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.

(Wonkette)   Troy McGreggor thinks the SCROTUS health care decision is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Satoris forbade Zap Rowsdower to wear his Canadian tuxedo to the Ziox restoration ceremony   (wonkette.com) divider line 116
    More: Obvious, Zap Rowsdower, obamacare, SCROTUS, Ben Shapiro, Pamela Geller, Justice Kennedy, Dred Scott, dissenting opinions  
•       •       •

1642 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jun 2012 at 8:46 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-29 09:17:58 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Oh, also, lots of people on Twitter swore they would move to Canada, to escape socialized medicine, which we don't even know where to begin with that.

How about look up "sarcasm".


This. Deciding to ignore obvious sarcasm was not a high-point in liberal punditry.
 
2012-06-29 09:17:59 AM  

Jackson Herring: You mean "perfectly valid opposing opinions", right?


All I keep hearing from the GOP is that this is going to cost "millions" of jobs somehow, that this law is an attack on Americans, that this law takes away our freedoms... who has given a valid, serious, thoughtful critique of the law from the right with evidence and reasonable alternatives?

I understand that this will likely burden some small businesses that exist on the fine edge between "small" and "medium" size and that this will probably cause many existing health plans to go up, but that's a pretty limited set of damages and doesn't justify like what I heard on NPR this morning where somebody from the GOP was claiming that the law was about to put "millions" of people out of work.

If there are valid, opposing viewpoints I'd love to hear some, but just screaming "MILLIONS WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS!!!!!" and "THIS IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE!!!!" and comparisons to Stalinist Russia... these things are not valid, they're just childish screaming.
 
2012-06-29 09:18:34 AM  
FTFA: "Ben Shapiro has established new heights that make misuse of "literally" literally look like prose that Strunk & White's ghosts would masturbate to."

I LOL'd
 
2012-06-29 09:18:47 AM  
Well-appointed Canadians in their `tuxedos' correcting the 'merikun fashion faux pas of white after Labour Day:
i149.photobucket.com
My word! They're wearing white tube socks with dark pants!

Burn their wardrobe! Every stitch!
 
2012-06-29 09:19:28 AM  

Weaver95: which i'm sure means something to the Norquist blood oath people but for the rest of America? not so much.


It's a shame Norquist's pledge isn't a suicide pact.
 
2012-06-29 09:20:26 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: If there are valid, opposing viewpoints I'd love to hear some, but just screaming "MILLIONS WILL LOSE THEIR JOBS!!!!!" and "THIS IS A GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF HEALTHCARE!!!!" and comparisons to Stalinist Russia... these things are not valid, they're just childish screaming.


Yes, that actually was the joke thank you
 
2012-06-29 09:22:52 AM  

badhatharry: Conservatives need to relax. He cut off any attempts for progressives to try to use the commerce clause in the future to expand government power. He left the healthcare debate in the political field. He made the left admit it is a giant tax and they decieved the America people to sell it. He trolled them very hard while they applauded him. He is pretty clever.


Dude, you're a birther who believes in ghosts. You should just pack it in, and admit that rational analysis isn't your thing.
 
2012-06-29 09:23:56 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Oh, also, lots of people on Twitter swore they would move to Canada, to escape socialized medicine, which we don't even know where to begin with that.

How about look up "sarcasm".


What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?
 
2012-06-29 09:24:12 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: badhatharry: Conservatives need to relax. He cut off any attempts for progressives to try to use the commerce clause in the future to expand government power

How do you figure? That was just his opinion, it wasn't shared by the other four justices he joined with, and it doesn't set any precedents.

Anyway, I used the WaPo healthcare law calculator to determine how the law affects me. My wife and I are both 30, we make upper-middle income type money, and we currently have health insurance through my employer. The result:


Your coverage:

Right now:Your insurer cannot set a lifetime limit on benefit payouts. Any annual limits will be phased out by 2014.

Your insurer cannot cancel your plan after you get sick based on a technicality, or discriminate against your children if they have a pre-existing condition.

You may also be entitled to coverage of preventive services without out-of-pocket charges.

If you are an adult under age 26, and one or both of your parents have a health plan, they may be able to put you on it. If you have adult children you can probably keep them on your plan until they are 26.

Starting in 2014:Insurers can't discriminate against you for having a pre-existing condition, and can only vary rates within a narrow range.

