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.

(Bloomberg)   19 of 21 constitutional law professors see the health care reform law as constitutionally valid, only 8 of them think the partisan Supreme Court will rule that way   (bloomberg.com) divider line 112
    More: Sad, U.S. Supreme Court, Republican George W. Bush, obama, Solicitor General of the United States, elections, college rankings, oral arguments, U.s.news & World Report  
•       •       •

1458 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:25 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 01:00:15 PM
SpectroBoy


Dinki:
Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.

Now you are getting it.

What have "scholars" ever done for me?!?!?!

You know, besides science, engineering, medicine, and boring stuff like that.


Gee, I don't know. I think that if I wanted an opinion on something I might be better served going to a person, or maybe even 9 people. Maybe 9 people who rose to the top of their field in that profession. Seems like you might be better off doing that than trying to get the opinion of their college professors.
 
2012-06-25 01:07:00 PM

friendinpa: Maybe 9 people who rose to the top of their field in that profession. Seems like you might be better off doing that than trying to get the opinion of their college professors.


What makes you think these people haven't actually worked in their field?
 
2012-06-25 01:07:50 PM

Dinki: Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.


That's why you agree with the constitutional scholars in the Supreme Court and their decision in the Citizens United case.
 
2012-06-25 01:18:12 PM
HotWingConspiracy

What makes you think these people haven't actually worked in their field?

Worked in.
Risen to the top of.

See the difference?
 
2012-06-25 01:19:22 PM
It's called selection bias. It can be intentional or not but it happens.
 
2012-06-25 01:20:29 PM

Weaver95: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat:

Weird? It seems to be SOP nowadays.

I guess I just don't understand the Republicans anymore. they seem to be religious only when it suits their purposes.


Sounds like you understand them just fine.
 
2012-06-25 01:22:39 PM

friendinpa: HotWingConspiracy

What makes you think these people haven't actually worked in their field?

Worked in.
Risen to the top of.

See the difference?


So only former SC justices are clear to speak about this as far as you're concerned?
 
2012-06-25 01:23:09 PM

friendinpa: SpectroBoy


Dinki: Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.

Now you are getting it.

What have "scholars" ever done for me?!?!?!

You know, besides science, engineering, medicine, and boring stuff like that.

Gee, I don't know. I think that if I wanted an opinion on something I might be better served going to a person, or maybe even 9 people. Maybe 9 people who rose to the top of their field in that profession. Seems like you might be better off doing that than trying to get the opinion of their college professors.


Don't you mean 8 people and Clarence Thomas?
 
MFL
2012-06-25 01:24:08 PM
Everybody knows there's very little diversity in the legal academy among law professors. They're basically in an echo chamber listening to people who agree with them. In other words, that article is a waste of print.

A. Get ready for the individual mandate to go down in flames as it should.
B. Get ready for an all out campaign to delegitimize the high court in the eyes of the public

If the Supreme Court's prestige is no greater than Congress, its role as a check on government will suffer. This is the self destructive legacy that Democrats want to leave.

A government that is given the power to invent as well as to regulate commerce is a threat to our liberty. No spin can make that acceptable to the majority of Americans who don't want any part of this nor the judges who will rightfully vote against this legislative power grab.
 
2012-06-25 01:27:05 PM

Dinki: BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal. I have to think that their opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.

Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.


Not to mention FW FW FW RE FW Emails. That's where I get all my knowledge about issues that affect the world.

/sarcasm
 
MFL
2012-06-25 01:31:20 PM
SpectroBoy Being at war with reality must be tiring

Because a comedian on a network that hasn't been funny since Dave Chapelle left said so.
 
2012-06-25 01:34:15 PM
HotWingConspiracy [TotalFark]


Smartest
Funniest

2012-06-25 01:22:39 PM

: HotWingConspiracy

What makes you think these people haven't actually worked in their field?

Worked in.
Risen to the top of.

See the difference?

So only former SC justices are clear to speak about this as far as you're concerned?


Of Course not. And after all these years of arguing on Fark you still trot out that ploy? You should be more than a little ashamed of yourself.

Everyone gets an opinion, but just as you would not put the opinion of a news pundit above the opinion of a Professor, I would not put the opinion of that same professors opinion above the opinion of a sitting Jurist.
 
