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 02:53:53 PM
Health is not a right; Freedom is.
 
2012-06-14 02:53:54 PM

DamnYankees: Except I'm not, and have explicitly said this would not be allowed.


sprawl15: If you need to fall back on the 5th Amendment to say that wanton killing isn't acceptable under the commerce clause, maybe you should shut up, sit down, and think up an interpretation that isn't dumber than anything I've seen NarrowCranium post today.


I can keep reposting things all day, eventually you'll read them, if only on accident.
 
2012-06-14 02:54:39 PM

ImpendingCynic: 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.


Actually someone already told him that he can't possibly be that stupid and he replied with "oh yes I can".
 
2012-06-14 02:55:12 PM

DamnYankees: qorkfiend: What are you basing this assertion upon?

The English language.


How? There's nothing in the amendment that says "This applies to everyone, not just government actors", even implicitly. This would be a radical departure from the rest of the Constitution, which sets restraints upon the government alone.
 
2012-06-14 02:55:20 PM

George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.


Then why'd you push Medicare Part D?
 
2012-06-14 02:57:35 PM

SkinnyHead: Dr Dreidel: In order to be a lawBREAKER, you have to have BROKEN an existing law. Point to the EXISTING law which Obama would have broken by signing PPACA.

// without violating 4th-dimension limitations

Well, the constitution is an existing law, isn't it? if Obamacare is found to be unconstitutional, that means it's against the law. Obama broke the law when he pushed for and signed a bill that is against the law.


If PPACA patently violated the Constitution, there's no way the Congressional Parliamentarians (the guys charged with making sure no "Jesus is the only deity Americans are allowed to pray to" bills ever make it to the floor, even with a functionally psychotic Chamber in session) would have let it go by.

In fact, the whole damned reason PPACA's gone to SCOTUS in the first place is that WE DON'T KNOW if it's Constitutional or not. Once SCOTUS rules, the law is struck, and its effects are declared unenforceable. Any attempts to use governmental power to enforce any provisions of PPACA AFTER the SCOTUS ruling would be illegal. Those enforcements that took place before the law was struck are not actionable, as they were legal right up until SCOTUS said they weren't.

The Constitution (not the Amendments, the other part) says that once both houses of Congress plus the president sign a piece of paper, it's law until SCOTUS says it's not (unless there's an injunction to stop implementation/enforcement). SCOTUS can't magically create an ex-post-facto crime out of a bad bill.
 
2012-06-14 02:57:47 PM

SkinnyHead: if Obamacare is found to be unconstitutional, that means it's against the law. Obama broke the law when he pushed for and signed a bill that is against the law.


This just in: SkinnyHead has found a way to make political speech illegal.

Since completely outlawing abortion is unconstitutional. when a group says we should criminalize abortion, that group is doing something illegal.

Since flag burning is protected under the First Amendment, when someone says flag burning should be against the law, that person has broken the law.

/facepalm
 
2012-06-14 02:59:18 PM

sprawl15: madgonad: Not true.

There is specific language in the annual funding bills that FORBID any use of money or resources for the purposes of moving prisoners at Gitmo to the US territory.

Again, you don't need to move prisoners to the US to try them. They can be prosecuted right where they are. I don't know what post you thought you read, but location of prisoners is - again - totally irrelevant.

The problem is not that there is a building called Gitmo, it is the treatment of the people within. Transferring prisoners only changes the name on the sign; I care much more about respecting basic human rights. I could care less where we keep them.


Some can. However, a lot of the people stuck in Gitmo won't be tried and have nowhere to go. They are effectively in Limbo. They can't go to any country, which leaves them stuck there.

And aren't you moving the goalposts? I thought the outrage was 'Turdbama hasn't closed Gitmo like he superdupersuper promised'. Congress is preventing the closure, period.
 
2012-06-14 02:59:52 PM

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: I can't wait to hear how you run a presidential campaign for less than Let's Go says it takes to travel Subsaharan Africa.

Public financing


Ok, we get public financing but I get as much money as the other guys, right?
 
2012-06-14 03:01:27 PM
Say what you want, but I'd rather have The People's Court take over. As their name implies, they're for the PEOPLE, not some kind of supreme thingamadoo.

I'll take a Doug Llewelyn over three Ruth Bader Ginsbergs any day of the week. The man has an unwavering top lip. You throw in Judge Wapner and Rusty Burrell, and you've got a team that can't be beat.

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com
 
2012-06-14 03:03:22 PM

madgonad: However, a lot of the people stuck in Gitmo won't be tried and have nowhere to go. They are effectively in Limbo. They can't go to any country, which leaves them stuck there.


Which has nothing to do with closing Gitmo. If we could close Gitmo, we'd just leave them in limbo somewhere else. I'd rather take them out of limbo, regardless of where they're held.

madgonad: And aren't you moving the goalposts? I thought the outrage was 'Turdbama hasn't closed Gitmo like he superdupersuper promised'.


