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.

(The Raw Story)   George Will: See, Obamacare is unconstitutional because the Supreme Court decided it was constitutional, right? See, so your hair is a bird, your argument is invalid, and that automatically makes Sarah Palin President, okay?   (rawstory.com) divider line 120
    More: Stupid, George Will, Supreme Court, obamacare, constitutions, d.c. circuit court of appeals, Crooks & Liars, Obamacare unconstitutional  
•       •       •

2344 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2014 at 2:29 PM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



120 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-23 01:32:21 PM  
George Will is entirely correct, but he's failing to account for one critical fact: Obama was elected without actually being a United States citizen. This in itself invalidated the Constitution, which means that Obamacare cannot, from a strictly legalistic sense, be unconstitutional.
 
2014-04-23 01:36:06 PM  
www.lolwtfcomics.com
 
2014-04-23 01:37:25 PM  
OMG that man is completely insane. Tertiary syphilis? Dementia? Brain tumor?
 
2014-04-23 01:40:34 PM  
i82.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-23 01:41:04 PM  
Remember when George Will was a well respected, reasonable conservative?

Yeah, me either.
 
2014-04-23 01:52:11 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 496x596]


I love that one for some reason.
 
2014-04-23 01:55:41 PM  

vernonFL: Remember when George Will was a well respected, reasonable conservative?

Yeah, me either.


images.rcp.realclearpolitics.com
"To what might you be referring, Willis?"

// was looking for the basketball game pic, couldn't find it
 
2014-04-23 02:08:05 PM  
What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

i1042.photobucket.com
 
2014-04-23 02:17:15 PM  
his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"
 
2014-04-23 02:27:36 PM  

ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"


24.media.tumblr.com

"Yes."
 
2014-04-23 02:30:59 PM  

Shostie: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

[24.media.tumblr.com image 496x740]

"Yes."


Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!
 
2014-04-23 02:35:17 PM  
www.blogcdn.com
 
2014-04-23 02:35:47 PM  

Byno: Shostie: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

[24.media.tumblr.com image 496x740]

"Yes."

Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!


It's at the haberdashery being blocked. Artisinally blocked, natch.
 
2014-04-23 02:36:03 PM  
Quick, call 911!  The subby obviously had a stroke in the middle of typing his headline.
 
2014-04-23 02:36:06 PM  

ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"


I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?
 
2014-04-23 02:36:08 PM  

ginandbacon: OMG that man is completely insane. Tertiary syphilis? Dementia? Brain tumor?


Fox News Contributor, so all three?
 
2014-04-23 02:36:33 PM  

ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"


I don't even get his argument on that one. He said he doesn't want to get rid of it either, just change it. I'm pretty sure Democrats are open to changing it, though perhaps not in the same ways.

I can't remember the last time I saw him on TV, and I forgot what a joyless twit he comes off as.
 
2014-04-23 02:37:08 PM  

Shostie: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

[24.media.tumblr.com image 496x740]

"Yes."


"A neck tattoo used to say "Watch out, motherfarker." Now it says "I'd love to read you a poem about my vegan bicycle!""
 
2014-04-23 02:38:01 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?


That would depend on who gets the improvements.
 
2014-04-23 02:38:32 PM  
Actually clicked the article expecting a George Will piece.  I like to scan them to see how many sentences in it takes him to whip out a thesaurus and use a pretentiously big word to make himself sound smart.  It's usually less than 5 sentences...
 
2014-04-23 02:38:36 PM  
Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.
 
2014-04-23 02:38:52 PM  

Car_Ramrod: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I don't even get his argument on that one. He said he doesn't want to get rid of it either, just change it. I'm pretty sure Democrats are open to changing it, though perhaps not in the same ways.

I can't remember the last time I saw him on TV, and I forgot what a joyless twit he comes off as.


Oh, yeah.  Very much THIS.  He came off last night as a monumental asshole.  And when he talked about baseball, it sounded like he was talking about work, not fun.  The few laughs he had were of the "Oh, you simple peon.  You can't understand my genius" variety.
 
2014-04-23 02:39:16 PM  
The man is 72. He should have retired by now. Why should we listen to him when he obviously can't manage his own finances.
 
2014-04-23 02:39:50 PM  

ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"


Presumably by the same logic you wouldn't read an 1877 newspaper. I wonder if (one of) his employers would like the idea that old things should be completely scrapped after a while just because they are old?
 
2014-04-23 02:40:18 PM  
Here are some facts:

FTA:   there will be an argument that this is objectively a revenue measure," Will explained. "The Supreme Court said as much, a tax measure."

"It did not originate in the House. And under the standards of origination, the whole thing is unconstitutional," he added. "So this argument, again, is far from over."

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActIntroduced:Sep 17, 2009

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:  Senate Vote #396Date:Dec 24, 2009 (111th Congress)

ACA originated in the House on September 17th and passed the Senate on Dec. 24th.  George Will is incorrect on a point of fact.  Will's point is incorrect.
 
2014-04-23 02:40:19 PM  
i.imgur.com

You betcha!
 
2014-04-23 02:40:30 PM  
Are there folks out there who buy this shiat?
 
2014-04-23 02:40:49 PM  

Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?


He's saying that today's Democrats are the ones who are actually conservative on Social Security because they don't want any changes to it whatsoever; while the Republicans have advocated a liberal approach because they want to tinker with it.  Will is saying that the Democrats have essentially said that "What was put in place 80 years ago should never, ever be changed" and that is conservative.
 
2014-04-23 02:42:38 PM  
Ok, for the last time 'pubs....

The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

It's like for every amendment to the US Constitution, they take a highlighter to only the words that they agree with.
 
2014-04-23 02:42:52 PM  

vernonFL: Remember when George Will was a well respected, reasonable conservative?

Yeah, me either.


Growing up in yhe 80s, the closest thing to a daily newspaper my little Wisconsin town had was the Watertown Daily Times.

That paper publish Cal Thomas and George Will editorials weekly. When I was 12, I remember respecting George Will, because he was the one who wasn't an obviously batshiat insane christofascist.

My view of George Will has grown sligjtly more nuanced through the years.
 
2014-04-23 02:43:15 PM  

ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"


His argument argument in TFA sounded like one of those libertarians saying, because the flag in the courtroom has gold braid on the edges the court is following admiralty law, so when the judge leaves the courtroom they can declare "man overboard!" and then name themselves as presiding judge and dismiss the case against them.

In other words, George, it's going to take more than just *you* declaring the ACA unconstitutional because reasons; you're going to need quite a few people actually in authority agreeing with your sophistry.
 
2014-04-23 02:45:09 PM  

Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!


Challenge accepted.
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-23 02:47:18 PM  
Oh, that poor chicken.
 
2014-04-23 02:47:21 PM  

Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?


Colbert: "I'm conservative, you're conservative, I don't think anything should ever change."
Will: "That makes you a liberal?"
Colbert: "LOLWUT?"
Will: "Liberals don't want anything to change. Social Security was enacted in 1935. Do you use anything from 1935? No. Therefore, change social security."
Colbert: ".... so anyways, about Wrigley Field...."

It's a fallacious argument in multiple ways:

1) It ignores all the ways conservatives want to maintain the status quo ("traditional" marriage for example)
2) It ignores the fact that social security was a change the liberals enacted in the first place
3) It argues that once a program is put in place, modifying it is by default a conservative position, regardless of the program or its modifications

I'm sure there are other ways it's a dumb argument, but it's so blatantly trollish, it's not worth the typing.
 
2014-04-23 02:47:30 PM  

Muta: Here are some facts:

FTA:   there will be an argument that this is objectively a revenue measure," Will explained. "The Supreme Court said as much, a tax measure."

"It did not originate in the House. And under the standards of origination, the whole thing is unconstitutional," he added. "So this argument, again, is far from over."

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActIntroduced:Sep 17, 2009

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:  Senate Vote #396Date:Dec 24, 2009 (111th Congress)

ACA originated in the House on September 17th and passed the Senate on Dec. 24th.  George Will is incorrect on a point of fact.  Will's point is incorrect.


What they don't like is that HR 3590 was not initially the PPACA. It was a different revenue generating bill. The Senate, knowing the Constitution, took HR 3590, attached a huge amendment to it (the PPACA), and re-named it.

"Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D-NY) on September 17, 2009"

Yeah, maybe "dirty and sleazy", but within the rules. Don't hate the player, hate the game.
 
2014-04-23 02:48:16 PM  

ginandbacon: OMG that man is completely insane. Tertiary syphilis? Dementia? Brain tumor?

 
2014-04-23 02:49:14 PM  

SunsetLament: Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?

He's saying that today's Democrats are the ones who are actually conservative on Social Security because they don't want any changes to it whatsoever; while the Republicans have advocated a liberal approach because they want to tinker with it.  Will is saying that the Democrats have essentially said that "What was put in place 80 years ago should never, ever be changed" and that is conservative.


Well, that's a dumb thing to say.  First, it's ONE topic, so it's not really representative of which side is more amenable to change.  Second, have there not been more than a few liberals who would like to increase the taxable income level for Social Security, and increase it substantially?  Haven't there been some liberals who've suggested lowering the Social Security benefits for the wealthy?

So changing SS is not a deal-killer for liberals, just not change he's in favor of, which is privatizing SS so the wealthy can skim off even more money with no effort.

And what do 30s cars and TVs have to do with it.  For a 'well-respected award winning' journalist, he can't create a metaphor worth a shiat.
 
2014-04-23 02:49:38 PM  

ginandbacon: OMG that man is completely insane. Tertiary syphilis? Dementia? Brain tumor?


d22zlbw5ff7yk5.cloudfront.net
 
2014-04-23 02:50:56 PM  

ginandbacon: OMG that man is completely insane. Tertiary syphilis? Dementia? Brain tumor?


When the day comes where Sunday political talk shows are off the air, he's going to be in a corner in a fetal position, muttering to a dog turd about how relevant he is to the DC beltway.
 
2014-04-23 02:51:21 PM  

ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.


Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millions of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.
 
2014-04-23 02:54:00 PM  

The Larch: That paper publish Cal Thomas and George Will editorials weekly. When I was 12, I remember respecting George Will, because he was the one who wasn't an obviously batshiat insane christofascist.


Although there was a little more variety published in the Austin-American Statesman about that time, I remember feeling about the same way. About both men.
 
2014-04-23 02:55:20 PM  

alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]


holy shiat, someone didn't get enough participation ribbons when he was a kid!
 
