I was wondering how that part of Roberts' ruling was going to effect things.

I think that his ruling on HCR is going to end up being one of the most pivotal rulings in decades. He really dropped one on us.

ZAZ: The punishment for a drinking age below 21 is sufficient to deter states from changing their laws. Congress has no reason to raise the fine to a level the court would find constitutionally suspect.

The 'punishment' for dinking underage is also a great money maker for courts, treatment centers, etc.
It's bullsh*t. They're going to drink anyhow. They give these young half wits a driver's license so they can text and kill. Let them get drunk, get it out of their system and then drive when they're older.

AbbeySomeone: dinking underage

pedobear.jpg

That sucks. Drinking is more fun when it's illegal.

I still don't understand how, if Federal road money was tied to speed limits in the 70s and 80s, the states could not be now forced to accept Medicaid expansions.

eurotrader: Any bets? If any state tries it will be Wisconsin. Wisconsin still allows under 21 to drink if active duty military and fought a few extra years even losing some highway money before going to 21. I remember the grandfather clause. Having the drinking age at 21 causes far more problems than it solves.

We would be, especially since we haven't changed the tax on the barrel in more than 40 years.

/In the backwoods part of the state where I grew up any bar would serve someone who came back from basic before they got their orders.

eurotrader: Any bets? If any state tries it will be Wisconsin. Wisconsin still allows under 21 to drink if active duty military and fought a few extra years even losing some highway money before going to 21. I remember the grandfather clause. Having the drinking age at 21 causes far more problems than it solves.

Yeah, it wouldn't be Louisiana, especially since they resisted changing the drinking age for years at the cost of highway funding. Nope.

Dumbass.

I really don't understand why Congress threatened to take away 100% of Medicaid funds for refusal to accept the expansion. A first year law student could have told them "wow, that's much more coercive than what was attempted in South Dakota v. Dole. You'll be begging for a challenge there. And with this conservative court, it will have a decent chance of success. Why don't you retract *some* of those funds instead of *all* of them?"

bugontherug: I really don't understand why Congress threatened to take away 100% of Medicaid funds for refusal to accept the expansion. A first year law student could have told them "wow, that's much more coercive than what was attempted in South Dakota v. Dole. You'll be begging for a challenge there. And with this conservative court, it will have a decent chance of success. Why don't you retract *some* of those funds instead of *all* of them?"

As is evidenced by Jindal, Scott and Walker, you have to threaten the GOP to get them to help their citizens.

mat catastrophe: I still don't understand how, if Federal road money was tied to speed limits in the 70s and 80s, the states could not be now forced to accept Medicaid expansions.

I don't know about the speed limit issues of the 70's and 80's. I do know that Reagan only threatened to withhold 5% of federal highway funds for not enacting a drinking age in the 80's, and SCOTUS accepted that. The difference here was the threat to withhold 100% of existing Medicaid funds, which in the Court's view made it much more coercive.

A view I tend to agree with, though I do wonder if there's really any merit to the Court's notion that you can distinguish "expansions" from "new programs." I.e., if you expand the definition of "disabled" to include more types of mental illness, have you "enacted a new program," or merely a "new condition?" I suppose it just has to do with the scope of the change. I.e., you want to expand the list of "disabled" in a way that encompasses a relatively small number of people per year, that's okay, and simply be a new condition that the state has to comply with to get its funds. But if you try to massively overhaul the system, well, you really have to give states the choice to opt out.

GAT_00: bugontherug: I really don't understand why Congress threatened to take away 100% of Medicaid funds for refusal to accept the expansion. A first year law student could have told them "wow, that's much more coercive than what was attempted in South Dakota v. Dole. You'll be begging for a challenge there. And with this conservative court, it will have a decent chance of success. Why don't you retract *some* of those funds instead of *all* of them?"

As is evidenced by Jindal, Scott and Walker, you have to threaten the GOP to get them to help their citizens.

Yeah, but why all funds? It just so obviously gave opponents an issue to fight. Why not threaten to withhold just enough funds so that states who opt out have to take on the majority share of existing Medicaid costs? Reagan got all 50 states to enact age 21 drinking laws, and he didn't have to threaten to withhold 100% of highway funds. I suppose Congress maybe thought there would be more resistance to this, since it actually imposes some demands on state budgets. But still.

I get a kick out of riding by the local MADD office every morning...a door or two down from a MMJ dispensary. They must love that.

Relatively Obscure: Not holding my breath on this one.

It wasn't a discussion of drinking as such, it was a weakening of the feds' ability to bully states into passing state laws by tying the equivalent of congressional riders as conditions to funding for unrelated programs that the states had already enacted under completely different sets of stipulations.

So it could pretty easily prevent the federal government from pulling the same shiat again, but the drinking age as is is probably safe for a while as it's a previously enacted deal.

bugontherug: GAT_00: bugontherug: I really don't understand why Congress threatened to take away 100% of Medicaid funds for refusal to accept the expansion. A first year law student could have told them "wow, that's much more coercive than what was attempted in South Dakota v. Dole. You'll be begging for a challenge there. And with this conservative court, it will have a decent chance of success. Why don't you retract *some* of those funds instead of *all* of them?"