2012-06-25 01:35:47 PM

BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal.


As opposed to conservatives, who are notoriously idiots because of their irrational phobia of education.

/ never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
 
2012-06-25 01:39:10 PM

Babwa Wawa: Of course, then the only options for meaningful health care reform would be single payer and possibly public option.


Which is pretty much my thought on the matter.

If it's upheld, we'll have single payer within 50 years.

If it's overturned, we have single payer within 25.

Long-term, the outcome is the same.
 
2012-06-25 01:44:35 PM
Of course, if they strike it down, that probably kills the Republicans' "privatize Social Security" drive. So we have that going for us at least.
 
2012-06-25 01:50:04 PM
4 out of 5 folks also enjoy gang rape. What's your point, Subby?
 
2012-06-25 01:50:41 PM

jigger: Dinki: Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.

That's why you agree with the constitutional scholars in the Supreme Court and their decision in the Citizens United case.


Can you show that there's a wide a consensus among Constitutional scholars on Citizens United as there appears to be on the constitutionality of PPACA?

I'll grant, we don't have a perfect sample of law professors. But I do know anecdotally that most law talking types seem to agree that the PPACA falls well within the scope of existing precedents.

Incidentally, I've long predicted a 7-2 or 8-1 decision to uphold Obamacare. My opinion shifted after oral arguments, when it became clear that Scalia got his information about the law not from its text, or from the legal briefs, but from Fox News. He truly made a fool of himself when he revealed he believed the "Cornhusker Kickback" and "Louisiana Purchase" both made it into the bill. He'll probably vote to strike it down because he's a partisan activist and a proven ignoramus. His butt buddy Scalito will vote with him. So I revise my prediction to 6-3 to uphold.
 
2012-06-25 01:51:18 PM

MFL: SpectroBoy Being at war with reality must be tiring

Because a comedian on a network that hasn't been funny since Dave Chapelle left said so.


Dave Chapelle's your benchmark for social commentary? This conversation is suddenly making a lot more sense.
 
2012-06-25 01:58:09 PM

BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal. I have to think that their opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.


I only know of one of the professors that responded to the question, but he clerked for Raymond Gruender. Gruender (GHB nominee) is probably the most conservative justice on one of the most conservative circuits (the 8th).
 
2012-06-25 01:59:48 PM

Moopy Mac: BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal. I have to think that their opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.


I only know of one of the professors that responded to the question, but he clerked for Raymond Gruender. Gruender (GHWB nominee) is probably the most conservative justice on one of the most conservative circuits (the 8th).


FTFM
 
2012-06-25 02:00:02 PM

friendinpa: HotWingConspiracy [TotalFark]


Smartest
Funniest

2012-06-25 01:22:39 PM

: HotWingConspiracy

What makes you think these people haven't actually worked in their field?

Worked in.
Risen to the top of.

See the difference?

So only former SC justices are clear to speak about this as far as you're concerned?


Of Course not. And after all these years of arguing on Fark you still trot out that ploy? You should be more than a little ashamed of yourself.


Well that indicates you've been here a long time and still don't use the quote button. For shame.

Everyone gets an opinion, but just as you would not put the opinion of a news pundit above the opinion of a Professor, I would not put the opinion of that same professors opinion above the opinion of a sitting Jurist.

Four of the jurists will likely agree with them.
 
2012-06-25 02:00:03 PM

friendinpa: Everyone gets an opinion, but just as you would not put the opinion of a news pundit above the opinion of a Professor, I would not put the opinion of that same professors opinion above the opinion of a sitting Jurist.


So there's no such thing as activist judges, then.
 
2012-06-25 02:03:14 PM

Satanic_Hamster: friendinpa: Everyone gets an opinion, but just as you would not put the opinion of a news pundit above the opinion of a Professor, I would not put the opinion of that same professors opinion above the opinion of a sitting Jurist.

So there's no such thing as activist judges, then.


An Activist Judge is one that rules in a way that you don't like.
 
2012-06-25 02:11:05 PM
I've been having an interesting (not to mention bizarre) conversation with a staunchly conservative friend of mine. He hates unions, considers himself to be a god fearing catholic and supports the GOP 150% all the way down the line. when I pointed out that if his party wins then they'll gut his union protection (which is the ONLY reason he still has a job) and that half his friends depending on medicare/medicade for affordable health care will be shiat outta luck if they get sick. this includes his fiancee, who needs government assistance to afford her various psych meds.

