Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Washington Post)   Will The Supreme Court be considered racist or too conservative this week? Fark Healthcare/Immigration Supreme Court discussion thread   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 216
    More: Interesting, supreme courts, President Obama, workplace discrimination, federalisms, discrimination law  
•       •       •

690 clicks; posted to Politics » on 25 Jun 2012 at 10:21 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 10:59:55 AM  
Sweet. I'm seek out Shakira and J.Lo., pull them over and strip search them for proper documentation. SCOTUS said I could
 
2012-06-25 11:00:06 AM  

thurstonxhowell: OhTheHumidity: Arkanaut: OhTheHumidity: That being said, I'm too young to give a hoot.

Young enough to stay on your parents' health insurance? (or have a significant other who is that young?)

Young enough to be healthy. I just wanted to stir up some generational hate to make my morning more interesting. I failed

Wow, young people are even failing at annoying old people now. Is there anything you guys can do?


take pictures of their cats, make them look like 40 year old polaroids and upload them.
 
2012-06-25 11:00:13 AM  

I_C_Weener: Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: s1ugg0: Well I for one am glad that one side or the other will finally be allowed to spike the football because their team scored a point.

Clearly the thousands of Americans losing their homes and lives every day due to medical care system bleeding this country dry is not in any way the issue at hand.

Either we get no reform or we get the wrong reform. Why are you worried?

Yes, this reform clearly was missing some tort reform. That would fix health care costs like magic amiright?

Oh my god. Look who can read minds. Seriously, this doesn't need to be an either or. And no need to try to educate you. You've apparently got me figured. You telepathic silly goose, you.


Sorry, I'm still thinking about the Obamacare thread yesterday where people were still trying to peddle that tort reform/cross-border competition BS.
 
2012-06-25 11:01:02 AM  

Marine1: James!: I don't understand the AZ thing. They can check the immigration status but they can't do anything about it. Very weird.

Welcome to case law.


I now have this picture of Jan Brewer and Joe Arapio standing together at an altar, but nobody else is there.
 
2012-06-25 11:01:07 AM  
Immigration is in and all the important parts got struck down.

It actually sounds like a pretty sensible ruling of "The state can do state stuff but not federal things".
 
2012-06-25 11:01:39 AM  

Splinshints: Because money isn't speech and corporations aren't people. Two bad rulings that were used to justify a horrific ruling.


1) corporations are legal "people." This is so that they can own property and sue and be sued. Without which they really dont exist at all. Get rid of corporate personhood and you get rid of corporations. which is actually a bad thing (no really, the last thing we want is for stockholders to get sued for what the board does.) This is such old school black letter law that it is not much of a question. Also, and most importantly, CU doesnt actually rely on corporate personhood in a strong sense, as it could easily work without it. i.e. corporations are made up of people who have 1st amendment rights and thus they can use them.

2) The 1st amendment covers expressive acts, and covers most strongly the right to make expressive political acts. Spending money in order to communicate your message is an expressive act. Let me put it this way. If congress tomorrow said that you could not spend money to put out an ad saying you liked X or Y candidate, would you feel that your right to speak had been infringed? Or what if congress passed a law saying that donations under 10,000 are prohibited?

The problem is that spending money in an attempt to communicate is very clearly in line with long standing opinions showing that dancing, stripping, flag burning all are expressive acts and under the ambit of the 1st amendment. The problem with this is that the policy ends of it are a horror show. So yes from a policy perspective unlimited corporate money influencing politics is 100% aweful. That however is not a legal argument. and it makes me sads.
 
2012-06-25 11:02:05 AM  
CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".
 
2012-06-25 11:04:05 AM  

qorkfiend: James!: I don't understand the AZ thing. They can check the immigration status but they can't do anything about it. Very weird.

They also can't hold people pending verification of immigration status any more.


Good. GOOD.
 
2012-06-25 11:04:06 AM  

AngryPanda: OMG! We're All Gonna Die!: When are people going to realize that the demo-hippies and repugnants are equally evil, ineffective and destructive? Neither party effectively helps the American people. All of the public party fighting is just dragging the country down. Obama and romney( might have misspelled romny(?)) are both tool bags and should be sold for scrap metal.