If the plan offered by your employer doesn't meet the law's standards of affordability or comprehensiveness, you can buy a different plan through your state's exchange. Based on your income, you probably would not qualify for federal assistance to offset the cost of that plan.


Truly horrifying. What a monster this man is.

And, frankly, if my plan costs go up, I'm fine that. Losing the benefit cap and the preexisting conditions changes alone are worth it.


It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

But yeah, i agree with you that people need to chill out about it.
 
2012-06-29 09:24:40 AM  
 
2012-06-29 09:24:44 AM  

Anti_illuminati: ArcadianRefugee: Oh, also, lots of people on Twitter swore they would move to Canada, to escape socialized medicine, which we don't even know where to begin with that.

How about look up "sarcasm".

What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?


over zealous staffer? not intended as a truthful statement? socialisms?
 
2012-06-29 09:25:18 AM  

Anti_illuminati: ArcadianRefugee: Oh, also, lots of people on Twitter swore they would move to Canada, to escape socialized medicine, which we don't even know where to begin with that.

How about look up "sarcasm".

What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?


Not entirely sure, but I think you're getting trolled.
 
2012-06-29 09:26:03 AM  
And I was just watching this episode this morning.

I wonder if there is beer on the sun.
 
2012-06-29 09:26:30 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Conservatards are all about Dredd Scott when you're talking about overturning
Roe vs Wade, however.


Actually, upon further review, I should change my bon mot to:

"The Dredd Scott decision: what can't conservatards make it do?"
 
2012-06-29 09:26:44 AM  

Anti_illuminati: ArcadianRefugee: Oh, also, lots of people on Twitter swore they would move to Canada, to escape socialized medicine, which we don't even know where to begin with that.

How about look up "sarcasm".

What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?


Republicans are no good at humor or telling jokes, why should they be any better at sarcasm?
 
2012-06-29 09:28:02 AM  

Vegan Meat Popsicle: How do you figure? That was just his opinion, it wasn't shared by the other four justices he joined with, and it doesn't set any precedents.


Darn right they didn't agree with him. Ginsburg had this to say...

"Congress chose, instead to preserve a central role for private insurers and state governments. According to the Chief Justice the Commerce Clause does not permit that preservation. This rigid reading of the Clause makes scant sense and is stunningly retrogressive."

She seems to pull no punches in saying he may have voted with her but for really dumb reasons. I wish I could live to be 200 to see how history looks back on this. Roberts did as expected in not killing the law unless he had 6 votes so he tried to snark it up with his opinion. Ginsburg mocked him for that heh.
 
2012-06-29 09:28:07 AM  

oldfarthenry: My word! They're wearing white tube socks with dark pants!


I had a German colleague a while ago who never got over how hilarious he found Americans' fascination with white tube socks, wearable with any outfit.

The best analogy I could put together based on observation is:

"German seeing American wearing white tube socks with anything other than sportswear." = "American seeing French guy wearing a beret." or "American seeing German man wearing shirt and pants that are way too tight."

He did find Sprockets funny, however. I have a picture of him somewhere doing "the Trout".
 
2012-06-29 09:29:03 AM  

St_Francis_P: Anti_illuminati: ArcadianRefugee: Oh, also, lots of people on Twitter swore they would move to Canada, to escape socialized medicine, which we don't even know where to begin with that.

How about look up "sarcasm".

What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?

Not entirely sure, but I think you're getting trolled.


I guess so.

/sigh
 
2012-06-29 09:29:48 AM  

St_Francis_P: This is the greatest destruction of individual liberty since Dred Scott. This is the end of America as we know it. No exaggeration.

Should have added, "Best part? Forever!"


i.imgur.com
 
2012-06-29 09:30:54 AM  

badhatharry: Conservatives need to relax. He cut off any attempts for progressives to try to use the commerce clause in the future to expand government power. He left the healthcare debate in the political field. He made the left admit it is a giant tax and they decieved the America people to sell it. He trolled them very hard while they applauded him. He is pretty clever.


Well, except for the bolded part, you're mostly right.

It's kind of hard to deceive people when you publish the plan. Maybe if the GOP legislators had read it instead of calling presser after presser to say they hadn't had time to read it, they'd have noticed that the entire enforcement mechanism of the mandate exists under the government's power of taxation.

So what if Obama didn't come out and say "it's a tax"; it was Congress' bill. You think the GOP took Obama's word on anything else? Why couldn't they have voiced their opposition to taxes then?