2014-04-23 02:56:43 PM  

TV's Vinnie: When the day comes where Sunday political talk shows are off the air, he's going to be in a corner in a fetal position, muttering to a dog turd about how relevant he is to the DC beltway.


He can suck his thumb and rock off to sleep on the giant pile of hundred dollar bills he's earned being a pompous douchebag.
 
2014-04-23 02:57:00 PM  

Lochsteppe: Byno: Shostie: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

[24.media.tumblr.com image 496x740]

"Yes."

Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

It's at the haberdashery being blocked. Artisinally blocked, natch.


A person who blocks hats is a milliner.

/the more you know!
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 02:57:50 PM  
Wasn't there a time when George Will actually made good arguments?

I mean today he does nothing but read from the faxes that come from the GOP headquarters...
 
2014-04-23 02:57:51 PM  
But I thought the debate on obamacare  was over!?!?!
 
2014-04-23 02:58:05 PM  
Ok, I came in here intending to bash on subby for not having any reading comprehension.  Since the article was taking a while do download, I had to wait till I could read it myself.

First line of article "Fox News contributor George Will on Sunday argued that the United States Supreme Court had inadvertently made President Barack Obama's health care reform law unconstitutional when the justices ruled that it was not unconstitutional "

So, Subby, please accept my sincere appology for my knee jerk reaction to your headline.  I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.
 
2014-04-23 02:58:11 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.


I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.
 
2014-04-23 03:00:08 PM  
I run master control at a Fox affiliate and have to sit through FNS every week.  Fortunately there's a mute switch.  Too bad I can't mute it over the air.

-I've thought about it.
 
2014-04-23 03:00:32 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Will: "Liberals don't want anything to change. Social Security was enacted in 1935. Do you use anything from 1935? No. Therefore, change social security."
Colbert: ".... so anyways, about Wrigley Field...."

It's a fallacious argument in multiple ways:

1) It ignores all the ways conservatives want to maintain the status quo ("traditional" marriage for example)
2) It ignores the fact that social security was a change the liberals enacted in the first place
3) It argues that once a program is put in place, modifying it is by default a conservative position, regardless of the program or its modifications

I'm sure there are other ways it's a dumb argument, but it's so blatantly trollish, it's not worth the typing.


Does the Hoover Dam not provide water and electricity to the south west any more?
 
2014-04-23 03:00:53 PM  

alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]


Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)
 
2014-04-23 03:01:29 PM  

Car_Ramrod: Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?

Colbert: "I'm conservative, you're conservative, I don't think anything should ever change."
Will: "That makes you a liberal?"
Colbert: "LOLWUT?"
Will: "Liberals don't want anything to change. Social Security was enacted in 1935. Do you use anything from 1935? No. Therefore, change social security."
Colbert: ".... so anyways, about Wrigley Field...."

It's a fallacious argument in multiple ways:

1) It ignores all the ways conservatives want to maintain the status quo ("traditional" marriage for example)
2) It ignores the fact that social security was a change the liberals enacted in the first place
3) It argues that once a program is put in place, modifying it is by default a conservative position, regardless of the program or its modifications

I'm sure there are other ways it's a dumb argument, but it's so blatantly trollish, it's not worth the typing.


It's not that Conservatives are gunf ho to improve Social Security, it's that they want to move it closer to the status quo ante.
 
2014-04-23 03:02:25 PM  

Aquapope: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

I heard that last night on Colbert and had no idea what the hell he was talking about.  Can you shed some light on this?


It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.
All twelve volumes of the USCA (Title 42) dealing with Social Security sprung fully formed from FRD's head, like Athena springing forth from Zeus.
 
2014-04-23 03:02:38 PM  

alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]


I'd like to punch that guy but I'd be too afraid of being guilty of multiple hate crimes.
 
2014-04-23 03:02:43 PM  

Tricky Chicken: I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.


Prepare for stupidity.  And here's the rebuttal you will need to fight that stupidity:

kidgenius: The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

 
2014-04-23 03:03:24 PM  

Johhny Wad: But I thought the debate on obamacare  was over!?!?!


It will never be over, so long as the sun crosses the sky and websites roll out, so long as man walks the Earth and Dr. Seuss books remain readily available, so long as the tides turn and Benghazi is a thing, it will never be over.
 
2014-04-23 03:03:42 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.


They're all publically traded companies. You certainly can be an "owner".
 
2014-04-23 03:05:30 PM  
Actually, only one SCOTUS justice said it was constitutional under Congress's taxing power. (That would be the Chief Justice.) Four more said it was constitutional under the commerce clause and 4 more said it was unconstitutional.Therefore, even if this issue ever somehow go to the SCOTUS (which it won't because the courts don't touch these types of issues with a ten-foot poll, and besides it was properly originated in the house anyway) it is entirely possible that 8 justices say that it wasn't a renenue bill, and there is no procedural problem.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 03:05:33 PM  

Stile4aly: It's not that Conservatives are gunf ho to improve Social Security, it's that they want to move it closer to the status quo ante.


As much as the GOP has inflamed blowhard assholes over the idea of "wealth redistribution," they are actually at least as much for it as any Democrat, except they are for the money flowing in the opposite direction.

Calling the current Democrats socialists when they are overrun by corporate interests is just plain stupid.  Plus the GOP are just as socialist in their own ways since not being so means all the fat retirees in Florida would start voting against them.
 
2014-04-23 03:06:05 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.


Then blame George Will and his ilk. If not for them, we would have the universal single-payer system that we've already been paying for.
 
d23 [TotalFark]
2014-04-23 03:06:37 PM  

UncomfortableSilence: Johhny Wad: But I thought the debate on obamacare  was over!?!?!

It will never be over, so long as the sun crosses the sky and websites roll out, so long as man walks the Earth and Dr. Seuss books remain readily available, so long as the tides turn and Benghazi is a thing, it will never be over.


There are still Gilded Age-ers butthurt about Roosevelt's New Deal...  you are absolutely right.
 
2014-04-23 03:07:28 PM  

Stone Meadow: alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]

Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)


It kind of looks like a CalTran train.
 
2014-04-23 03:07:42 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Ok, I came in here intending to bash on subby for not having any reading comprehension.  Since the article was taking a while do download, I had to wait till I could read it myself.

First line of article "Fox News contributor George Will on Sunday argued that the United States Supreme Court had inadvertently made President Barack Obama's health care reform law unconstitutional when the justices ruled that it was not unconstitutional "

So, Subby, please accept my sincere appology for my knee jerk reaction to your headline.  I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.


Short enough article. So he thinks there was some sort of proceedural issue that could be used to challenge it on a technicallity. Good luck with that.

I would have brought up the lefty argument. it makes more sense.
Obama is a lefty
He signed the bill with his left hand
The latin word for left is 'sinsiter'
That makes the bill endorsed by evil.
 
2014-04-23 03:08:21 PM  

give me doughnuts: It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.


They have.
 
2014-04-23 03:10:02 PM  

TV's Vinnie: When the day comes where Sunday political talk shows are off the air, he's going to be in a corner in a fetal position, muttering to a dog turd about how relevant he is to the DC beltway.


"Every day he stands in front of a mirror and says I'm a STAR, I'm a STAR"
-Don Rickles ragging Tommy Newsom (Mr. Excitement) on The Tonight Show
 
2014-04-23 03:10:56 PM  

kidgenius: What they don't like is that HR 3590 was not initially the PPACA. It was a different revenue generating bill. The Senate, knowing the Constitution, took HR 3590, attached a huge amendment to it (the PPACA), and re-named it.

"Introduced in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009" (H.R. 3590) by Charles Rangel (D-NY) on September 17, 2009"

Yeah, maybe "dirty and sleazy", but within the rules. Don't hate the player, hate the game.


Exactly the "gut and replace" procedure has been done for decades, and the courts have been willing to accept it over and over. Mostly as a matter of staying out of the legislative branch's business.

If it was capable of defeating PPACA, the plaintiffs in NFIB vs Sebelius (et al) would have run that argument up the flagpole (like they did several other long-shot theories).  They didn't even bother doing that because it is a dumb, dumb argument.
 
2014-04-23 03:11:35 PM  

dopirt: Stone Meadow: alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]

Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)

It kind of looks like a CalTran train.


And now that I think about it, there is a weirdo day festival in San Francisco. I was on that line when it was filled with oddballs like that fellow.
 
2014-04-23 03:11:42 PM  
I found George Will's chin. It was in my desk drawer. I have no idea how it got there, but I'll Fedex it out right away.
 
2014-04-23 03:12:46 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: Tricky Chicken: I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.

Prepare for stupidity.  And here's the rebuttal you will need to fight that stupidity:

kidgenius: The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."


Yeah, I read that too.  This all delves way to far into constitutional law minutae for my comfort zone.  I prefer to stick to sompler constitutional questions like ''How do 'under god' and 'in god we trust' not establish religion?"  Personally I live under ceiling cat and I trust in my goalie.
 
2014-04-23 03:13:15 PM  

Stone Meadow: alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]

Okay, I gotta ask...WHAT THE FARK is that? ;^)


Go to Dolores Park in San Francisco some weekend. That's nothing.
 
2014-04-23 03:18:06 PM  

Pocket Ninja: George Will is entirely correct, but he's failing to account for one critical fact: Obama was elected without actually being a United States citizen. This in itself invalidated the Constitution, which means that Obamacare cannot, from a strictly legalistic sense, be unconstitutional.


Actually, since he was sworn in on a Koran, with a gold-fringed flag pin on his lapel, the double secret reptiod constitution is in effect, and all non-reptoids BY LAW have to speak in pig latin at all times.
 
2014-04-23 03:22:29 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Ok, I came in here intending to bash on subby for not having any reading comprehension.  Since the article was taking a while do download, I had to wait till I could read it myself.

First line of article "Fox News contributor George Will on Sunday argued that the United States Supreme Court had inadvertently made President Barack Obama's health care reform law unconstitutional when the justices ruled that it was not unconstitutional "

So, Subby, please accept my sincere appology for my knee jerk reaction to your headline.  I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.


That  might hurt a bit.
 
2014-04-23 03:23:51 PM  
I'm just curious, does anyone know the Congressional GOP's position on Obamacare? I'm just asking because it seems like by now they could have held some kind of vote to repeal it, if only as a symbolic gesture.

I know some people would say such a symbolic vote would be a waste of time. All I'm saying is that once, just for symbolism, would help clarify their position. There's no reason they'd have to do it like 50 times or anything. That would just be stupid.
 