When are people going to realize that standing away from the debate and refusing to vote for either indicates that you get no right to complain later on?


No, that's not how it works.

See, when you vote, you are participating in influencing the outcome. However, by participating, you implicitly agree to the outcome, even if it wasn't the one you wanted.

If you don't vote at all, someone forced the outcome upon you, you have every right to complain, on the grounds that neither outcome was something you voluntarily agreed to.

So, if I walk up to a roulette table and put down my money and lose, I have no right to complain, because I chose to play. But I refuse to play and *still* lose money, then I have pretty good reasons to complain, I think.
 
2012-06-25 11:05:17 AM  

I_C_Weener: I Havent Killed Anybody Since 1984: So, here is how Fox News is casting this:

[i.imgur.com image 640x397]

And that is inaccurate how?

MSNBC...

The part of the law the justices upheld requires police officers stopping someone to make efforts to verify the person's immigration status with the Federal Government.

Text of the decision (PDF)

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;
One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;
And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.


I never said or implied it was inaccurate.

I did, however, find it ammusing that their write up was basically, "Fark Yeah, this one provision was upheld! Oh yeah, a couple others weren't. What-evs."
 
2012-06-25 11:05:53 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Did you read the opinion? That's literally what Thomas wrote in his dissent


Um pretty much any agreeing dissent/concurrence has that as the first sentence. "I agree with Justice X but write this concurrence/dissent to flesh out some more blah blah." you can see every justice saying it about every other justice's opinions at some point.

The meme that Thomas is Scalia's butt boy on all matters however is tired and old, especially as they are often widely divergent on many important issues and Thomas is actually a crazy crazy crazyman. Not sane. Loop the friggin loop. read some of the gitmo cases, where Scalia says "hey if you wanna suspend habeas corpus, you actually have to suspend it, the constitution says so right over there" and Thomas has a lengthy rant about war powers and burning buildings and a dream he had about sentient toast that wanted to toss his salad.
 
2012-06-25 11:06:08 AM  

Superjew: Not to worry. I'm sure that Chief Justice Roberts, who was installed to do very specific things, will do them.


Yep, uphold the constitution.
 
2012-06-25 11:07:18 AM  

NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".


I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.
 
2012-06-25 11:07:29 AM  

Teiritzamna: 1) corporations are legal "people." This is so that they can own property and sue and be sued. Without which they really dont exist at all. Get rid of corporate personhood and you get rid of corporations. which is actually a bad thing (no really, the last thing we want is for stockholders to get sued for what the board does.) This is such old school black letter law that it is not much of a question. Also, and most importantly, CU doesnt actually rely on corporate personhood in a strong sense, as it could easily work without it. i.e. corporations are made up of people who have 1st amendment rights and thus they can use them.


You really don't understand the legal entity of a corporation. It actually specifically states in law that corporations are considered different anytime a law states other wise. People are now ignoring this.
 
2012-06-25 11:09:48 AM  

scarmig: No, that's not how it works.

See, when you vote, you are participating in influencing the outcome. However, by participating, you implicitly agree to the outcome, even if it wasn't the one you wanted.

If you don't vote at all, someone forced the outcome upon you, you have every right to complain, on the grounds that neither outcome was something you voluntarily agreed to.

So, if I walk up to a roulette table and put down my money and lose, I have no right to complain, because I chose to play. But I refuse to play and *still* lose money, then I have pretty good reasons to complain, I think.


That's a pretty bad analogy. No one is born at a roulette table. You are born in a country.
 
2012-06-25 11:09:53 AM  

Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.


Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.
 
2012-06-25 11:10:28 AM  

CPennypacker: Its a disgrace how partisan this court is. I understand that there will be splid decisions, but those decisions should be base on the pure constitutional interpretation of what is being decided, and the splits should be random. The fact that the same clowns split to the same side on every ruling is a dead giveaway. Really a shame. You would think being appointed for life would be enough to remove at least some partisan influence. What else can we do?