My comments were not well received. in fact, I got yelled at for 'making it personal'. Which I don't get...because if he gets what he wants and the GOP wins, there will be very real and immediate consequences that will affect lots of people in his life. Are we not supposed to consider this before casting a vote for someone?
 
2012-06-25 02:16:15 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: Satanic_Hamster: friendinpa: Everyone gets an opinion, but just as you would not put the opinion of a news pundit above the opinion of a Professor, I would not put the opinion of that same professors opinion above the opinion of a sitting Jurist.

So there's no such thing as activist judges, then.

An Activist Judge is one that rules in a way that you don't like.


That is perhaps the most fair and even-handed assessment of that term I've every seen.
 
2012-06-25 02:18:19 PM

Weaver95: Babwa Wawa: mrshowrules: Conservatives that are completely unprepared for that mentally. It would be delicious to see all their heads asplode but I realize it is a long shot

If I'm a conservative, I want the thing upheld. There will be health care reform, and the only reasonable options beside mandated coverage are pretty obtrusive (from a conservative viewpoint).

So I'd say it's the opposite - they are unprepared for it being struck down. If this gets struck down, this election becomes all about health care, and people aren't going to want to hear what Romney says on the subject.

it's going to be really weird to see a bunch of conservative christians gloating about making health care unaffordable to sick and poor people.


Where are we going to find people like that though?
 
2012-06-25 02:19:10 PM

mrshowrules: I love CNN reporting on this as whether just the mandate will be shot down or the whole law. Because SCOTUS upholding it is unpossible.

That's some fine reporting there Lou. Who needs Fox News when you have CNN.


Because even the leftists and CNN know the law is unConstitutional.
 
2012-06-25 02:21:19 PM

Bullseyed: Weaver95: Babwa Wawa: mrshowrules: Conservatives that are completely unprepared for that mentally. It would be delicious to see all their heads asplode but I realize it is a long shot

If I'm a conservative, I want the thing upheld. There will be health care reform, and the only reasonable options beside mandated coverage are pretty obtrusive (from a conservative viewpoint).

So I'd say it's the opposite - they are unprepared for it being struck down. If this gets struck down, this election becomes all about health care, and people aren't going to want to hear what Romney says on the subject.

it's going to be really weird to see a bunch of conservative christians gloating about making health care unaffordable to sick and poor people.

Where are we going to find people like that though?


fox news.
 
2012-06-25 02:21:52 PM

sammyk: Rmoney


The entertaining part of this particular slur is that if Romney was black, R-Money would be a "hip and cool" nickname with street cred.
 
2012-06-25 02:22:14 PM

Weaver95: when I pointed out that if his party wins then they'll gut his union protection (which is the ONLY reason he still has a job) and that half his friends depending on medicare/medicade for affordable health care will be shiat outta luck if they get sick. this includes his fiancee, who needs government assistance to afford her various psych meds.

My comments were not well received. in fact, I got yelled at for 'making it personal'. Which I don't get...because if he gets what he wants and the GOP wins, there will be very real and immediate consequences that will affect lots of people in his life. Are we not supposed to consider this before casting a vote for someone?



Don't you get it? His friends aren't "on welfare." They really NEED that help. It only pisses him off when certain shall we say "highly urbanized populations" (wink wink nudge nudge) suckle at the teat of Big Mama Government. And he has every confidence the Republican Party will sort out the deserving from the parasites.
 
2012-06-25 02:23:17 PM

Babwa Wawa: FishyFred: Romney can still say he supports the model that he started in Massachusetts and that he thinks it should be up to each individual state to bring a similar model into existence. It's still bullshiat, but it's nuanced enough bullshiat that it can't easily be killed in a 30-second ad or a single pithy comeback at a debate.

If he thinks people (even mainstream repubs) will want a state-by-state approach to HCR, he's got another thing coming.


Chosing not to have a government forced insurance program in one state or another is still a state by state approach to HCR.
 
2012-06-25 02:25:19 PM
This thread contains so many dirty sock puppets, it ought to be taken to the laundromat.

i45.tinypic.com

Talk about a spin cycle.
 