2014-04-23 03:24:40 PM  
I do like watching conservatives say the conservative-majority SCOTUS got something wrong because it's not pleasing to their rhetoric.

The ACA is a constitutional law. Let's maintain three threads a day talking about how butthurt people are regarding this fact.
 
2014-04-23 03:26:05 PM  

give me doughnuts: AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.

Then blame George Will and his ilk. If not for them, we would have the universal single-payer system that we've already been paying for.


No, blame these guys. Senate Democrats that had the swing votes to pass a 'public option' but refused.

static3.businessinsider.com
www.ncadvertiser.com
 
2014-04-23 03:27:55 PM  

StopLurkListen: www.ncadvertiser.com


Lieberman may be a toolbag, but he was just doing the bidding of all the insurance companies based in Hartford. Definite constituency service above and beyond the call of duty.
 
2014-04-23 03:29:38 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: give me doughnuts: It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.

They have.


4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-04-23 03:31:48 PM  

give me doughnuts: Dusk-You-n-Me: give me doughnuts: It seems that the laws governing Social Security have never been amended of updated since 1935.

They have.

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 631x300]


/shame
 
2014-04-23 03:32:58 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Soup4Bonnie: Tricky Chicken: I am now going to try to actually read the article to see what George was trying to say.

Prepare for stupidity.  And here's the rebuttal you will need to fight that stupidity:

kidgenius: The PPACA was attached as an amendment to a previously existing revenue-generating bill that had already originated in the House. The Senate is perfectly free to propose amendments to bills, per the exact same origination clause.

"All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills."

Yeah, I read that too.  This all delves way to far into constitutional law minutae for my comfort zone.  I prefer to stick to sompler constitutional questions like ''How do 'under god' and 'in god we trust' not establish religion?"  Personally I live under ceiling cat and I trust in my goalie.


How can something that cannot be sold across state lines and is regulated by the various states be covered under the commerce clause?
 
2014-04-23 03:33:11 PM  

Herb Utsmelz: I run master control at a Fox affiliate and have to sit through FNS every week.  Fortunately there's a mute switch.  Too bad I can't mute it over the air.

-I've thought about it.



Ahhhh...memories....

When I was stationed in Germany I worked at a radio site that housed the retransmitter for AFN-TV, it took in the microwave signal out of Frankfurt and rebroadcast it for TV reception.  It was possible to turn off either the picture or the sound being broadcast from that unit.  We used to have all kinds of fun exercising editorial control over the local broadcast.

My personal favorite was the anti drug commercials that ended with "If you have a friend who uses drugs, do them a favor.  Turn them on to life."  I'd kill the sound right after the word "on".

Shutting off the picture during live broadcasts of stateside sports was also fun.
 
2014-04-23 03:48:05 PM  
A whole thread about George Will and not one mention of him being a racist.  You guys are slipping.
 
2014-04-23 03:49:08 PM  
"That makes you a liberal," Will said, explaining that no one drives a 1935 car or watches a 1935 television set anymore, but liberals want Social Security to remain the same as it was when instituted in 1935.

.This is absurd on its face because Social Security has changed quite a bit since it was enacted into law in 1935.  Social Security has not remained the same since 1935.  Try again George and this time be accurate.
 
2014-04-23 03:59:02 PM  

StopLurkListen: No, blame these guys. Senate Democrats that had the swing votes to pass a 'public option' but refused.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 850x637]
[www.ncadvertiser.com image 620x462]


Republicans....Democrats....Independents.....

One consistency between all of them is a prerequisite requirement to have an eminently punchable face.
 
2014-04-23 04:01:04 PM  

SunsetLament: Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.


Yeah, but that's it's not a congressional procedure issue.  The constitution says that bills that raise revenue (taxes) have to be introduced in the House first.  It's pretty clear on that (Article I, Section 7).

That is, he might actually have a point here-except the fact that the Senate took a revenue bill that was passed by the House, completely gutted it, and turned that into the "Obamacare" bill, and this particular type of legislative trickery is considered constitutional.
 
2014-04-23 04:08:29 PM  

ristst: StopLurkListen: No, blame these guys. Senate Democrats that had the swing votes to pass a 'public option' but refused.

[static3.businessinsider.com image 850x637]
[www.ncadvertiser.com image 620x462]

Republicans....Democrats....Independents.....

One consistency between all of them is a prerequisite requirement to have an eminently punchable face.


The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to all of them.
 
2014-04-23 04:13:48 PM  

runwiz: "That makes you a liberal," Will said, explaining that no one drives a 1935 car or watches a 1935 television set anymore, but liberals want Social Security to remain the same as it was when instituted in 1935.

.This is absurd on its face because Social Security has changed quite a bit since it was enacted into law in 1935.  Social Security has not remained the same since 1935.  Try again George and this time be accurate.


Major Changes from 1935 to 1936

http://www.ssa.gov/history/pdf/crs9436.pdf 

Table of Contents

1939 Amendments
1950 Amendments
1952 Amendments
1954 Amendments
1956 Amendments
1958 Amendments
1960 Amendments
1961 Amendments
1965 Amendments
1966 Amendments
1967 Amendments
1969 Amendments
1971 Amendments
1972 Amendments
1973 Amendments
1977 Amendments
1980 Amendments
198 1 Amendments
1983 Amendments
1984 Amendments
1985 Legislation
1986 Amendments
1987 Amendments
1989 Amendments
1990 Amendments
1993 Amendments
1994 Amendments
1996 Amendments
 
2014-04-23 04:20:10 PM  

AliceBToklasLives: Mitch Taylor's Bro: ristst: Mitch Taylor's Bro: What if it's unconstitutional, but improves the lives of millions of people anyway?

That would depend on who gets the improvements.

Good point. I was thinking millions of poor people who lacked health care insurance due to financial or pre-existing conditions (or pre-existing financial conditions), but I suppose it could improve the lives of millionsthousands of health care insurance company executives and investors, too.

I want to own a business where I get paid by people who don't require my service while those who do require that service get said service paid for by the government.  The government takes almost all the risk and I take almost all the profits.


I was including investors, so I stand by the millions part. :P
 
2014-04-23 04:23:27 PM  
Ol' George is just phoning it in nowadays. Lazy "If Obama is for it, I'm against it" arguments that sell to the masses and the party bosses.
 
2014-04-23 04:25:13 PM  

mrshowrules: A whole thread about George Will and not one mention of him being a racist.  You guys are slipping.


C'mon now. Some of his best friends are black baseball players
 
2014-04-23 04:35:01 PM  

qorkfiend: The important thing is, you've found a way to feel superior to all of them.


+1
 
2014-04-23 04:36:00 PM  
When you hear George Will talk about baseball he's great.

When you hear George Will talk about politics, you wish he started talking about baseball again.
 
2014-04-23 04:38:31 PM  

Rapmaster2000: [www.blogcdn.com image 580x350]


I'm guessing he's not at a football game?
 
2014-04-23 04:42:42 PM  

Geotpf: SunsetLament: Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.

Yeah, but that's it's not a congressional procedure issue.  The constitution says that bills that raise revenue (taxes) have to be introduced in the House first.  It's pretty clear on that (Article I, Section 7).

That is, he might actually have a point here-except the fact that the Senate took a revenue bill that was passed by the House, completely gutted it, and turned that into the "Obamacare" bill, and this particular type of legislative trickery is considered constitutional.


That's what i meant by "congressional procedure".
 
2014-04-23 04:57:43 PM  

SunsetLament: He's saying that today's Democrats are the ones who are actually conservative on Social Security because they don't want any changes to it whatsoever; while the Republicans have advocated a liberal approach because they want to tinker with it. Will is saying that the Democrats have essentially said that "What was put in place 80 years ago should never, ever be changed" and that is conservative.


The opposite of liberal is not conservative.  The opposite of liberal is reactionary.  The Plutocrat Party is reactionary.
 
2014-04-23 05:09:46 PM  

Sgt Otter: Shostie: ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"

[24.media.tumblr.com image 496x740]

"Yes."

"A neck tattoo used to say "Watch out, motherfarker." Now it says "I'd love to read you a poem about my vegan bicycle!""


Ok that's funny right there.
 
2014-04-23 05:45:01 PM  
war is peace
freedom is slavery
ignorance is strength
 
2014-04-23 05:50:39 PM  
"I don't find him all that bright." - Kramer
 
2014-04-23 05:55:19 PM  

Rwa2play: When you hear George Will talk about baseball he's great.

When you hear George Will talk about politics, you wish he started talking about baseball again.


ooo!  just like Olbermann!
 
2014-04-23 06:16:15 PM  

Pocket Ninja: George Will is entirely correct, but he's failing to account for one critical fact: Obama was elected without actually being a United States citizen. This in itself invalidated the Constitution, which means that Obamacare cannot, from a strictly legalistic sense, be unconstitutional.


I don't know if I should facepalm or laugh.  I'll settle for a WTF while laughing.
 
2014-04-23 06:20:39 PM  

Lt. Cheese Weasel: [www.lolwtfcomics.com image 496x596]


HEY!  That's my job around here.
img.chan4chan.com
 
2014-04-23 06:22:21 PM  

alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]


You sonofabiatch.  You owe me a new keyboard for the vomit that I just spewed all over it after seeing that.
 
2014-04-23 06:36:15 PM  
Id really like to know what kind of drugs all these independents and conservatives have been on since at least 2000 or the real radical ones who supported Newts contract for America since 1992. Does anyone know? Im looking to try new things with an open mind.
 
2014-04-23 06:39:32 PM  

runwiz: liberals want Social Security to remain the same as it was when instituted in 1935.


Question:  Would you like Social Security, a program created in 1935, to continue to exist?

Liberals:  Yes please.

George Will: Aha! Liberals want Social Security to remain unchanged since the day it was started in 1935, evar!!!

Liberals:  Um, no, we didn't say that, it can be changed, and has been changed in the past 75+ years, as needed but it should continue, as opposed to being shut down...

George Will:  You want it unchanged! In your face, liberals!   *spikes miniature football, does happydance in yellow golf slacks*
 
2014-04-23 06:40:34 PM  

Bob Robert: Id really like to know what kind of drugs all these independents and conservatives have been on since at least 2000 or the real radical ones who supported Newts contract for America since 1992. Does anyone know? Im looking to try new things with an open mind.


All of them. Any of them that are in front of them.
 
2014-04-23 06:51:25 PM  
 

Muta: Here are some facts:

FTA:   there will be an argument that this is objectively a revenue measure," Will explained. "The Supreme Court said as much, a tax measure."