On State versus Fed issues, it is not surprising. If a justice generally sees the Constitution as leaning more towards State power versus Federal powers, it is not surprising if you will generally rule that way. It might be more or an ideological split as opposed to a partisan one. Or purely partisan. Hard to say.
 
2012-06-25 11:10:54 AM  

Serious Black: James!: Dusk-You-n-Me: Arizona v U.S. decision. Link, .pdf

If I'm reading that right (and I may not be) they overturned the AZ law and threw a dig in about how the government can chose if they want to deport people at all, basically backing up the DREAM act thing Obama just did.

Yeah, based on my cursory skim of the opinion, the only measure that the majority upheld was allowing Arizona to check the immigration status of people that they have already arrested since that didn't violate federal supremacy of immigration law.


See when I read it they didn't so much as uphold it as state that the issue was not ripe and wouldn't preclude it at this point because they didn't know how the law would be interpreted. The law had not gone into effect yet. Kennedy even stated that he was not closing the door on future challenges based on how the law shakes out in the state courts. Everything else is out..that was my skim.
 
2012-06-25 11:10:56 AM  

scarmig: If you don't vote at all, someone forced the outcome upon you


No one forced anything upon you. You chose to not participate, thereby implicitly agreeing to whatever outcome the people who do vote decide.
 
2012-06-25 11:11:33 AM  

CujoQuarrel: Superjew: Not to worry. I'm sure that Chief Justice Roberts, who was installed to do very specific things, will do them.

Yep, uphold the constitution.


weknowmemes.com
 
2012-06-25 11:11:41 AM  

Corvus: Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.

Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.


I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.
 
2012-06-25 11:11:43 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Ned Stark: No obamacare ruling today?

Awww man. Its gonna happen while I'm at the warehouse isnt it? I'll miss the troll thread. :(

I'll bet you it's tomorrow.

They can't have two big rulings in the same day.


I heard Thursday.
 
2012-06-25 11:11:47 AM  
monoski: Clarence Thomas' wife received about 3 times his annual salary in "consulting fees" from a group that is opposed to the health care reform act. There really should be no doubt in anyone's mind how he is voting.

In his defense, Thomas' wife's income shouldn't even count, since he "accidentally" failed to report it because those forms are so darn confusing.
 
2012-06-25 11:11:57 AM  

Corvus: You really don't understand the legal entity of a corporation. It actually specifically states in law that corporations are considered different anytime a law states other wise. People are now ignoring this.


Hey man, if you are suggesting a modification of 1 U.S.C. 1, i am with you. What I am responding to however is the knee jerk argument that corporate personhood is "nuts" because people don't realize that the major issue of personhood is the right to own property and sue/be sued, and that changing it w/r/t corporate speech would likely not have the big effects they want.
 
2012-06-25 11:12:31 AM  
scavenger: SCOTUS just ruled 5-4 that Picard was better than Kirk

Sisko wasn't included, since he's a Kenyan.
 
2012-06-25 11:13:14 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: Mrtraveler01: I_C_Weener: s1ugg0: Well I for one am glad that one side or the other will finally be allowed to spike the football because their team scored a point.

Clearly the thousands of Americans losing their homes and lives every day due to medical care system bleeding this country dry is not in any way the issue at hand.

Either we get no reform or we get the wrong reform. Why are you worried?

Yes, this reform clearly was missing some tort reform. That would fix health care costs like magic amiright?

Oh my god. Look who can read minds. Seriously, this doesn't need to be an either or. And no need to try to educate you. You've apparently got me figured. You telepathic silly goose, you.

Sorry, I'm still thinking about the Obamacare thread yesterday where people were still trying to peddle that tort reform/cross-border competition BS.


Well thank you for the apology. That said, tort reform has its place (though I really don't like limiting awards or access to court).

But what I meant was a public option would be my preference (or something like the pool that the Congress can pick its health insurance from). Or even single payer, though I don't prefer that.

Either way, what we had wasn't working. What we got is in some ways worse. Everyone must obtain health insurance...via private carriers...so that we can cut costs? That just gave the insurance companies 20-30 million new customers. It didn't help those in need.

And the insurance companies can control their increases up to 10% a year in premiums...just like they've been doing. So, more customers and they can still increase their premium prices. This will definitely slow down costs and make it affordable for everyone to have breast implants now. Or something.

The pre-existing condition rule is awesome though.
 
2012-06-25 11:13:52 AM  
I love how the Republicans that just a few years ago we're saying "SCOTUS doesn't have the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional" are now saying it's their job to strike down laws passed by congress as unconstitutional.

Are you guys consistent about anything, other than justifying anything for political purposes?
 
2012-06-25 11:13:56 AM  
The USSC banned sentencing juveniles to life without parole, a decision so radically liberal it ends a practice that no country in the world except the United States was doing.
 
2012-06-25 11:14:26 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Corvus: Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.

Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.

I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.


I'm kind of expecting a nightmare scenario where they declare the mandate unconstitutional, use that to throw out the entire law other than the Medicaid expansion, and separately declare that unconstitutional.
 
2012-06-25 11:14:27 AM  

Teiritzamna: would you feel that your right to speak had been infringed?


Yes, because I'm not a corporation so I'm actually a person so I actually have rights.

Individuals are people, corporations are corporations. The notion that a corporation cannot be sued without being granted personhood is absurd as is the notion that a group of people have their rights infringed when they hide their speech behind a company. It's also absurd to suggest that a corporation giving money to someone else so THAT entity can speak is speech. Speech is speech, paying someone else to speak is just business.
 
2012-06-25 11:15:11 AM  

Mrtraveler01: Corvus: Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.

Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.

I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.


But is the rest of it even sustainable without the mandate? Wouldn't the result be that prices have to skyrocket to cover "pre-existing conditions" since healthy people will still be able to opt out? If that happens, I can see the right-wing rhetoric getting even worse with arguments of "See what Obamacare did to your healthcare costs"

Personally, I hope the whole thing stands, but I'm not optimistic about the mandate staying
 
2012-06-25 11:15:32 AM  

Nem Wan: The USSC banned sentencing juveniles to life without parole.



GOOD
 
2012-06-25 11:16:29 AM  
Thread is growing too fast to read while playing WoW at the same time..
 
2012-06-25 11:16:50 AM  
I'm not worried a bit. I'm pretty sure when William Rehnquist, John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, David Souter, and Thurgood Marshall get together, they're gonna put out some good decisions. I have a lot of confidence in our supreme court.
 
2012-06-25 11:17:23 AM  

Mrtraveler01: I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.


The two areas I think it is legitimately vulnerable is the mandate and the price fixing for premiums. Everything else seems legit "if you provide health insurance/services you must do these things to be in compliance".

I'm also wondering about the extra taxes on medical devices. Why is that even in there when it is claimed to lower costs...by...um...raising costs. But that seems normal tax, not new ground like the mandate stuff.
 
2012-06-25 11:17:30 AM  

NeoCortex42: Mrtraveler01: Corvus: Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.

Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.

I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.

But is the rest of it even sustainable without the mandate? Wouldn't the result be that prices have to skyrocket to cover "pre-existing conditions" since healthy people will still be able to opt out? If that happens, I can see the right-wing rhetoric getting even worse with arguments of "See what Obamacare did to your healthcare costs"

Personally, I hope the whole thing stands, but I'm not optimistic about the mandate staying


It would be a clusterfark without the mandate. I remember reading an article about how inconsistent the rest of the reform would be without it.

I'm not too optimistic either.
 
2012-06-25 11:17:43 AM  

Alphax: Thread is growing too fast to read while playing WoW at the same time..


So you have to choose between trolls and orcs?

Although I gotta say, this is a surprisingly civil discussion thread so far.
 
2012-06-25 11:18:34 AM  

NeoCortex42: Mrtraveler01: Corvus: Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.

Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.

I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.

But is the rest of it even sustainable without the mandate? Wouldn't the result be that prices have to skyrocket to cover "pre-existing conditions" since healthy people will still be able to opt out? If that happens, I can see the right-wing rhetoric getting even worse with arguments of "See what Obamacare did to your healthcare costs"

Personally, I hope the whole thing stands, but I'm not optimistic about the mandate staying


None of the states that have implemented guaranteed issue laws without a mandate have also provided huge tax credits to individuals who purchase health insurance on their own. I'm not sold on that being enough of a difference to make the law work without the mandate, but it's definitely uncharted territory.
 
