thought it was asking too much of them to read the law that they are deliberating on. While I see their point in not working it over in a "line item veto" fashion, they still need to read it. Who do they think they are, Congressmen?
_________________________
"If you would make a person happy, add not to their possessions but take from their desires"
Unknown

Top
#218368 - 03/30/12 12:45 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: logtroll]
AustinRanter Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 10/29/06
Posts: 3643
Loc: Austin, Texas
Originally Posted By: logtroll
I thought it was interesting that some of the justices thought it was asking too much of them to read the law that they are deliberating on. While I see their point in not working it over in a "line item veto" fashion, they still need to read it. Who do they think they are, Congressmen?


LT...too much of a hassle.

The masquerade in this matter is: It's obvious that the Conservatives want the entire Act thrown out...not just the mandates.

There is a whole lot of stupidity going on - but not so much by Congress. It's the electorate who are stupid by not holding government accountable for their actions. The electorate need to let Congress know...if you don't know what the hell the full content of bills are (so we also know), which up for being enacted into law...then don't vote for them at all. In fact, don't create such complex bills to be enacted into law.

KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!

The Justices on the other hand need to send Congress a message that says, "Tell us what the hell this law says before we even take on the challenge of deciding its constitutionality."
_________________________
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" wink

Yours Truly - Gregg



Top
#218378 - 03/30/12 03:10 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
By your definition he wasn't a farmer either

get your facts right at least

he was a farmer and was allocated 11 acres for wheat which he chose to ignore and planted 23 acres of wheat

one definition of farmer is one who makes a living growing crops or raising livestock ... i do neither but Filburn did

Quote:
Which moonbat Senator was it that said that Congress can do anything it wants under the Commerce clause

don;t confuse a Congressman with the SC ... it was the SC which expanded the definition of the commerce clause by laying it on Congress ... so if you think moonbats is the problem maybe you should be looking at the SC
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#218380 - 03/30/12 03:50 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
Chuck Howard Offline
old hand

Registered: 09/17/01
Posts: 6723
Loc: Philly 'burbs
The author of the article at this link provides as good a response as any to the inane, vacuous, and patently disingenuous argument that the ACA threatens our freedom and liberty.

Top
#218383 - 03/30/12 04:03 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
veteran

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 11809
Good God, Ma R there is so much rampant paranoia tinfoilhat and downright inaccuracy in this last post it would take a tome the size of the now defunct Encyclopedia Britannica to catalog it all, much less refute it. Nonetheless, I will try a Cliff's Notes version of it, just so dispel the impression that I might agree with any of it, except this: "I place my trust in the people and do not trust the Federal government." I agree that you do, and how misplaced that trust is. After all, it was these people that installed the government you rail against...
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
It doesn't matter that it hasn't happened yet, because like that fictional asteroid, it will.
Well, I was wrong, I agree that what you propose is fiction, just like that asteroid.... and I accept your admission, that "I admit that people do not have health insurance who need it."
Quote:

But what this law suggests is that I should give up my freedom of choice...
In what way? You have lost no freedom of choice, and will continue to get whatever insurance your employer provides, although probably at a reduced cost, plus having he opportunity to ditch your employer's plan and get a new plan on an exchange market. How, exactly, is that limiting your choice, except in that fictional scenario you posit?
Quote:
... and allow the government to impose its will upon me and my family with a theoretical limitless regulatory power.
Again, a work of pure theoretical fiction, completely divorced from history, logic, or reality as it might be experienced by a normal human being not under the influence of psychedelic drugs....
Quote:
I am paranoid at times, but in this I am clear eyed and certain;
I'm sorry, I just about ruined my keyboard. There is nothing clear-eyed or certain except the apparent paranoia.
Quote:
... if this is passed the government will find new and inventive ways to force Americans to purchase. What immediately comes to mind is wind and solar power, maybe the cell phone example that the Chief Justice brought up.
I don't know what the cell phone example the CJ came up with it, but there are plenty of science fiction authors from Philip K. Dick to Suzanne Collins that have dreamed up dystopian societies.... that are just as fictional, bizarre and unlikely.

Quote:
It doesn't matter that you believe it hasn't happened yet, because it actually has. The EPA is an all powerful entity who can destroy people at its whim, can create rules without input from Congress and can crush any industry it wants. But you believe that the Federal government wouldn't use that newly appointed power?
ROFL. Seriously, Ma R. I really mean that. Seriously? The EPA is an all powerful entity bent on the destruction of industry? Any evidence of that? Any examples? Any fantasy scenarios where this has occurred?

Quote:
One more thing, this cuts both ways. Imagine, if you will, that the mandate is held Constitutional and a Republican as radical and partisan as Obama takes power with a friendly congress.
- Now there you have a point, as we saw what GW Bush did with that authority for the first 6 years of his disastrous presidency - including the recession he gave to his successor. I happen to also agree that a Santorum presidency would make the Bush debacle measured by comparison. So there are some things that we agree on, except, of course, the object of your paranoia.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#218387 - 03/30/12 04:32 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
Scoutgal Offline
Administrator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 01/23/01
Posts: 25866
Loc: CA USA
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
Ma R, your dystopian fantasy world puts Rick Santorum's to shame. And is as divorced from reality. THE END OF THE WORLD IS AT HAND. Well, the 21st Century, anyway. Gosh, we may all be forced to be protected from financial ruin, improve the economy, and join the civilized world. I'm shaking all over!


NW, I usually consider your opinion as somewhat valid, but on this you have swallowed the Koolaid. Forget for a moment that allowing the mandate to stand could allow (most likely would eventually) the Federal government to dictate how every American spends their paycheck. What is also does is create a rotating dictatorial council that gets replaced two years.

You are a true believer in the power of good and powerful central governments, I am a true believer in the power of a limited and supportive central government. A government that follows the guidelines set down in the Constitution as secondary to the States. The mandate is a path toward domination and would eventually lead to a violent revolution, or a society of lemmings.

The commerce clause has gone from regulating an individual's right to grow food to trying to regulate a person's behavior from birth to death. What could go wrong with it in the future?


You may think that some of have swallowed the blue Kool-aide, but you are running the whole freaking Red Kool-aid stand!
_________________________
milk and Girl Scout cookies ;-)

Save your breath-You may need it to blow up your date.





Top
#218393 - 03/30/12 05:10 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid [Re: Ma_Republican]
numan Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 10853
Loc: What! Me Worry?
Originally Posted By: Ma_Republican

Forget for a moment that allowing the mandate to stand could allow (most likely would eventually) the Federal government to dictate how every American spends their paycheck.

Gee, MaR, doesn't the government do that already, and hasn't it been doing so for centuries. It is called TAXES!!

Mind you, I agree that a government, by fair means or foul, should be denied as much revenue as possible as long as it supports a wasteful, corrupt, evil war machine.
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer

Top
#218462 - 03/31/12 11:15 AM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: NW Ponderer]
Ma_Republican Offline
old hand

Registered: 02/12/04
Posts: 6330
Loc: USA
Quote:
It doesn't matter that you believe it hasn't happened yet, because it actually has. The EPA is an all powerful entity who can destroy people at its whim, can create rules without input from Congress and can crush any industry it wants. But you believe that the Federal government wouldn't use that newly appointed power?

Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer
ROFL. Seriously, Ma R. I really mean that. Seriously? The EPA is an all powerful entity bent on the destruction of industry? Any evidence of that? Any examples? Any fantasy scenarios where this has occurred?


COAL

Quote:
Now there you have a point, as we saw what GW Bush did with that authority for the first 6 years of his disastrous presidency - including the recession he gave to his successor. I happen to also agree that a Santorum presidency would make the Bush debacle measured by comparison. So there are some things that we agree on, except, of course, the object of your paranoia.