2012-06-25 02:26:37 PM

Bullseyed: sammyk: Rmoney

The entertaining part of this particular slur is that if Romney was black, R-Money would be a "hip and cool" nickname with street cred.


You sound like an expert on black people.
 
2012-06-25 02:27:02 PM
HotWingConspiracy

Four of the jurists will likely agree with them.

Yup. And most, but not all will write well thought out opinions.

Satanic_Hamster

So there's no such thing as activist judges, then.

No idea how you came to the conclusion that I think that.
 
2012-06-25 02:50:52 PM

Bullseyed: mrshowrules: I love CNN reporting on this as whether just the mandate will be shot down or the whole law. Because SCOTUS upholding it is unpossible.

That's some fine reporting there Lou. Who needs Fox News when you have CNN.

Because even the leftists and CNN know the law is unConstitutional.


It probably is unconstitutional, but that won't stop the Roberts court from upholding it. In an election year this would be a disaster for Romney who has no alternative.
 
2012-06-25 02:51:32 PM

friendinpa: HotWingConspiracy

Four of the jurists will likely agree with them.

Yup. And most, but not all will write well thought out opinions.

Satanic_Hamster

So there's no such thing as activist judges, then.

No idea how you came to the conclusion that I think that.


If only judges can criticize other judges, then it's a simple conclusion that any complaint of judges is invalid. Because, obviously, no one is qualified to criticize them.
 
2012-06-25 02:55:17 PM

Graffito: Bullseyed: mrshowrules: I love CNN reporting on this as whether just the mandate will be shot down or the whole law. Because SCOTUS upholding it is unpossible.

That's some fine reporting there Lou. Who needs Fox News when you have CNN.

Because even the leftists and CNN know the law is unConstitutional.

It probably is unconstitutional, but that won't stop the Roberts court from upholding it. In an election year this would be a disaster for Romney who has no alternative.


That is silly. The Roberts court may be full of partisan hacks, but they are not partisan hacks who are being influenced on an active, ongoing basis by Republican operatives. They are simply people who were appointed to the court because of a proven history of partisanship. They probably don't give a flying fark which way the election goes.
 
2012-06-25 03:07:38 PM

Dinki: BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal. I have to think that their opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.

Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.


Personally I go to lawyers that have actually argued a case in front of the SCOTUS but that's just me.
 
2012-06-25 03:09:19 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Weaver95: I wonder if SCOTUS will manage to damage social security in this mad quest to shut down health care reform?

One would hope that short of overturning the whole law, they would all agree to save face by saying "this is the province of the other two branches of government and there are mechanisms in place to resolve this, without the judicial branch having to step in." But you're right: if they do overturn the ACA, they open up the doors for a myriad of other similar laws to be second guessed.


You are right it is in no way the job of the SCOTUS to decide the constitutionality of what the legislature does.
 
2012-06-25 03:22:59 PM

chiefsfaninkc: Dinki: BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal. I have to think that their opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.

Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.

Personally I go to lawyers that have actually argued a case in front of the SCOTUS but that's just me.


Anyone can argue a case in front of SCOTUS. It requires nothing more than playing the fee to do so.

You probably want to get someone with a law degree, but it's not like there's some elite echelon of legal experts who are head and shoulders above other lawyers simply due to having done oral arguments before SCOTUS.
 
2012-06-25 04:22:39 PM

MFL: Everybody knows there's very little diversity in the legal academy among law professors. They're basically in an echo chamber listening to people who agree with them. In other words, that article is a waste of print.

A. Get ready for the individual mandate to go down in flames as it should.
B. Get ready for an all out campaign to delegitimize the high court in the eyes of the public

If the Supreme Court's prestige is no greater than Congress, its role as a check on government will suffer. This is the self destructive legacy that Democrats want to leave.

A government that is given the power to invent as well as to regulate commerce is a threat to our liberty. No spin can make that acceptable to the majority of Americans who don't want any part of this nor the judges who will rightfully vote against this legislative power grab.


SCOTUS' reputation was pretty much put in the blender when they ruled on Bush v Gore and then, knowing it was a completely screwed up decision, stated in the opinion that it could not be used as precedent in other cases.

So, I wouldn't worry too much about the so-called "prestige" of SCOTUS. I would worry more about the whore down the street.
 