// oh, right - they did
// you lose. SCOTUS only confirmed that yes, Virginia, you were supposed to lose
 
2012-06-29 09:31:53 AM  
i.ytimg.com
 
2012-06-29 09:32:47 AM  

cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC


Just because the corporate owned media hasn't bothered to point out how wrong that is doesn't make it true. Read what Ginsburg wrote. It invalidates Roberts' opinion even if the media doesn't want to point that out.
 
2012-06-29 09:33:36 AM  

Anti_illuminati: What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?


Do we have any evidence that Republicans are saying that? I don't recognize any of the twats' names. I looked two of them up, one was a software developer and the other a singer/songwriter.
 
2012-06-29 09:36:04 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Anti_illuminati: What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?

Do we have any evidence that Republicans are saying that? I don't recognize any of the twats' names. I looked two of them up, one was a software developer and the other a singer/songwriter.


The next one I looked up was a "stoner chick".
 
2012-06-29 09:36:04 AM  

cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).


No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.
 
2012-06-29 09:39:01 AM  
I've been around kid. And I've been a square kid.
Oh merde, mon pied.
 
2012-06-29 09:40:54 AM  
McGregor? Know him? HE WAS DELICIOUS.

/+1 hockey hair to you subby
 
2012-06-29 09:40:55 AM  

ArcadianRefugee: Oh, also, lots of people on Twitter swore they would move to Canada, to escape socialized medicine, which we don't even know where to begin with that.

How about look up "sarcasm".


The twitter posts I read on buzzfeed did not sound like witty self-mocking. They sounded like they were made by low-information voters who don't know that Canada's health system is more "socialist" than Obamacare.
 
2012-06-29 09:42:03 AM  
It's going to be fun watching folks settle in on a semi-coherent spin on this.

And then watch Brietbart and others take it into the stratosphere with Seekrit Muslims and Joooos threatening the Court and dirty bombs in their families basements planted by the government if they didn't vote right. Then the Space Aliens will be thrown into the mix, and the brown shirted Kenyans coming for your long haired niece, right before the Compulsory Death Squads hunt down your Grandma in the streets, before they sodomize folks with gas-electric hybrids...
 
2012-06-29 09:44:05 AM  

Dwight_Yeast: thurstonxhowell: liam76: It legalizes pedophelia!

Tell me that's not a real talking point. Lie to me if you have to.

Rush apparently said something like that yesterday, but he was talking about the Court's ruling on the Stolen Valor Act, not Obamacare


My mistake.
 
2012-06-29 09:46:36 AM  

qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.


Ok...why?
 
2012-06-29 09:47:26 AM  
Only a fool would think that federal taxation could not be used to impel action on behalf of the citizen. It's been the case for decades that Congress can coerce states and individuals to do things by using the power of the purse in place of threatened force. The only surprise here is that one of the more conservative members the court chose pragmatic conservatism over dogmatic libertarianism.
 
2012-06-29 09:48:34 AM  

cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?


You see, that's not how constructive conversations go. You cannot prove the nonexistance of a thing. In this case, challengine cannibalparrot to prove why is asking proof for the nonexistence of binding precedent.

I'd suggest it is to you to prove the existence of binding precedent.
 
2012-06-29 09:52:05 AM  

rohar: You cannot prove the nonexistance of a thing.


I can prove that Bush v Gore isn't binding precedent, so it's obviously possible to prove in at least some cases that a case does not set binding precedent.
 
2012-06-29 09:53:03 AM  

hubiestubert: It's going to be fun watching folks settle in on a semi-coherent spin on this.

And then watch Brietbart and others take it into the stratosphere with Seekrit Muslims and Joooos threatening the Court and dirty bombs in their families basements planted by the government if they didn't vote right. Then the Space Aliens will be thrown into the mix, and the brown shirted Kenyans coming for your long haired niece, right before the Compulsory Death Squads hunt down your Grandma in the streets, before they sodomize folks with gas-electric hybrids...


I hope you realize you could have a bright future with WND and Alex Jones.
 
2012-06-29 09:53:13 AM  

cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?


Because it's not germane final disposition of the law; finding that the law is constitutional based on Congress' power to tax has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.
 
2012-06-29 09:57:07 AM  

qorkfiend: Because it's not germane final disposition of the law; finding that the law is constitutional based on Congress' power to tax has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.


I've seen it argued that, since the 4 in dissent plus Roberts all rejected the Commerce Clause assertion, it could still be binding precedent. I'm not a law talking guy, but that reasoning at least passes the smell test.
 
2012-06-29 09:58:33 AM  

rohar: cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?

You see, that's not how constructive conversations go. You cannot prove the nonexistance of a thing. In this case, challengine cannibalparrot to prove why is asking proof for the nonexistence of binding precedent.

I'd suggest it is to you to prove the existence of binding precedent.


I made an argument ("there were 5 votes that the CC can't be used this way - thus setting precedent"), he made a bald assertion ("nuh-uh").

I can see why I might be wrong, but I'm not going to make another person's arguments for them.
 
2012-06-29 09:59:42 AM  

qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?

Because it's not germane final disposition of the law; finding that the law is constitutional based on Congress' power to tax has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.


Beyond that, every law facially fails to be empowered by powers that are not used. For example, an interstate commerce regulation that does something with, say, vehicles that cross state lines is facially not empowered by the Militia Clause. It would be rather silly to go through every single enumerated power for every single law that has been passed and say yes or no.
 
2012-06-29 10:03:15 AM  

cannibalparrot: rohar: cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?

You see, that's not how constructive conversations go. You cannot prove the nonexistance of a thing. In this case, challengine cannibalparrot to prove why is asking proof for the nonexistence of binding precedent.

I'd suggest it is to you to prove the existence of binding precedent.

I made an argument ("there were 5 votes that the CC can't be used this way - thus setting precedent"), he made a bald assertion ("nuh-uh").

I can see why I might be wrong, but I'm not going to make another person's arguments for them.


The operative, binding part of the opinion is one sentence: "We find the PPACA to be a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to tax." Everything else is Roberts showing his work, and isn't binding.

Some of yesterday's threads explained it better. I'll see if I can dig it up.
 
2012-06-29 10:05:41 AM  

St_Francis_P: hubiestubert: It's going to be fun watching folks settle in on a semi-coherent spin on this.

And then watch Brietbart and others take it into the stratosphere with Seekrit Muslims and Joooos threatening the Court and dirty bombs in their families basements planted by the government if they didn't vote right. Then the Space Aliens will be thrown into the mix, and the brown shirted Kenyans coming for your long haired niece, right before the Compulsory Death Squads hunt down your Grandma in the streets, before they sodomize folks with gas-electric hybrids...

I hope you realize you could have a bright future with WND and Alex Jones.


I now feel soiled. Thanks for that...
 
2012-06-29 10:09:25 AM  

qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: rohar: cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?

You see, that's not how constructive conversations go. You cannot prove the nonexistance of a thing. In this case, challengine cannibalparrot to prove why is asking proof for the nonexistence of binding precedent.

I'd suggest it is to you to prove the existence of binding precedent.

I made an argument ("there were 5 votes that the CC can't be used this way - thus setting precedent"), he made a bald assertion ("nuh-uh").

I can see why I might be wrong, but I'm not going to make another person's arguments for them.

The operative, binding part of the opinion is one sentence: "We find the PPACA to be a constitutional exercise of Congress' power to tax." Everything else is Roberts showing his work, and isn't binding.

Some of yesterday's threads explained it better. I'll see if I can dig it up.


This thread talked about it a bunch.

iccky: Interesting. So the commerce clause ruling isn't a binding holding because the conservative justices didn't sign onto the commerce clause part? Or because the commerce clause part isn't relevant, because of the taxing holding?

The latter, but "relevant" isn't the wrong word. "Necessary" is the right word. Surely his opinion is relevant to the country's full understanding of the case. But it's not necessary to the final disposition, and therefore not binding precedent. I.e., Roberts COULD have said "We find this valid as an exercise of the tax power, and therefore we need not address the commerce power question." Because of the "doctrine of Constitutional avoidance," in which the Court strives to avoid speaking to Constitutional issues if they don't have to, you'll see that kind of thing a lot in opinions.
 
2012-06-29 10:11:13 AM  

qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?

Because it's not germane final disposition of the law; finding that the law is constitutional based on Congress' power to tax has nothing to do with the Commerce Clause.


Yeah, that's what I thought you might be getting at. Thanks for the reply.

Wish I could stay, but I have to get to work.
 
2012-06-29 10:13:24 AM  

thurstonxhowell: Anti_illuminati: What does sarcasm have to do with it? How does a Republican state, "If Obamacare is held up as constitutional, I'm moving to Canada!" and then pass it off as sarcasm?