"It did not originate in the House. And under the standards of origination, the whole thing is unconstitutional," he added. "So this argument, again, is far from over."

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care ActIntroduced:Sep 17, 2009

HR 3590 (111th): Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act:  Senate Vote #396Date:Dec 24, 2009 (111th Congress)

ACA originated in the House on September 17th and passed the Senate on Dec. 24th.  George Will is incorrect on a point of fact.  Will's point is incorrect.


Ah, but here's the problem. The senate, in its extreme stupidity under Reid, decided to declare it a budget item after the bill was initially presented to the senate. At that point, Reid should have immediately stopped debate and handed it back over to the house to go through the proper procedure, then have the house vote, then have the senate vote.  However, he didn't do that.  In order to just avoid a filibuster, Reid just declared it a budget item and then had the senate vote, ignoring the rule for cutting off debate, voted to approve the bill, and sent it to the house for final approval.  That's a big no-no.  A very big, very unconstitutional, no-no.  While it might seem kind of silly, the constitution is very clear: all spending bills must start in the house.  That doesn't mean a simple vote- that also means being written in the house.  Since the bill wasn't written by the house, it did not originate in the house.  Hence, unconstitutional.  It will be interesting to see if that argument makes it before the court because I don't think there has ever been a case brought before the court about that.  I can't imagine it standing at that point.  The senate can't write a budget bill, period.  Nor can they write a budgetary item.  The power of the purse belongs exclusively to the house, and only to the house.  All budgets must be written by the house, and the senate can then go in and revise it.  However, it must come from the house first.

There are some workarounds.  A group of senators could write a proposal and send it over to the house.  That's not a bill, its a proposal.  The proposal is then considered by members of the house and then re-written by the house.  There might be some other workarounds that you could do in an emergency.  I don't know.  Whoever was Reid's legal advisor, or hell, the white house counsel, should have done is hit the farking panic button after Reid opened his mouth.  I have to assume that said advisor is no longer in that position because it could tank the whole act.
 
2014-04-23 07:02:33 PM  

Bob Robert: Id really like to know what kind of drugs all these independents and conservatives have been on since at least 2000 or the real radical ones who supported Newts contract for America since 1992. Does anyone know? Im looking to try new things with an open mind.


Cesium.
 
2014-04-23 07:06:31 PM  

bobothemagnificent: Cesium.


Is that what gets you into your happy place after a long day of trolling fark?
 
2014-04-23 07:15:52 PM  

bobothemagnificent: In order to just avoid a filibuster, Reid just declared it a budget item and then had the senate vote, ignoring the rule for cutting off debate,


You're confusing the core HR 3590 (which passed Senate cloture with 60 votes, Ted being still alive) and the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (a cleanup bill on the edges of PPACA).

The best you're going to get out of that is to argue that the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (again, small cleanup bits to PPACA) is invalid because it was passed with fewer than 60 votes in the Senate.  PPACA would stand, just be substantively crappier.

And you probably wouldn't get that because none of the Senate's internal rules (like filibusters, clotures, etc) are part of the Constitution.  AFAIK, the SCOTUS has never decided something was invalid simply because the Senate fudged its own procedures.
 
2014-04-23 07:18:33 PM  

ManateeGag: his argument argument about Social Security was kind of weak.  "Do you still drive a 1935 car or watch a 1935 TV?"


Yo, George...im'a let you finish your rant, but it's even worse than that. The United States is still operating off a Constitution from 1789. Seventeen farking eighty-nine ferchryssake!

You get a load o'that?
 
2014-04-23 07:38:09 PM  

Lawnchair: bobothemagnificent: In order to just avoid a filibuster, Reid just declared it a budget item and then had the senate vote, ignoring the rule for cutting off debate,

You're confusing the core HR 3590 (which passed Senate cloture with 60 votes, Ted being still alive) and the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (a cleanup bill on the edges of PPACA).

The best you're going to get out of that is to argue that the Reconciliation Act of 2010 (again, small cleanup bits to PPACA) is invalid because it was passed with fewer than 60 votes in the Senate.  PPACA would stand, just be substantively crappier.

And you probably wouldn't get that because none of the Senate's internal rules (like filibusters, clotures, etc) are part of the Constitution.  AFAIK, the SCOTUS has never decided something was invalid simply because the Senate fudged its own procedures.

It was declared a reconciliation after Ted died in order to make the final leap because they knew they wouldn't have enough votes.  The budget must start in the house.  It started in the senate.  That's the constitution.  You can't declare a reconciliation, which is the final bill, a budget act when it wasn't a budget act in the first place.  That right there is a huge fook up.  Like I said, that legal advisor probably no longer has a job.  Scratch that.  They are probably sleeping with the fishes.

See what I mean about a truly fascinating constitutional debate in front of the court?  I doubt they'll be able to pass it up.  In the end, I'm betting they'll call shenanigans and hit it with the banhammer.
 
2014-04-23 07:46:25 PM  

bobothemagnificent: It was declared a reconciliation after Ted died in order to make the final leap because they knew they wouldn't have enough votes.  The budget must start in the house.  It started in the senate.  That's the constitution.  You can't declare a reconciliation, which is the final bill, a budget act when it wasn't a budget act in the first place.


Here's where you're off.  There was HR 3590 which passed before Ted died.  And a reconciliation mop-up bill that passed after Ted died. Pelosi (and other sane people) made sure that they passed the House (again, after Ted's death) simultaneously.   But they are not the same bill. The House passed the unpatched HR 3590 and the patch bill simultaneously, yes, to avoid another filibuster opportunity.

Worst case, you keep the unpatched HR 3590 and kill the Reconciliation Act patches.  Which everyone agrees makes PPACA a worse law.  This naturally appeals to a certain nihilist group of Republicans, but isn't an overly popular strategy even in most GOP circles.
 
2014-04-23 08:16:11 PM  

Lawnchair: Here's where you're off.


You're arguing with a conservative who just admitted to taking Cesium to get high. I have no other explanation for all the uneducated viewpoints him and all the people like him on this site, except that they are heavily inebriated.
 
2014-04-23 09:43:52 PM  

Lee Jackson Beauregard: SunsetLament: He's saying that today's Democrats are the ones who are actually conservative on Social Security because they don't want any changes to it whatsoever; while the Republicans have advocated a liberal approach because they want to tinker with it. Will is saying that the Democrats have essentially said that "What was put in place 80 years ago should never, ever be changed" and that is conservative.

The opposite of liberal is not conservative.  The opposite of liberal is reactionary.  The Plutocrat Party is reaction


Thesaurus.com

Conservative - Antonyms: liberal, progressive, radical
 
2014-04-23 11:20:22 PM  

SunsetLament: Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.


I believe the argument is that when the bill was signed into law everyone involved, from the House to the Senate to the President, all said that it wasn't a tax but a fine and the wording in the bill called it just that. Then the SCOTUS said that it was in fact a tax, which would mean that in a way SCOTUS levied a tax which is not their job, never has been their job and quite honestly should never be their job as it would be taxation without representation.

From that point of view it's not a congressional procedural issue it's a SCOTUS making laws from the bench issue.
 
2014-04-23 11:26:43 PM  

Radioactive Ass: SunsetLament: Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.

I believe the argument is that when the bill was signed into law everyone involved, from the House to the Senate to the President, all said that it wasn't a tax but a fine and the wording in the bill called it just that. Then the SCOTUS said that it was in fact a tax, which would mean that in a way SCOTUS levied a tax which is not their job, never has been their job and quite honestly should never be their job as it would be taxation without representation.

From that point of view it's not a congressional procedural issue it's a SCOTUS making laws from the bench issue.


If you say the earth goes around the sun when everybody thought the sun went around the earth, you're not causing it to happen.
 
2014-04-24 12:03:34 AM  

Radioactive Ass: I believe the argument is that when the bill was signed into law everyone involved, from the House to the Senate to the President, all said that it wasn't a tax but a fine and the wording in the bill called it just that. Then the SCOTUS said that it was in fact a tax, which would mean that in a way SCOTUS levied a tax which is not their job, never has been their job and quite honestly should never be their job as it would be taxation without representation.


No, the question is moot because the law, if only by a technicality, originated in the House.

There was never any question that PPACA was, at least in part, a revenue bill.  All the medical device taxes, 7-figure-income surtax, limits on FSAs/HSAs, etc made it clearly a tax bill from day one.  Now, whether the individual mandate is a tax-with-abatement-for-compliance or a penalty-for-noncompliance is interesting and all for other reasons.  But PPACA always was, at least in part, a revenue bill, which is why the Senate adopted the "gut and 'amend' a House revenue bill" strategy when writing it.
 
2014-04-24 03:40:17 AM  

alizeran: Byno: Not hipster enough.  He doesn't even have a hat!

Challenge accepted.
[img.fark.net image 768x1024]


why would you post that before 9am in the morning... I now have to go the full day at work with that seared into my retinas.
 
2014-04-24 04:15:20 AM  
George Will is crazier than a sack of dead rats.
 
2014-04-24 08:27:54 AM  

Radioactive Ass: SunsetLament: Also the "it's a tax law and the law did not originate in the House so it is unconstitutional" argument has been around and discussed since before it was actually voted on.  Personally, I think it's worth discussing, but ultimately not something the Supreme Court would ever touch with a 100 foot pole because they hardly ever rule on congressional procedure issues.  This is nothing new.

I believe the argument is that when the bill was signed into law everyone involved, from the House to the Senate to the President, all said that it wasn't a tax but a fine and the wording in the bill called it just that. Then the SCOTUS said that it was in fact a tax, which would mean that in a way SCOTUS levied a tax which is not their job, never has been their job and quite honestly should never be their job as it would be taxation without representation.

From that point of view it's not a congressional procedural issue it's a SCOTUS making laws from the bench issue.


Well, of course that's what happened ... but the SCOTUS is not going to rule that "hey, last year, we did something outside our scope of powers - our bad, we take it back".  That's not what Will is addressing here.  Here, he's attacking the origin of the bill (House or Senate).
 
2014-04-24 11:12:56 AM  

SunsetLament: Well, of course that's what happened ... but the SCOTUS is not going to rule that "hey, last year, we did something outside our scope of powers - our bad, we take it back". That's not what Will is addressing here. Here, he's attacking the origin of the bill (House or Senate).


He's beating a dead horse now because his party's scare tactics of the bill itself being a disaster to the country has turned into hot air, just like what is in his brain.
 
Displayed 120 of 120 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report