2012-06-25 11:18:35 AM  

I_C_Weener: But what I meant was a public option would be my preference (or something like the pool that the Congress can pick its health insurance from). Or even single payer, though I don't prefer that.


I was a big fan of the public option myself. But of course the insurance lobby and the blue dogs sure didn't want any of that, so Obama had to drop it to win those folks over.

/sigh
 
2012-06-25 11:18:45 AM  

Corvus: I love how the Republicans that just a few years ago we're saying "SCOTUS doesn't have the right to strike down laws as unconstitutional" are now saying it's their job to strike down laws passed by congress as unconstitutional.

Are you guys consistent about anything, other than justifying anything for political purposes?


Striking down laws a party doesn't like (or upholding ones it does) = upholding the Constitution

Upholding laws a party doesn't like (or striking down ones it does) = judicial activism
 
2012-06-25 11:18:46 AM  
The portion of the law which was upheld allows for inspection of papers during a stop, not just an arrest. Additionally, since people can be held 72 hours without being charged, there is nothing I can the decision stopping police from stopping and holding random people and running immigration checks in the available window.

The only bright spot is that specific portion of the law will almost definitely get thrown out once the law takes affect (it was stayed until this decision was reached). There is no way this will be enforced without violating equal protection, as cops will arrest more Hispanics than before. It is just that for a law to be thrown out as being prejudicial in fact, it must have already caused actual harm to the plaintiff.
 
2012-06-25 11:19:24 AM  
Also of note in Ariz. v. US: The Court didn't strike down the provision that permitted police to stop individuals to ascertain their immigration status, but said that law could be challenged separately (i.e. it isn't preempted, but it may be unconstitutional nevertheless).

Interesting. That sounds like a total loss for Arizona and conservative wing-nuts. We'll have to see how that plays out over the next few years.
 
2012-06-25 11:20:30 AM  
So the decision gives Arizona a tag and release permit?
 
2012-06-25 11:20:43 AM  

Splinshints: Teiritzamna: would you feel that your right to speak had been infringed?

Yes, because I'm not a corporation so I'm actually a person so I actually have rights.

Individuals are people, corporations are corporations. The notion that a corporation cannot be sued without being granted personhood is absurd as is the notion that a group of people have their rights infringed when they hide their speech behind a company. It's also absurd to suggest that a corporation giving money to someone else so THAT entity can speak is speech. Speech is speech, paying someone else to speak is just business.


1) the fact that a corporation can be sued is exactly what personhood means. It is a term of art, It does not mean anything else. The problem is that personhood is a term that is fraught with meaning in the real world. This leads to an emotional response that IBM isnt a person like uncle frank is a person. This is true in all kinds of senses. But when it comes to the applicability of the laws, IBM and frank stand in basically the same footing with regards to suit. thats all.

2) What is the basis for your distinction regarding why it is not ok to stop you from spending money on expression but ok to stop others? why can 1 rich person spend a million dollars on speech and be ok, but that when 10,000 people spend $100 each as a group it is somehow now invalid. As noted, corporate personhood is not the basis of CU, the aggregate rights of natural persons is equally as controlling.
 
2012-06-25 11:21:25 AM  

CPennypacker: Its a disgrace how partisan this court is. I understand that there will be splid decisions, but those decisions should be base on the pure constitutional interpretation of what is being decided, and the splits should be random. The fact that the same clowns split to the same side on every ruling is a dead giveaway. Really a shame. You would think being appointed for life would be enough to remove at least some partisan influence. What else can we do?


That's part of the reason David Souter retired. He ruled according to his interpretation of the constitution, and not because of political pressure from any party. That's also why conservatives hated him.
 
2012-06-25 11:22:09 AM  

NeoCortex42: Mrtraveler01: Corvus: Mrtraveler01: NeoCortex42: CNN's liveblog is worth checking out. It's putting up statements by Gov. Brewer and the ACLU so far.

Link

To sum up, every side is basically saying "We won, but there's still work to do".

