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.

(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  
•       •       •

2359 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Apr 2014 at 2:29 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
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 20 of 120 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