StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:56 PM) We see a similar effect when the IRS chooses which tax-cheats to actually use its enforcement efforts against. Or when various levels of government decide to prosecute certain crimes or not. Executives throughout the country are given plenty of discretion in enforcing the law, but not total discretion and it varies by jurisdiction and what law they're enforcing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 01:51 PM) Bah, if he wants to be angry about Obama for changing positions, feel free to let him be, because anyone who take the position that politicians should never change positions on anything of major importance is not only being silly, but will never find a politician they can cast a vote for. Mittens changed his position and thinks his own accomplishment was terrible. Don't care that he changed position. Care a lot that he has turned his back on a very effective bill. At least in December he was still defending Romneycare. He is making a federalism distinction, saying that states can enforce this but the federal government can't. I don't know how well that will play to a national audience, though. http://www.mediaite.com/tv/mitt-romney-def...le-i-represent/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Jenksismyb**** @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 12:17 PM) So, based on this decision, there's basically nothing to stop Congress from implementing just about any sort of measure to collect funds from the populace so long as it looks like a tax. Hell, they don't even have to CALL it a tax. Just make it work like a tax. *opens wallet wider* Ginsburg's dissent hits a very important point here: Supplementing these legal restraints is a formidable check on congressional power: the democratic process. As the controversy surrounding the passage of the Affordable Care Act attests, purchase mandates are likely to engender political resistance. This prospect is borne out by the behavior of state legislators. Despite their possession of unquestioned authority to impose mandates, state governments have rarely done so. There has always been a limiting principle here, and it's the ballot box. Congress is free to make all sorts of bad policy, and bad policy isn't necessarily unconstitutional policy. The remedy for that is a better Congress through the ballot box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 CNN's employees aren't happy with their morning. NSFW language. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The AP had to tell its reporters to stop making fun of CNN: http://jimromenesko.com/2012/06/28/ap-orde...e-ruling-wrong/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Another sign Roberts flipped...this clause in the dissent refers to it as "the joint opinion". Later in the same paragraph they say "joint dissent", suggesting they missed one of the changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 The Republican Alternative To Obamacare Is - More Obamacare? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 02:58 PM) The Republican Alternative To Obamacare Is - More Obamacare? Anyone that still refers to what they passed as Obamacare is on my auto ignore list. It shows they don't know what they're talking about (or don't care) and are fine with regurgitating popular slogans or "nicknames", whether they are deserved or not. It's no different than ignorant Bears fans that continue to perpetuate the "Bear weather" myth, to use a sports analogy on a sports website. Edited June 28, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's widely referred to as "Obamacare" by advocates and denouncers alike. It's better than the catchy slogan "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Just think of it like everyone calling tissue "Kleenex" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 (edited) QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:10 PM) It's widely referred to as "Obamacare" by advocates and denouncers alike. It's better than the catchy slogan "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act." Just think of it like everyone calling tissue "Kleenex" Call it ACA then, because that's what it is. To anyone that has any education on the subject whatsoever, would know that what Obama initially proposed (Obamacare), and what they actually passed are two drastically different things. So, by that rational, anyone that continues to call it what it's not, "Obamacare", is an absolute f***ing moron. I don't care what the popular belief is. I thought I made that clear by pointing out the ignorance of the typical Bear fan and the popular and much repeated Bear weather myth? Edited June 28, 2012 by Y2HH Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxbadger Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thats because PPAC sounds like some sort of std. I gots the PPAC because I didnt use protection. And damn you Y2HH, its Bear weather, roar! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Can a mod please change the title of this thread to OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Y2HH Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) Can a mod please change the title of this thread to OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE I gotta feeling you O'doyls are goin' down...but right now I gotta study. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:13 PM) Can a mod please change the title of this thread to OBAMACARE MEGATHREAD OBAMA OBAMA CARE CARE How about the Will Ohman appreciate thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 :lolhitting :lolhitting :lolhitting Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heads22 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 If I understand this correctly, since corporations are people, they must be required to have healthcare too, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Thought this was a good read, though it's a bit too glass half-full for me: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/geo...hY9V_print.html By sharpening many Americans’ constitutional consciousness, the debate has resuscitated the salutary practice of asking what was, until the mid-1960s, the threshold question regarding legislation. It concerned what James Q. Wilson called the “legitimacy barrier”: Is it proper for the federal government to do this? Conservatives can rekindle the public’s interest in this barrier by building upon the victory Roberts gave them in positioning the court for stricter scrutiny of congressional actions under the Commerce Clause. Any democracy, even one with a written and revered constitution, ultimately rests on public opinion, which is shiftable sand. Conservatives understand the patience requisite for the politics of democracy — the politics of persuasion. Elections matter most; only they can end Obamacare. But in Roberts’s decision, conservatives can see that the court has been persuaded to think more as they do about the constitutional language that has most enabled the promiscuous expansion of government. Of course, what this decision means is that even absent a Commerce Clause justification, Congress has still been allowed to pass legislation under its taxing powers, even though the legislation wasn't labeled as a tax. Whether or not a "tax" on healthcare it was proper for the government to do this becomes the secondary (or totally forgotten) question of Congressional authority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It's not entirely clear from what I can tell if the CC discussion by Roberts is binding opinion or dicta. He doesn't need to address the CC to find the mandate a tax and constitutional. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 03:49 PM) It's not entirely clear from what I can tell if the CC discussion by Roberts is binding opinion or dicta. He doesn't need to address the CC to find the mandate a tax and constitutional. It's binding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Well not everyone over at Volokh agrees with you (that's what I've been reading mostly today). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrangeSox Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Mike Pence (R-IN) likens health care ruling to 9/11: 6/28/12 2:28 PM EDT In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) Mike Pence (R-IN) likens health care ruling to 9/11: 6/28/12 2:28 PM EDT In a closed door House GOP meeting Thursday, Indiana congressman and gubernatorial candidate Mike Pence likened the Supreme Court's ruling upholding the Democratic health care law to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, according to several sources present." Ladies and Gentleman, we have our Idiot of the Year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenksismyhero Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 04:03 PM) Well not everyone over at Volokh agrees with you (that's what I've been reading mostly today). Really the term is useless. A holding is binding, but dicta is every bit as important for attorneys and judges to explain what the law is on any given issue (using the rationale of a decision is usually just as, if not more, useful than the holding itself). If I were to cite Roberts discussion of CC in this case it's going to be read as precedent. I consider that binding precedent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 05:27 PM) Ladies and Gentleman, we have our Idiot of the Year. The only reason I'm commenting on "Someone stupid said something stupid" here is....he's also the next likely governor of Indiana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quin Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 28, 2012 -> 04:37 PM) The only reason I'm commenting on "Someone stupid said something stupid" here is....he's also the next likely governor of Indiana. And then we have a fourth contender for dumbest state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts