Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) And there you go. Thanks to the continued liberal erasing of economic rights, now we are to this point. We had the right took away to make economic decisions, this is just the government taking away another one. Some days I think Ron Paul is the only sane one out there. I love how you responded with nothing but a slogan. You have every right to continue being uninsured with this act, to get sick, and to die without treatment. No one has taken any rights away from you. You just have to pay a tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:10 AM) I love how you responded with nothing but a slogan. You have every right to continue being uninsured with this act, to get sick, and to die without treatment. No one has taken any rights away from you. You just have to pay a tax. Right. Just like late term abortion isn't a slippery slope... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:04 AM) The problem is, as I see it, one method is legal, and one is not. And for the purpose of disclaimer, I'm not an tax code expert, nor a constitutional expert. Our tax code is so complex that issues like this arise BECAUSE it's so complex. What I am is a home owner that can tell you the differences in added taxes I now have versus when I didn't own a home...and the write off doesn't come CLOSE to off setting the added amount of my money that's being sucked up by various government entities. But you're making a fundamental difference here...you are lumping together "Various government entitites". Does the Federal government enforce property taxes? No. That is a state/local level issue as far as everything I have known. The Federal government can step in and choose to offset a portion of that payment if it wants, just as it can also offset a portion of the interest being paid to a private company in that purchase. Here's a quick tax-related look at how the "Federal income tax" is affected by the mortgage interest deductions...it neglects the state level ones and only deals with the Federal ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:13 AM) Right. Just like late term abortion isn't a slippery slope... Ok, it probably isn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm convinced Balta is employed by UT to solely post on Soxtalk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:29 AM) I'm convinced Balta is employed by UT to solely post on Soxtalk. I've gotten a disturbing amount of work done here this week despite these threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 I'm a huge fan of the liberals on this board arguing that the Court should ignore the text of a bill and decide its constitutionality based on the "oh come on, we all know what they MEANT to do" standard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) I'm a huge fan of the liberals on this board arguing that the Court should ignore the text of a bill and decide its constitutionality based on the "oh come on, we all know what they MEANT to do" standard. That's exactly how I see it...and it's exactly how every last one of their arguments are being framed. As I'm not an expert, and I'm only basing my opinion on what I know/understand, there was a legal way of doing this, and the way they actually did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:45 AM) That's exactly how I see it...and it's exactly how every last one of their arguments are being framed. As I'm not an expert, and I'm only basing my opinion on what I know/understand, there was a legal way of doing this, and the way they actually did it. They had 2 constitutional options. 1. Be Republicans. 2. Have a 5-4 Democratic appointed majority on the court. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Then stop framing the whole issue like the justices are f***ing over everyone by not doing what you want them to do, which happens to be something they're not supposed to do. Stop making it out like Scalia and the like are in Fox News' pockets. The whole thing seriously gets old. "We didn't get what we want so the other guys are obviously doing something wrong." That's essentially the liberal/administrative position in this whole debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:08 AM) Then stop framing the whole issue like the justices are f***ing over everyone by not doing what you want them to do, which happens to be something they're not supposed to do. Stop making it out like Scalia and the like are in Fox News' pockets. The whole thing seriously gets old. "We didn't get what we want so the other guys are obviously doing something wrong." That's essentially the liberal/administrative position in this whole debate. Especially when the portrayal is that my guys are clean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 10:36 AM) I'm a huge fan of the liberals on this board arguing that the Court should ignore the text of a bill and decide its constitutionality based on the "oh come on, we all know what they MEANT to do" standard. Speaking generally, I give greatest weight to the text of a bill. But it can be be helpful to look at legislative intent, as long as you're looking solely at the intent of the FINAL product. Ie, I don't like using legislative intent to say "This what we were trying to do!" when, in fact, if they had done that, others wouldn't have voted for it and it wouldn't have been passed at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Great, and since the stuff I said on that issue got ignored a couple days ago and now people are back to pretending I somehow said the Democrats **** don't stink, I'll re-quote myself. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:11 PM) But the other side here is that a person who doesn't decide their jurisprudence (at least in the biggest cases) based on anything other than the prevailing political beliefs of their appointing party will not reach the Supreme Court. Justice Kennedy was the last one like that you'll see. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:14 PM) There really is something that seems off if the way this country is governed is grandfathered in based on which party's President was in power when 5 of the justices were appointed versus which party's president was in power when 4 of the justices were appointed. (Especially if that grandfathering decides the next president, but somehow I feel like that's digressing). IF that's the way it's going to be then there ought to be at least term limits on the court so that the court can shift as society shifts more readily. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 06:16 PM) I agree 100%...this is exactly what I was attempting to convey...but since you did it better, I'll just use this. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 07:03 PM) Correct, which of course means it'll never happen, and we're stuck with the current system, so we may as well start nominating justices when they're in their 30's to give us the best chance of them never leaving. Plus, short paper trail. QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 27, 2012 -> 07:17 PM) I doubt it plots on a line...but sure seems that way. For exactly that reason. Roberts, Kagan, Alito, and Sotomayor were all between 50 and 55 when they were nominated. We've got those 4 there for what, 25+ years barring a genuine early retirement? Let's just say this...no one is appointing a 65 year old justice at the height of his or her career any more, no matter how deserving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Also, let's not forget they haven't passed judgement yet. Who knows what they will end up doing...but IMO, that part of the way they choose to do things is unconstitutional but that's not up to me to decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:17 AM) Also, let's not forget they haven't passed judgement yet. Who knows what they will end up doing...but IMO, that part of the way they choose to do things is unconstitutional but that's not up to me to decide. Er, just to clarify -- when you say "the way they choose to do things" are you talking about how Congress passed the bill, or how the Court adjudicates it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History Mr. Martin and Mr. Quinn rate the current court (based on data up through late 2010) as the most conservative in their database based on the positioning of the median justice, the previous high having come in the early 1950s. Although Justice Kennedy is not extraordinarily conservative relative to all other justices who have served on the court, he is very conservative by the standards of the median justice, who has typically been more of a true moderate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:27 AM) Supreme Court May Be Most Conservative in Modern History What a s***ty study. Often times the Court is asked to address procedural issues - ones that have nothing to do with conservative/liberal philosophy. I also enjoy the fact that in the 60's there were far more extreme liberals than today's conservatives. The horror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 08:59 AM) So this still comes back to a drafting issue, not a legitimate Constitutional argument. They could have chosen to raise everyone's taxes and offered health insurance credits instead. The end result would have been identical. Gotta repeat this question here. Clearly, raising everyone's taxes via a payroll tax or something similar and then granting a tax credit for those who have insurance would be constitutional. How is it that the exact same outcome but achieved through a slightly different mechanism that results in the same thing is unconstitutional? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:08 AM) Then stop framing the whole issue like the justices are f***ing over everyone by not doing what you want them to do, which happens to be something they're not supposed to do. Stop making it out like Scalia and the like are in Fox News' pockets. The whole thing seriously gets old. "We didn't get what we want so the other guys are obviously doing something wrong." That's essentially the liberal/administrative position in this whole debate. I somewhat agree. I think Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy are all thoughtful justices who stick to a very clear, well-grounded philosophy on the law. But then there are the other two. Alito is a windsock, he showed that during his confirmation hearings. And Scalia, as I said earlier, has stopped giving a s*** and just spouts talking points. So I'll stick to my guns about those two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:52 AM) I somewhat agree. I think Roberts, Thomas and Kennedy are all thoughtful justices who stick to a very clear, well-grounded philosophy on the law. But then there are the other two. Alito is a windsock, he showed that during his confirmation hearings. And Scalia, as I said earlier, has stopped giving a s*** and just spouts talking points. So I'll stick to my guns about those two. Recently I had to argue a case before the 1st District Appellate Court (state). My partners have done a lot of oral arguments in their careers, so during my prep they were giving me a lot of pointers. One of them was to expect ridiculous off the wall hypotheticals (much like Scalia's broccoli one). The reason why was two fold - (1) the judges know the law better than you do, so they're testing to see if they can move you from your position. They try to get you off your game to see if your position really stands up. (2) entertainment - judges get bored of 5 hours of legal argument. They like to spice things up a bit. I see that a lot in what Scalia does. Yes, he's already got his position on these issues (as does every other judge) before oral arguments begin. So why not have some fun? Poke around and see what you can get the attorneys to say. Edited March 30, 2012 by Jenksismybitch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:20 AM) Er, just to clarify -- when you say "the way they choose to do things" are you talking about how Congress passed the bill, or how the Court adjudicates it? Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 11:38 AM) Gotta repeat this question here. Clearly, raising everyone's taxes via a payroll tax or something similar and then granting a tax credit for those who have insurance would be constitutional. How is it that the exact same outcome but achieved through a slightly different mechanism that results in the same thing is unconstitutional? Because one is grey area unconstitutional (currently being discussed in the supreme court), and one is not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 Let me liken the example to something very near and dear to our hearts... Just because there are multiple means to the same end, does not justify, or make legal, all means to that end. Huh? What? Let me explain. 1) It's legal to hit HR's in MLB. 1a) It's NOT legal to hit HR's while on PED's in MLB. 2) But...but...but both resulted in home runs! 3) Yes, and one is legal, while the other is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farmteam Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (Y2HH @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) Because one is grey area unconstitutional (currently being discussed in the supreme court), and one is not? I'm guessing his underlying question is then, why is the first one "grey area unconstitutional" if they do the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted March 30, 2012 Share Posted March 30, 2012 QUOTE (farmteam @ Mar 30, 2012 -> 12:22 PM) I'm guessing his underlying question is then, why is the first one "grey area unconstitutional" if they do the same thing See my post above yours. While it's an extreme and simplified example...it's an example that highlights that just because both means lead to the same end, it doesn't necessarily mean they're both allowed and/or legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts