If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   The Supreme Court could improve the budget deficit--or they could completely screw it up. Given their track record, it seems clear what will happen   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 316
    More: Scary, supreme courts, Douglas W. Elmendorf, health law, health insurance exchange, debt limit, deficits, Congressional Budget Office, Wall Street reform  
•       •       •

3399 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



316 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-14 09:44:08 AM  
This court will invent some convoluted interpretation of existing law, Scalia or Roberts will justify it, Thomas will nod his head while his wife pockets more money from lobbyists, and Kennedy will wring his hands and follow along.

A chorus line of Dancing Itos would do a better job of interpreting the law.

Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.
 
2012-06-14 10:03:05 AM  
The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.

"Poll taxes may disenfranchise certain voters, but they allow us to build roads and schools."
 
2012-06-14 10:08:48 AM  

Babwa Wawa: The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.


something something COMMERCE CLAUSE
 
2012-06-14 10:14:48 AM  

Generation_D: This court will invent some convoluted interpretation of existing law, Scalia or Roberts will justify it, Thomas will nod his head while his wife pockets more money from lobbyists, and Kennedy will wring his hands and follow along.

A chorus line of Dancing Itos would do a better job of interpreting the law.

Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


Yup, and conservatives could make the same argument from their perspective, except the symmetry is clearly broken by the fact that Thomas' wife is a political activist that uses his name recognition to raise money for the Tea Party.
 
2012-06-14 10:23:30 AM  

Generation_D: Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


yup. there will be a lot of books written about this court. and they won't be kind.
 
2012-06-14 10:25:10 AM  

Mentat: something something COMMERCE CLAUSE


The commerce clause is about regulation, not budget.

The court should not be considering whether the law has a positive revenue impact. Nationalizing major industries would have a positive revenue impact, but would not be constitutional (even under the commerce clause).
 
2012-06-14 10:37:31 AM  

Babwa Wawa: Mentat: something something COMMERCE CLAUSE

The commerce clause is about regulation, not budget.

The court should not be considering whether the law has a positive revenue impact. Nationalizing major industries would have a positive revenue impact, but would not be constitutional (even under the commerce clause).


You seem to think that the Constitution matters to this SCOTUS. It's just a window dressing for whatever decision they've made before the hearings.
 
2012-06-14 11:01:58 AM  

Mentat: You seem to think that the Constitution matters to this SCOTUS. It's just a window dressing for whatever decision they've made before the hearings.


I never expressed an opinion on the competence of the current court. I just said I don't think they should factor budgetary impact in on a decision.

I think you're reading someone else's posts and responding to mine.
 
2012-06-14 11:14:12 AM  
The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.
 
2012-06-14 11:21:32 AM  

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.


and if they rule that it's legal?
 
2012-06-14 11:23:11 AM  

Babwa Wawa: The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.


Came here to say this. Budgetary concerns should never enter the decision-making process regarding whether a law is constitutional.
 
2012-06-14 11:25:28 AM  

Babwa Wawa: Mentat: You seem to think that the Constitution matters to this SCOTUS. It's just a window dressing for whatever decision they've made before the hearings.

I never expressed an opinion on the competence of the current court. I just said I don't think they should factor budgetary impact in on a decision.

I think you're reading someone else's posts and responding to mine.


My point was that the SCOTUS doesn't care. They make their decision before the hearings and then come up with some Constitutional veneer to justify their decision. They have no problem tossing away precedent or bypassing the separation of powers.
 
2012-06-14 11:27:05 AM  

FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?


If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.
 
2012-06-14 11:31:52 AM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


Which was championed by Romney as a national model for healthcare.
 
2012-06-14 11:33:27 AM  

Mentat: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

Which was championed by Romney as a national model for healthcare.


It's no use arguing with him. Your best bet is to just talk about pie whenever he starts talking.
 
2012-06-14 11:35:25 AM  

Aar1012: Mentat: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

Which was championed by Romney as a national model for healthcare.

It's no use arguing with him. Your best bet is to just talk about pie whenever he starts talking.


It's kind of like LSD. Sometimes you just want to see where it takes you.
 
2012-06-14 11:54:20 AM  
The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

Many people in this country will be pissed about losing what they had under Obamacare. But probably not the same ones who would vote Republican. The people voting Republican, mostly old people, don't care. They have theirs, it's called Medicare.

This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.
 
2012-06-14 12:00:07 PM  

bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.


FWIW

"As the Supreme Court weighs the challenge to the 2010 health-care overhaul, there's a cautionary tale for those who may have found hope in the way the justices picked apart the government's arguments defending the law... In 2009, the justices were equally as picky in questioning government lawyers in arguments of an appeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- and left the law intact in an 8-1 ruling." Link
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-14 12:21:45 PM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


Why isn't the guy who invented Obomney care to blame, if it were so bad?
 
2012-06-14 12:24:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

FWIW

"As the Supreme Court weighs the challenge to the 2010 health-care overhaul, there's a cautionary tale for those who may have found hope in the way the justices picked apart the government's arguments defending the law... In 2009, the justices were equally as picky in questioning government lawyers in arguments of an appeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- and left the law intact in an 8-1 ruling." Link


The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.
 
2012-06-14 12:49:01 PM  

bdub77: The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.


bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.


Mentat: My point was that the SCOTUS doesn't care. They make their decision before the hearings and then come up with some Constitutional veneer to justify their decision. They have no problem tossing away precedent or bypassing the separation of powers.


Don't you guys think we should wait for a decision one way or the other before condemning the court as politicized and unfair? Wouldn't you feel rather silly about this if they upheld the legislation?

While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.
 
2012-06-14 01:10:01 PM  

Babwa Wawa: The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.

"Poll taxes may disenfranchise certain voters, but they allow us to build roads and schools."


I would think it has some relevance when assessing whether or not its a regulation of commerce.
 
2012-06-14 01:14:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


So no matter what, it's always Obama's fault, forever and ever unto the end of time?

that's an...interesting....philosophy you've got there.
 
2012-06-14 01:20:10 PM  

DamnYankees: I would think it has some relevance when assessing whether or not its a regulation of commerce.


No, it doesn't. The question is (or should be) whether this is a rightful regulation of commerce, not whether it has a positive revenue/expenditure impact on government spending.

The uncompensated seizure and resale of private property would have a positive impact of government balance sheet. Doesn't make it constitutional.
 
2012-06-14 01:22:42 PM  

Babwa Wawa: The uncompensated seizure and resale of private property would have a positive impact of government balance sheet. Doesn't make it constitutional.


But that's because there's a specific provision in the constitution you can point to which it would violate. The same can't be said of Obamacare.
 
2012-06-14 01:24:10 PM  

Generation_D: Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


If Romney gets elected you'll only have to look back on the current court to find a crazier one. So that's nice...
 
2012-06-14 01:24:40 PM  

Babwa Wawa: While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.


What about the mandatory hospital insurance that was done by the US government of the 1790s?
 
2012-06-14 01:26:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


I sure as f*ck hope you get paid lots of money to be so goddamn stupid.
 
2012-06-14 01:27:05 PM  

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.


If the Supreme Court says that a law proposed by the president and passed by Congress is unconstitutional, the president broke the law?

Nice spin you've got there, trying to lay the groundwork for impeachment. If the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it's not "illegal" to have passed it.

I didn't think anyone could be that stupid, but hey, it's a free country.
 
2012-06-14 01:27:36 PM  
Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.
 
2012-06-14 01:29:54 PM  

Babwa Wawa: bdub77: The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.

bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.

Mentat: My point was that the SCOTUS doesn't care. They make their decision before the hearings and then come up with some Constitutional veneer to justify their decision. They have no problem tossing away precedent or bypassing the separation of powers.

Don't you guys think we should wait for a decision one way or the other before condemning the court as politicized and unfair? Wouldn't you feel rather silly about this if they upheld the legislation?

While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.


Citizens United cemented their Worst Ever status regardless of what this ruling yields.
 
2012-06-14 01:30:46 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

So no matter what, it's always Obama's fault, forever and ever unto the end of time?

that's an...interesting....philosophy you've got there.


Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault. Not even Obamacare. Someone else always to blame. People getting tired of that.
 
2012-06-14 01:31:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

FWIW

"As the Supreme Court weighs the challenge to the 2010 health-care overhaul, there's a cautionary tale for those who may have found hope in the way the justices picked apart the government's arguments defending the law... In 2009, the justices were equally as picky in questioning government lawyers in arguments of an appeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- and left the law intact in an 8-1 ruling." Link


I cannot see any way that Thomas or Alito vote that the individual mandate is constitutional. Scalia really should vote constitutional based on his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich, but he did also say during questioning that he thought EMTALA was a dumb law and that we shouldn't obligate ourselves with providing people who are dying with emergency health care, and he LOVED bringing up all of the stupid Tea Party talking points like the broccoli argument. The only people I can see swinging to say it is constitutional are Kennedy and Roberts. Both of them seemed deeply conflicted, Kennedy because he realizes that single-payer is the only other option if the mandate is struck, and Roberts because it is impossible to separate the mandate from the penalty that enforces the mandate.
 
2012-06-14 01:35:14 PM  

Serious Black: Roberts because it is impossible to separate the mandate from the penalty that enforces the mandate.


The penalty to enforce the mandate *is* the mandate. Without a penalty it's not a mandate at all.
 
2012-06-14 01:36:26 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault.


-Bush Tax extensions
-Guantanamo still open
-Domestic Surveillance
-Opposing gay Marriage until recently
for starters...yep nothing. We just blindly follow "our leader" no matter what.
 
2012-06-14 01:36:31 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

So no matter what, it's always Obama's fault, forever and ever unto the end of time?

that's an...interesting....philosophy you've got there.


It's not a philosophy. He's an idiot.
 
2012-06-14 01:37:46 PM  
This whole subject makes me very very angry...