No. I couldn't care one whit if Gitmo stays open or not, though there's obvious symbolic benefit to closing the facility. I care about the people within Gitmo attaining SOME form of legal status. That some people care more for the symbolic benefit of closing the facility over the material issue of the United States Government refusing to respect the rights of detainees is not my problem.
 
2012-06-14 03:03:31 PM

jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.


How about Wisconsin?
 
2012-06-14 03:04:06 PM

LectertheChef: Bontesla: 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.

For all your Christlike dildo needs.


Oh wow.

That is awesome.
 
2012-06-14 03:04:52 PM
The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.
 
2012-06-14 03:06:06 PM

George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.


I would argue that Life is... and it is our responsibility as citizens to keep our nation healthy and educated.
 
2012-06-14 03:06:34 PM

Perlin Noise: jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.

How about Wisconsin?


Well in Wisconsin a governor was reelected vs the same candidate he was elected just a year and a half before.

I don't think it was only money that got him reelected... maybe the voters liked him more than the other guy.
 
2012-06-14 03:07:45 PM

CujoQuarrel: Ok, we get public financing but I get as much money as the other guys, right?


yes, but there must be a critical mass of constituent support through a fair/defined process
 
2012-06-14 03:07:55 PM

jigger: George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.

Then why'd you push Medicare Part D?


The last Great Compromiser shall be held up as a martyr to the folly of bipartisanship between two diametrically opposed ideologies.
 
2012-06-14 03:08:07 PM

MugzyBrown: The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.


If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.
 
2012-06-14 03:09:17 PM
Nice use of out of date CBO Reports TPM... You guys are so honest in reporting.

//freaking shills
 
2012-06-14 03:11:41 PM
If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.

Why would you think that?
 
2012-06-14 03:11:52 PM
So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.
 
2012-06-14 03:12:48 PM
Garet Garrett

If money is speech, then money is also: food, shelter, taxes, labor, toys, charity, appliances, events, time...and subject to pretty much every sort of oversight and limitation we have in this country. Either that, or money is speech, and my bribing of a county official is a discussion of the relative pros and cons of a given matter.

Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class? A dollar in your hand represent an OPPORTUNITY to purchase $1 worth of goods/services. $1 worth of advertising is speech, but only because you've already converted it from an opportunity into a good/service (an ad).

Money is not speech. Don't they teach things in English class anymore? Speech is speech and money is money. Speech is protected under Amdt 1, opportunity is not.

Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.
 
2012-06-14 03:13:02 PM

MugzyBrown: If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.

Why would you think that?


Because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information.
 
2012-06-14 03:15:53 PM
So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.

Yeah crazy shiat, standing up for freedom of speech.
 
2012-06-14 03:15:58 PM

sprawl15: DamnYankees: Except for the fact that this would never happen, you're exactly right.

That it would never happen is totally irrelevant. When you test the limits of potential inputs to a logical assertion, you don't just test what is expected. You see this in software: a question that asks for your birthday had better be able to handle an input of 'balloon intestine', or it's shiatty logic.

DamnYankees: I believe it, provisionally, because I can't think of any example which would violate it.

Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?


Because it doesn't actually regulate commerce.

sprawl15: DamnYankees: The reason the policeman can shoot a crazed gunman is a matter of common law, not constitutional law. I don't see the relevance.

How do you think the constitutional right to due process is satisfied in the case of the crazed gunman?


Simple: the crazed gunman is an actual threat to both officers and civilians. The officers would, barring any protections not provided to ordinary citizens, would be justified in shooting said crazyman by both self-defense and "defense of third parties" exemptions, assuming that a prosecutor, who would/should know of the circumstances of the case, even takes it to court.
 
2012-06-14 03:16:01 PM
Wait, you mean the health care reform law that was written by the insurance companies that creates a law that says you have to buy their product is unconstitutional? Well I'll be.
 
2012-06-14 03:16:43 PM

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


Came to say this.
 
2012-06-14 03:16:48 PM

Perlin Noise: George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.

I would argue that Life is... and it is our responsibility as citizens to keep our nation healthy and educated.


Life is, and defending it is the only responsibility of our Federal Government. Fixing boo-boo's and coercing kids to crack a book is better and far cheaper if managed in local communities.
 
2012-06-14 03:17:33 PM

CPennypacker: Because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information


Considering many were saying it was unconstitutional from the day it was passed, you don't process or interpret information very well.
 
2012-06-14 03:19:05 PM

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: Because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information

Considering many were saying it was unconstitutional from the day it was passed, you don't process or interpret information very well.


Just because "a bunch of people" say it is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. I can understand that, because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information.
 
2012-06-14 03:19:14 PM

Mentat: something something COMMERCE CLAUSE


The commerce clause is not carte blanc for the government to do anything and everything. I refer you specifically to:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


No where does the Consitution give the Feds power of a person's health care, not even if you stretch the commerce clause beyond reason (which is your habit). So the simple and correct response from the Supreme Court is to toss the entire thing out. Yes, a state could implement a health insurance system (and some have) and it would be perfectly legal.
 