2012-06-25 04:52:44 PM
There is no such thing as an expert... no matter how much you think you know about something, there will ALWAYS be someone that knows more.

As a good friend of my father used to say "There are no such things as experts.. they are merely normalsperts with attitude"... they are only better at selling their knowledge than you are.
 
2012-06-25 05:21:41 PM
And?

They, along with Obama who is a 'constitutional law' person, can all be wrong together.

There's a reason that the person who made the arguments in front of the SCOTUS in favor of the law looked like an idiot and that would be because when you actually have to present just facts and can't run around on glittery words and sanctimonious nonsense, the very idea of some of ObamaCare is so stupid that you look like a fool trying to argue for it.
 
2012-06-25 05:25:15 PM

dwrash: As a good friend of my father used to say "There are no such things as experts.. they are merely normalsperts with attitude"... they are only better at selling their knowledge than you are.


It's why you don't care if your doctor has a medical degree, amirite??

The important thing is that whoever you go to for health care talks a good game.
 
2012-06-25 05:25:48 PM
Could somebody please tell me the "precedent" that supposedly makes upholding this law a slamdunk? The author of the article did not bother with such mundane details.

I was not aware that the federal government was requiring me to buy anything so I'm probably in some pretty serious trouble here.
 
2012-06-25 05:43:05 PM

cchris_39: Could somebody please tell me the "precedent" that supposedly makes upholding this law a slamdunk? The author of the article did not bother with such mundane details.


About 80 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence dating back to Wickard v. Filburn that has made damn near anything justifiable under the Commerce Clause.
 
2012-06-25 05:48:37 PM

TheBeastOfYuccaFlats: chiefsfaninkc: Dinki: BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal. I have to think that their opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.

Yeah, if I'm looking for scholarly opinions on constitutional law I don't waste my time with any so-called 'Scholars', I go to those that really know the Constitution - TV pundits, AM radio show hosts, and tea party activists.

Personally I go to lawyers that have actually argued a case in front of the SCOTUS but that's just me.

Anyone can argue a case in front of SCOTUS. It requires nothing more than playing the fee to do so.

You probably want to get someone with a law degree, but it's not like there's some elite echelon of legal experts who are head and shoulders above other lawyers simply due to having done oral arguments before SCOTUS.


Uh, what? You have no farking idea how anything ever related to law works, do you?

You have to have a law degree to be admitted to the bar in any state I know of. And then, you have to be accepted to the federal bar, the appeals court bar, and you have to then apply to the Supreme Court Bar, and a member has to vouch for you.

Then, you have to successfully get a case to the Supreme Court, which is a huge task. They aren't required to take every case that comes their way. And at that point, if you're doing a crummy job as a lawyer, you will be replaced. Interest groups get involved and will pay a better lawyer if you suck and your client can't pay. It's not particularly difficult for a pretty normal 'good' lawyer to get admitted to the Supreme Court Bar, but actually arguing a case is way different.

Very few lawyers get to argue in that court, and they do tend to be the best appellate litigators in the country. John Robert's experience as a Supreme Court advocate was a very significant line on the resume that got him an appellate judgeship.

In short, you have no farking idea what you're talking about.
 
jvl
2012-06-25 06:12:10 PM

GQueue: cchris_39: Could somebody please tell me the "precedent" that supposedly makes upholding this law a slamdunk? The author of the article did not bother with such mundane details.

About 80 years of Commerce Clause jurisprudence dating back to Wickard v. Filburn that has made damn near anything justifiable under the Commerce Clause.


But not a slam-dunk. They've pretty much always at least pretended there were limits to the Commerce Clause. Ruling in favor of HCR would remove all pretense at limits.

While I'm against HCR, I am in favor of an Insurance Mandate. I just can't see how the Constitution permits it.
 
2012-06-25 06:22:20 PM

jvl: While I'm against HCR, I am in favor of an Insurance Mandate. I just can't see how the Constitution permits it.


You lack vision.
 
2012-06-25 06:41:45 PM

BillCo: The key word here is "Professors", who are notoriously liberal. I have to think that their opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.

It's goin down folks. Get ready for it.


The key word here is, "Professors", who are notoriously intelligent. I have to think that your opinions are based more on personal ideology than scholarly research.

There, fixed it for ya.
 
Displayed 50 of 112 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report