I don't even give a shiat if it is legal or not. This nation's priorities are all farked up. For-profit health insurance should not even exist. Next there will be for-profit prisons ...oh wait...

ANY profit gained through someone's suffering is a detestable practice. The fact that we as citizens are not willing to bare the individual responsibility to keep our nation healthy and educated makes me really sad. We have become a nation of "I got mine, fark you" and "if I don't take advantage of it, someone else will". Then we are rewarded for it.

Conservatives like to talk a good game when it comes to morality but don't seem to have the slightest understanding of the common good.

Make no mistake, this is not about if it is legal or anything else ...its about money (in the end)... greedy farks. Oh, and did I forget to mention, the affordable healthcare bill sucks dick. What a milquetoast hunk of shiat. Historic healthcare reform my ass.

/grumble, grumble, grumble
 
2012-06-14 01:39:06 PM  

ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

If the Supreme Court says that a law proposed by the president and passed by Congress is unconstitutional, the president broke the law?

Nice spin you've got there, trying to lay the groundwork for impeachment. If the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it's not "illegal" to have passed it.

I didn't think anyone could be that stupid, but hey, it's a free country.


Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.
 
2012-06-14 01:39:49 PM  

SkinnyHead:
Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault. Not even Obamacare. Someone else always to blame. People getting tired of that.


so what do you think Obama has done right? I mean...he's had to have done SOMETHING you agree with....
 
2012-06-14 01:40:23 PM  
Step 1: Keep all the expensive stuff that people want.
Step 2: Get rid of the revenue generating stuff that people don't want.
Step 3: Blame Obama when the deficit explodes.
 
2012-06-14 01:40:26 PM  
What date are the scheduled to rule?
 
2012-06-14 01:40:36 PM  

Babwa Wawa: While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.


And, see, the problem with the penalty part of the mandate is it's a capitation. Just like the poll tax.

That Congress intentionally omitted the standard boilerplate about the rest of the provisions standing if one part is found to be unconstitutional probably spells doom for the entire thing. Guess we'll find out Monday, or a week from Monday.

//I still support single-payer insurance.
 
2012-06-14 01:41:12 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


So Congress should not be held accountable too for passing it in the first place?
 
2012-06-14 01:41:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess.


SkinnyHead: If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


Back in the day, trolling used to mean something.
 
2012-06-14 01:42:57 PM  
The cause of this problem is that hospitals and medical practitioners are now legally required to treat sick/injured people regardless of their ability to pay. That creates both the free riders (the really poor) and the bankruptcies (for people that want to pay, but can't pay THAT much).

There are three solutions:

1. Require payment. No money? Go die somewhere else.
2. Require insurance. This is the heart of ObamneyCare.
3. Single payer - which is really requiring insurance, but the government is the only vendor.

Personally, I have great insurance, but I would prefer #3. I wouldn't even mind making the tax burden a regressive one(sales or earnings). We all use it fairly equally, so we should probably all pay a similar percentage. It would take a huge burden off of business (and attract more jobs) and it would eliminate a horrible expense when people are between jobs. Unless you have a chronic condition, you don't pay for COBRA.
 
2012-06-14 01:42:57 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.
 
2012-06-14 01:43:05 PM  

DamnYankees: Serious Black: Roberts because it is impossible to separate the mandate from the penalty that enforces the mandate.

The penalty to enforce the mandate *is* the mandate. Without a penalty it's not a mandate at all.


Yeah, I've called it the "individual sternly worded suggestion" at least once, notwithstanding the whole toothless enforcement mechanism.

I still have no idea how SCOTUS will rule personally. I'd say it's about 50-50 between a 5-4 decision that it's unconstitutional on some BS grounds that the word regulate does not include the ability to command people to do something despite its very presence in 1780's era dictionaries and a 6-3 decision that fully incorporates the Necessary and Proper Clause doctrine from US v. Comstock into economic matters.
 
2012-06-14 01:43:22 PM  

LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.


Hmmm. I think I'm going to need to see a picture of Christ on a dildo in order to evaluate your statement.

Please?

/I asked nicely.
 
2012-06-14 01:43:44 PM  

LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.


Unfortunately, your right, the majority of this country is retarded. If we took a comprehensive look at the healthcare systems in the rest of the world, took the best parts and built a system for our country that was realistic, sustainable and affordable, that plan would be soundly rejected. And not by a small margin either. It's because the American people overwhelmingly want universal healthcare, but are also unwilling to pay for it, and will not give up anything for it. After all, we can't stop doing hip replacements on eighty year old women with severe dementia, and God forbid if you can't go down the hall for an MRI fifteen minutes after complaining of a headache to your doctor.

The problem with our system is that everyone's hands are in the cookie jar. No one wants to give up anything; we want it all, and we want it now. No waits, no exceptions, and at no cost to you.
 
2012-06-14 01:45:42 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


By that logic, virtually every single legislator and executive that has ever served is a lawbreaker, and many of those have been subsequently voted back into office.
 
Displayed 50 of 316 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report