Power unused is power wasted, in politics there is no such thing as potential energy. I do not want the Federal Government to have the abilities that a yes vote on the mandate would give them. I have no doubts in my mind that Congress would find a reason to use it, because they could. The Supreme Court, the highest authority in the land will have given them their blessing to use that power as they will.

I will take my chances with the status quo, or another future BIPARTISAN effort that isn't 2700 pages long and that isn't sold to me by one of its authors saying that it had to be passed to know what was included in it.

I am paranoid of unlimited power being invested in 600 people. I am paranoid of the outcome when another peter principle candidate wins because he is a celebrity. I do not trust Washington, I will never trust Washington and I believe that America would be better off with Washington being defuunded and having to panhandle for their budget.


Edited by Ma_Republican (03/31/12 11:18 AM)
_________________________
A proud member of the Vast Right-wing Conspiracy, Massachusetts Chapter

“The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”
Thomas Jefferson

Top
#218489 - 03/31/12 03:52 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
chunkstyle Offline
journeyman

Registered: 10/01/07
Posts: 558
I won't be that bad Ma. Personally speaking I look forward to my 3 allotted solid colored jumpsuits and matching hard hat that we'll all be getting if the ACA passes. I hope I get the blue ones and not the menial orange colored ones. I've noticed that they're more numerous and always getting crushed in the monster movies.
Perhaps if I apply myself I might get a white jumpsuit and all that comes with it. Higher apartment unit in the domicile towers. More time units for the communal 2 cylinder plywood commute vehicle and an occasional pass to my zone's food distribution center.
It sounds down right comfy. No wonder Yurrip, Canadians and Japan are so smug about their healthcare systems.


Edited by chunkstyle (03/31/12 03:54 PM)

Top
#218491 - 03/31/12 03:58 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: chunkstyle]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle
... No wonder Yurrip, Canadians and Japan are so smug about their healthcare systems.

Don't forget the French - who I believe has the best healthcare system. There everyone gets basic healthcare for being a French citizen. If you want plastic surgery or other elective non-life-threatening medical care - you pay for it by buying insurance.
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218495 - 03/31/12 04:03 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
You included 'the French' in 'Yirrup' - never mind. blush
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218496 - 03/31/12 04:05 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
california rick Offline
Member
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 05/09/05
Posts: 36068
Loc: Bay Area, California
Fontline did a great article on healthcare around the world titled: Sick around the World
_________________________
Contrarian, extraordinaire



Top
#218502 - 03/31/12 04:41 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid [Re: chunkstyle]
numan Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 10853
Loc: What! Me Worry?
'
Originally Posted By: chunkstyle

It sounds down right comfy. No wonder Yurrip, Canadians and Japan are so smug about their healthcare systems.

And with good reason.

Especially in comparison with the incompetent flounderings of America around this issue.
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer

Top
#218510 - 03/31/12 06:34 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Ma_Republican]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 4821
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Quote:
I am paranoid of unlimited power being invested in 600 people

just what number is agreeable with you? or do you understand the concept of constitutional republic?

Quote:
America would be better off with Washington being defuunded

so you are for no government?

now i understand
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#218523 - 03/31/12 07:36 PM Re: Scalia to Solicitor General: 'We're not stupid' [Re: Golem]
numan Offline
veteran

Registered: 08/06/08
Posts: 10853
Loc: What! Me Worry?
'
During the time of the Roman Republic, the Dictator, Sulla, decreed that the number of Roman Senators be fixed at 600.

So, how did that work out?

(Oh, yes, the Republic collapsed soon afterward!!)
_________________________
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools -- Herbert Spencer

Top
Page 1 of 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 >

Who's Online
1 registered (1 invisible), 19 Guests and 4 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
xiawei, Marzman, kyleyoung8, Retread, solafeian
6003 Registered Users
A2