As is evidenced by Jindal, Scott and Walker, you have to threaten the GOP to get them to help their citizens.

Yeah, but why all funds? It just so obviously gave opponents an issue to fight. Why not threaten to withhold just enough funds so that states who opt out have to take on the majority share of existing Medicaid costs? Reagan got all 50 states to enact age 21 drinking laws, and he didn't have to threaten to withhold 100% of highway funds. I suppose Congress maybe thought there would be more resistance to this, since it actually imposes some demands on state budgets. But still.

Because these morons don't understand subtlety. They'll happily partially fark over their citizens. Making it an all or nothing thing is all the GOP understands. The world is totally black and white to them.

GAT_00: eurotrader: Any bets? If any state tries it will be Wisconsin. Wisconsin still allows under 21 to drink if active duty military and fought a few extra years even losing some highway money before going to 21. I remember the grandfather clause. Having the drinking age at 21 causes far more problems than it solves.

Yeah, it wouldn't be Louisiana, especially since they resisted changing the drinking age for years at the cost of highway funding. Nope.

Dumbass.

Yep. If any states are going to lower their drinking age, it'll be Louisiana then Nevada, followed by Texas and Florida.

NobleHam: Yep. If any states are going to lower their drinking age, it'll be Louisiana then Nevada, followed by Texas and Florida.

I'm not so sure about Nevada. Vegas has its demographic all set down, and unless they lower the gambling age, there's not much point to lowering the drinking age too.

ImpendingCynic: NobleHam: Yep. If any states are going to lower their drinking age, it'll be Louisiana then Nevada, followed by Texas and Florida.

I'm not so sure about Nevada. Vegas has its demographic all set down, and unless they lower the gambling age, there's not much point to lowering the drinking age too.

They'd sell vast quantities to Californian kids...that's a lot of tax revenue

bugontherug: mat catastrophe: I still don't understand how, if Federal road money was tied to speed limits in the 70s and 80s, the states could not be now forced to accept Medicaid expansions.

I don't know about the speed limit issues of the 70's and 80's. I do know that Reagan only threatened to withhold 5% of federal highway funds for not enacting a drinking age in the 80's, and SCOTUS accepted that. The difference here was the threat to withhold 100% of existing Medicaid funds, which in the Court's view made it much more coercive.

A view I tend to agree with, though I do wonder if there's really any merit to the Court's notion that you can distinguish "expansions" from "new programs." I.e., if you expand the definition of "disabled" to include more types of mental illness, have you "enacted a new program," or merely a "new condition?" I suppose it just has to do with the scope of the change. I.e., you want to expand the list of "disabled" in a way that encompasses a relatively small number of people per year, that's okay, and simply be a new condition that the state has to comply with to get its funds. But if you try to massively overhaul the system, well, you really have to give states the choice to opt out.

Thanks for the info.

Also, yes, there was the drinking age fight but I'm certain (too lazy to look it up right now) that there was a similar fight tied to speed limits, which is why 55MPH was so culturally pervasive for a long time.

ImpendingCynic: NobleHam: Yep. If any states are going to lower their drinking age, it'll be Louisiana then Nevada, followed by Texas and Florida.

I'm not so sure about Nevada. Vegas has its demographic all set down, and unless they lower the gambling age, there's not much point to lowering the drinking age too.

I'm sure they would lower the gambling age if they lowered the drinking age. They're only the same so that they don't have to check ID of everyone playing table games and getting free drinks, they can just check your ID when you go on the floor.

I wondered about that, when the ruling about Medicare came down

america is an enigma to the rest of the civilized world.. healthcare = too socialist. .. gay marriage will ruin traditional families. Change the drinking age from 21 and every teen will be driving around drunk... America is the perfect example of what listening to reactionist morons on tv will do to a country

mat catastrophe: I still don't understand how, if Federal road money was tied to speed limits in the 70s and 80s, the states could not be now forced to accept Medicaid expansions.

Highway funds were actually a fairly smart part of the overall budget for roads in most States. Medicare is funded by the feds around 60%, it's a lot more coercive, especially since much more is spent in heathcare costs than on roads in most states.

GAT_00: I was wondering how that part of Roberts' ruling was going to effect things.

I think that his ruling on HCR is going to end up being one of the most pivotal rulings in decades. He really dropped one on us.

I think he took a look at The Big Picture, realized that if he votes against this, then the SCOTUS really would be an arm of the GOP and the Koch brothers. Despite some of his past rulings, I think there was still a fragment of ha conscience left within him.

A no brainer that Scalia (a mafia thug who ever was one) would try to kill it, and Clarence Thomas would even vote to repeal the 13th Amendment if given a chance (then dance a jig as he's lead off in chains to go work on Massuh Limbaugh's sugar cane plantation).

ontariolightning: america is an enigma to the rest of the civilized world

I don't know why but I read that as an enema.

MaudlinMutantMollusk: I'm sure MADD would be just fine with that

Once had to sit through a PSA of theirs hosted by...the kid from Home Improvement...the oldest one...Zachary Ty Brian!! (Not being clever, that was literally my thought process just now) in which they had a "reenactment" of a kid who was having to go to the hospital because he drank, as an older kid at the party said "twenty or so" shots of tequila. Even in jr high, all I could think was "Uh...kid's lucky he didn't DROWN."

But yeah, somehow a bunch of prohibitionists (that actually probably started out pretty good) got a CRAPTON of political clout, so that might be a valid concern.

/and now back to my vodka and juice...

As someone who doesn't drink, I don't really give a fark what the drinking age is. If someone is under 21 and they want to drink, they're going to, law be damned. I knew plenty of people in high school and college who drank underage, and none them gave half a damn about that. So just lower the farking thing to 18 and be done with it. It's a cliche, but it's true; you can fight and die at 18, but you can't order a beer. Makes no sense. They lowered the voting age when people finally came around to the fact that the cannon fodder they were shipping off to SE Asia weren't old enough to vote for the politicians sending them there in the first place.

The Stealth Hippopotamus: Ok, so I'll have to admit there is one good idea in the new tax.


You can fight and die for your country, but you cant to go into a bar?! Never made sense to me.

I could. I was navy though and damned near never stateside at the time.

mat catastrophe: I still don't understand how, if Federal road money was tied to speed limits in the 70s and 80s, the states could not be now forced to accept Medicaid expansions.

Exactly; this ruling makes fark all sense to me. The government is constantly modifying the conditions needed to qualify for public funds. The idea that modifying the conditions while at the same time increasing the funds available means explicitly that the modified conditions ONLY apply to new funds not old?

If the government decides that a certain state will have to pay a slightly larger percentage of Medicaid, can the state reject it and would the government have to continue paying a larger share for that state? If not, aren't you creating a moral hazard that the "legal" way to do this is to expand Medicare requirements without expanding funding so it is the state's choice to take the current Medicare funds along with the new costs, and then pass additional funding for it later?

18-21: three years of weening off the tit and being granted the privileges of being an adult. Keep the age at 21 and save the best for last.

clowncar on fire: 18-21: three years of weening off the tit and being granted the privileges of being an adult. Keep the age at 21 and save the best for last.

farking puritanical Americans. Somehow I feel this ties in to yesterday's thread about the southernization of the country.

/grew up in Germany
//have no idea what these "best for last" ideas are all about

The biggest federal grant of money to the states after Medicaid is K-12 education. That is about 13% of all state grants and about 3% of all state spending across all categories. That's a lot smaller than the 10% of the budget at risk that Roberts decided was economic dragooning (incidentally, that's an awesome phrase), and I don't think it's all 100% contingent on satisfying federal regulations given the waivers Obama is handing out like candy. Until Roberts is willing to come up with a doctrine for what level of spending at risk constitutes coercion, I'm going to take a wild guess that no other program could possibly be found unconstitutional.

clowncar on fire: 18-21: three years of weening off the tit and being granted the privileges of being an adult. Keep the age at 21 and save the best for last.

18 is legal age to be a government trained killing machine but not responsible enough to drink legally

FAIL

ontariolightning: clowncar on fire: 18-21: three years of weening off the tit and being granted the privileges of being an adult. Keep the age at 21 and save the best for last.

18 is legal age to be a government trained killing machine but not responsible enough to drink legally

FAIL

If you're going there, let's go. I joined at 17. Let's get lit!

rohar: ontariolightning: clowncar on fire: 18-21: three years of weening off the tit and being granted the privileges of being an adult. Keep the age at 21 and save the best for last.

18 is legal age to be a government trained killing machine but not responsible enough to drink legally

FAIL

If you're going there, let's go. I joined at 17. Let's get lit!

yikes 17 to join the army. Thats just wrong

TV's Vinnie: think he took a look at The Big Picture, realized that if he votes against this, then the SCOTUS really would be an arm of the GOP and the Koch brothers

This is supposedly why he did in fact switch. He was willing to kill the whole thing and ignore severability, but he read stories on how it would be the proof that he was a lying sack of a Koch whore, which he is, and so because he couldn't get the conservatives to accept just the death of the mandate, he flipped.

ontariolightning: rohar: ontariolightning: clowncar on fire: 18-21: three years of weening off the tit and being granted the privileges of being an adult. Keep the age at 21 and save the best for last.

18 is legal age to be a government trained killing machine but not responsible enough to drink legally

FAIL

If you're going there, let's go. I joined at 17. Let's get lit!

yikes 17 to join the army. Thats just wrong

Navy. Still. There's no actual age requirement to joining. Only that you're an adult. In the absence of actual age, there are legal ways of becoming an adult a bit early. Helps if you're overseas and dad's a retired Colonel. No state to get in the way.

/god I miss the med
//was a lifetime ago