Do we have any evidence that Republicans are saying that? I don't recognize any of the twats' names. I looked two of them up, one was a software developer and the other a singer/songwriter.


So every single person on here is a liberal wanker, being sarcastic? (yes a few are , but not all) And all you could find were two people? This was the top freaking google result. No wonder your ideas and beliefs are sh:t; you're a sh:t researcher.

/check out Jacqua Flocka - dear god that's a load of butthurt.
 
2012-06-29 10:36:16 AM  
I loved his opinion on the Fizzlebeef v. McLargehuge ruling.
 
2012-06-29 10:38:41 AM  

cannibalparrot: qorkfiend: cannibalparrot: It sets precedent, since it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC, with the dissent being the other four votes (of course, they thought more than just the mandate was unconstitutional).

No, it doesn't. The commerce clause reasoning isn't binding precedent.

Ok...why?


Because you did not have a 5-4 ruling on that aspect. You had a 5-4 ruling upholding the law not on the interpretation of commerce clause. Robert's ruling is significant and could influence future decisions but it is not binding.
 
2012-06-29 10:41:49 AM  
I had an old Russian History teacher, (I mean old - he and his family fled during their Revolution) - I was struck by his method of getting his students to think about the 'facts' on any major event in history by answering one short question: Who profits? (Not necessarily 'follow the money', more like: who benefited.)

So in regard to previous Supreme Court rulings - say comparing Plessy vs. Ferguson to Brown vs. Board... Yes, it was about racism, but what made it personal to joe racist taxpayer, was about whose money was spent on whom and where. In fact, when Brown vs. Board went into effect, a bunch of school districts closed down all over the South - not only because they didn't want their white kids going to a segregated school, but specifically because they didn't want to pay for the 'other kids' to get the same quality education.

I believe it's the exact same deal regarding Obamacare - maybe not as racist driven - I'd like to think we've come a little ways down the road, but I've talked to many people who hate it w/o really knowing anything about it; but if pressed they 'feel' they'll be carrying the load for... undesirables. (Not the word they would use, it was the nicest universal semi-synonym I could come up with. Sad, but then again, I live in VA.)

It's exactly why I think the Citizen's United ruling was the same/worst mistake as Plessy... It legitimizes a select group to spend money in such a way as to establish/widen the gap disproportionately - only instead of education it's representation.
 
2012-06-29 10:45:57 AM  

cannibalparrot: it was 5-4 in holding that the mandate is not a valid exercise of the CC


That was Roberts' opinion only, not the prevailing opinion of the five supporting justices. It seems more than a bit of a stretch to suggest that when only 20% of the affirming justices hold a certain opinion, that opinion becomes "precedent". Especially when one of the other affirming justices wrote out an opinion that was directly contradictory.
 
2012-06-29 10:55:46 AM  
cdn-images.hollywood.com
Subby?
 
2012-06-29 11:02:33 AM  

Tired_of_the_BS: I had an old Russian History teacher, (I mean old - he and his family fled during their Revolution) - I was struck by his method of getting his students to think about the 'facts' on any major event in history by answering one short question: Who profits? (Not necessarily 'follow the money', more like: who benefited.)

So in regard to previous Supreme Court rulings - say comparing Plessy vs. Ferguson to Brown vs. Board... Yes, it was about racism, but what made it personal to joe racist taxpayer, was about whose money was spent on whom and where. In fact, when Brown vs. Board went into effect, a bunch of school districts closed down all over the South - not only because they didn't want their white kids going to a segregated school, but specifically because they didn't want to pay for the 'other kids' to get the same quality education.

I believe it's the exact same deal regarding Obamacare - maybe not as racist driven - I'd like to think we've come a little ways down the road, but I've talked to many people who hate it w/o really knowing anything about it; but if pressed they 'feel' they'll be carrying the load for... undesirables. (Not the word they would use, it was the nicest universal semi-synonym I could come up with. Sad, but then again, I live in VA.)

It's exactly why I think the Citizen's United ruling was the same/worst mistake as Plessy... It legitimizes a select group to spend money in such a way as to establish/widen the gap disproportionately - only instead of education it's representation.


It is a very interesting post and worth thinking about but it might have one very important false assumption which is that people support/vote for things that in their own self-interest.

When it comes to many Conservative voters, I believe the complete opposite is true.
 
Displayed 50 of 116 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 »
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