I just have a sinking feeling that HCR is going to turn out the same way.

Yeah I think the most likely HCR outcome will be struck down mandate but most other parts will keep in tack. By that both sides could say "they won" but ironically the part struckdown will be the part that most Democrats didn't actually want and was pushed by Republicans to help private insurers.

I actually think the private insurers might get pretty pissed at the GOP for pushing this so much.

I think the majority of it will stay in tact, but the mandate (which is the big part) is a toss up for me.

But is the rest of it even sustainable without the mandate? Wouldn't the result be that prices have to skyrocket to cover "pre-existing conditions" since healthy people will still be able to opt out? If that happens, I can see the right-wing rhetoric getting even worse with arguments of "See what Obamacare did to your healthcare costs"

Personally, I hope the whole thing stands, but I'm not optimistic about the mandate staying


Yes, the bill standing without the mandate would wreck the insurance industry.

Here's hoping it happens.
 
2012-06-25 11:22:47 AM  

NeoCortex42: Alphax: Thread is growing too fast to read while playing WoW at the same time..

So you have to choose between trolls and orcs?

Although I gotta say, this is a surprisingly civil discussion thread so far.


Heh. But I'm playing a female troll mage at the moment. More trolls in WoW at the moment, for a change.
 
2012-06-25 11:23:12 AM  

jrw8778: Also of note in Ariz. v. US: The Court didn't strike down the provision that permitted police to stop individuals to ascertain their immigration status, but said that law could be challenged separately (i.e. it isn't preempted, but it may be unconstitutional nevertheless).

Interesting. That sounds like a total loss for Arizona and conservative wing-nuts. We'll have to see how that plays out over the next few years.


What could this mean in terms of the Obamacare ruling?

a) SCOTUS capable of not ruling strictly along party lines
b) supporting Federal powers
c) could rule against mandate only and not shoot down the whole law
d) tossing the libs a bone because they will completely farking destroy them on the health care ruling
 
2012-06-25 11:23:38 AM  

bartink: scarmig: No, that's not how it works.

See, when you vote, you are participating in influencing the outcome. However, by participating, you implicitly agree to the outcome, even if it wasn't the one you wanted.

If you don't vote at all, someone forced the outcome upon you, you have every right to complain, on the grounds that neither outcome was something you voluntarily agreed to.

So, if I walk up to a roulette table and put down my money and lose, I have no right to complain, because I chose to play. But I refuse to play and *still* lose money, then I have pretty good reasons to complain, I think.

That's a pretty bad analogy. No one is born at a roulette table. You are born in a country.


How do you know I wasn't born at a roulette table?

If you think there are people in this country who can't possibly survive without playing your stupid game, you might want to look around a bit more.
 
2012-06-25 11:25:20 AM  

jihad_cowboy: The portion of the law which was upheld allows for inspection of papers during a stop, not just an arrest. Additionally, since people can be held 72 hours without being charged, there is nothing I can the decision stopping police from stopping and holding random people and running immigration checks in the available window.

The only bright spot is that specific portion of the law will almost definitely get thrown out once the law takes affect (it was stayed until this decision was reached). There is no way this will be enforced without violating equal protection, as cops will arrest more Hispanics than before. It is just that for a law to be thrown out as being prejudicial in fact, it must have already caused actual harm to the plaintiff.


Perhaps. The court generally ignores the issue of racial profiling when dealing with 4th amendment issues. It may violate the 14th amendment, but the issue in regards to 4th amendment analysis which means that even if the officer had a racial pretext for the stop, we use an objective standard which is (could any reasonable officer believe a crime was afoot..I will just leave the infinite set of factors that could fall into that) The problem with the Arizona law, I thought was that we used to say that race, color, creed, may not be used etc..but this law says race may not be the sole factor but can be a factor thus moving from an objective to a subjective (what the officer thought and using race is ok. We know racial profiling happens we have just never dealt with it in fourth amendment law because we always used the objective standard. To uphold the law would be a pretty dramatic shift in my opinion just on fourth amendment principles. Scalia will uphold it though.
 
Displayed 50 of 216 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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