2012-06-14 03:19:33 PM

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: Perlin Noise: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!

Of course you're right on what amounts to a completely irrelevant level. Under your theory, it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones, since that's not speech. Well, then, we could prohibit the use of transponders or radio frequency transmission devices, too. Nothing to stop those politicians from standing on the street corner giving their stump speech to those within earshot!

How quickly the 1st Amendment becomes a token obstacle when you're as literalist as that.

Correct me if I am wrong ..but there are noise ordinances and regulations for what you are talking about... there should be regulations on the money, substantial ones.


Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent. Funny how the same people who criticize Roe as "judicial activism" have no problem here.
 
2012-06-14 03:20:38 PM

madgonad: 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.


Yep, I've been saying it for years now, I would be willing to pay a National sales tax if it meant we got UHC.
 
2012-06-14 03:20:45 PM

MugzyBrown: So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.

Yeah crazy shiat, standing up for freedom of speech.


Because Corporations are People dammit!
 
2012-06-14 03:23:02 PM

CPennypacker: MugzyBrown: The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.

If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.


Even the most blatantly unconstitutional law has to go through the proper steps before the Supreme Court will even consider looking at the case. It has to start at the lowest court and work its way up to the top. A process that takes years. Attempting to shortcut this process will usually result in the Supreme Court ordering the case reviewed by the lower courts first. Going directly to the Supreme Court happens, but it is exceedingly rare.
 
2012-06-14 03:23:16 PM

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: I can't wait to hear how you run a presidential campaign for less than Let's Go says it takes to travel Subsaharan Africa.

Public financing


Um, that's not taking the money out.
 
2012-06-14 03:24:13 PM

Fart_Machine: Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent.


You bought that line? Try reading the opinion.
 
2012-06-14 03:24:21 PM

OgreMagi: CPennypacker: MugzyBrown: The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.

If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.

Even the most blatantly unconstitutional law has to go through the proper steps before the Supreme Court will even consider looking at the case. It has to start at the lowest court and work its way up to the top. A process that takes years. Attempting to shortcut this process will usually result in the Supreme Court ordering the case reviewed by the lower courts first. Going directly to the Supreme Court happens, but it is exceedingly rare.


That wasn't my point
 
2012-06-14 03:26:14 PM
Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment
 
2012-06-14 03:26:46 PM

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett

If money is speech, then money is also: food, shelter, taxes, labor, toys, charity, appliances, events, time...and subject to pretty much every sort of oversight and limitation we have in this country. Either that, or money is speech, and my bribing of a county official is a discussion of the relative pros and cons of a given matter.

Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class? A dollar in your hand represent an OPPORTUNITY to purchase $1 worth of goods/services. $1 worth of advertising is speech, but only because you've already converted it from an opportunity into a good/service (an ad).

Money is not speech. Don't they teach things in English class anymore? Speech is speech and money is money. Speech is protected under Amdt 1, opportunity is not.

Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.


I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.
 
2012-06-14 03:27:24 PM

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


Corporations aren't people. They are property. Ease up you're going to hurt yourself.
 
2012-06-14 03:27:48 PM

MugzyBrown: Perlin Noise: jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.

How about Wisconsin?

Well in Wisconsin a governor was reelected vs the same candidate he was elected just a year and a half before.

I don't think it was only money that got him reelected... maybe the voters liked him more than the other guy.


This may be true, but the ratio of money spent (somewhere around 4 or 5:1) is certainly something that makes me go "hmmmm"
 
2012-06-14 03:28:47 PM

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent.

You bought that line? Try reading the opinion.


What precedents are they following?
 
2012-06-14 03:30:42 PM

George Walker Bush: Life is, and defending it is the only responsibility of our Federal Government. Fixing boo-boo's and coercing kids to crack a book is better and far cheaper if managed in local communities.


I don't entirely disagree ...but I do think the Federal Government (all citizens by proxy) should play a major role in the health and education of the nation.
 
2012-06-14 03:31:17 PM

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?
 
2012-06-14 03:31:42 PM

Perlin Noise: jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.

How about Wisconsin?


How about it? It was a redo of the same election held 16 months earlier between the same two candidates with pretty much the same outcome.
 
2012-06-14 03:32:53 PM

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


People who insist that we can have a legal system that doesn't grant corporations basic rights as entities are either tilt-at-windmills libertarians or blinkered, foolish liberals. Rarely effective to try to convince them. In the latter's case, they'll laud Wikipedia for opposing SOPA and be outraged at the suggestion that the New York Times Co. should have no 1st Amendment rights while saying that Exxon should be muzzled, all without a trace of self-awareness.
 
2012-06-14 03:33:02 PM

Garet Garrett: Um, that's not taking the money out.


I'm am not so stupid as to believe that money is not needed. Private interest money is obviously what I am talking about.
 
2012-06-14 03:34:21 PM

Fluorescent Testicle: So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who

agree with the ACLU and think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.

Why do you think the ACLU is so stupid?
 
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 »






Report