Page 59 of 122 FirstFirst ... 949575859606169109 ... LastLast
Results 581 to 590 of 1219

Thread: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

  1. #581
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    This and the mention of Bush v Gore as activism should show you (Harshaw) the pointlessness of the debate with this guy.
    Well, he apparently thinks Bush v. Gore was decided 5-4, so this isn't surprising.

    (For the record, the equal protection portion of Bush v. Gore was decided 7-2, so the ongoing count was going to be thrown out on that basis. The 5-4 decision on the deadline was decided with the majority going with the letter of Florida law. The minority wanted to finesse the statutory deadline into something different, which would be far closer to any rational definition of "judicial activism," given that it would have invented something not there in the law.)
    Last edited by Harshaw; 03-29-12 at 12:58 PM.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  2. #582
    Sage
    Arbo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    07-12-16 @ 01:32 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    10,395
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    No one said I can't. I've merely already linked that before, as have others. The point here is to accept that there are honest disagreements and that a court will have to decide on one or the other. Doing so, basing it on law, is not activism.
    You are making the assumption that those that would uphold the mandate are basing it on law. That would be an incorrect assumption, yet again, on your part. You would understand this if you would simply read the documents I previously suggested you read.
    "nah i think the way cons want to turn this into a political issue is funny though" - Philly Boss

  3. #583
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Very interesting and good analysis. Though I will say, I found it interesting how all three's take on the individual mandate came from the notion of essentially "What will need to happen for the Government to win the case" stand point. IE...hopefully the mandate stands, and this is how it could happen.
    The reason for that take is going in it was more "what would it take for the states suing to win the case". By day two, it clearly looked the other way around. SCOTUSblog is really good about being nonpartisan.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

  4. #584
    Global Moderator
    Moderator
    Helix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:11 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    37,124

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    on an interesting aside, if the court does throw out the mandate, i wonder how that affects the interpretation of Wickard v Filburn and Gonzales v Raich? much of the failed drug war rests on these commerce clause rulings. interstate commerce and the ability to regulate said commerce has been defined very broadly by these decisions.

    in the current case, we have a situation in which individuals are already participating in health care commerce even if they don't buy insurance. this is the case because the industry has to treat them even if they can't pay, and this cost is spread to each and every person who does pay. this is substantial effect by any definition. so if the substantial effect in this case doesn't meet the threshold, what does that say about the much lesser substantial effect of someone growing marijuana for private use? i would argue that this would cast those older decisions in an entirely different light.

  5. #585
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Oh . . . then it wasn't meant to be a joke. OK. One of these days, you may actually decide what you really meant. More likely, though, what you "meant" will vary according to the convenience of the moment.

    And you keep using this word "clear," though you don't seem to be able or willing to come up with the goods when asked to show the clarity. (Like, say the "clarity" of the mandate being intended as a tax, both in the language of the statute, and in the record of legislative intent.) It's an old legal joke that any time you see the word "clear" you can bet that whatever follows will be anything but. I see you will carry on that tradition with pride.
    Well, as I keep telling you, I obviously cannot question your superior understanding of how I intended this or that. It's obvious that you know better than I do what the thoughts are inside my head. Obviously there is no point in my simply telling you what I meant because you will only fire back with your devastating "I don't believe you" retort.

    As far as what's clear, I don't recall you asking, but I've previously made reference to the Wickard case, where the Court held that an act of Congress could prevent a man from growing wheat on his own farm within a single state for his own consumption, subject to its power to regulate interstate commerce. The Court reasoned that, if he was growing wheat for his own use, that meant that he wasn't buying wheat from others that may have been sold through interstate commerce. In other words what they were saying was that Congress could force the farmer to buy wheat, as opposed to growing it himself. The issue, according to the Court, was not whether the farmer was participating in in interstate commerce, but rather, whether the activity he was engaged in "exert[ed] a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce".

    Now substitute health care for wheat and that should start to "clear" things up for you. See, it doesn't matter if a free rider isn't engaged in commerce, because his or her failure to purchase insurance exerts a substantial effect on interstate commerce, e.g. it drives up insurance costs for non-free riders and it interferes with Congress' ability to regulate the insurance market.

    Justice Scalia illustrated that point nicely in Raich when he wrote, "Unlike the power to regulate activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce, the power to enact laws enabling effective regulation of interstate commerce can only be exercised in conjunction with congressional regulation of an interstate market, and it extends only to those measures necessary to make the interstate regulation effective." In this case, taking away the mandate is necessary to regulate the health insurance market, and specifically it's necessary to the legitimate purpose of eliminating preexisting condition exclusions.

    Raich, in case you don't know, was is a recent case that very much mirrors the 1938 Wickard case. The Court held that marijuana grown in California -- legally per California law -- by an individual for personal consumption, could be impounded by the federal government pursuant to its power to regulate interestate commerce.

    To some up: was the farmer in Wickard engaged in commerce, let alone interstate commerce? No. Was the pot grower in Raich engaged in commerce, let alone interstate commerce? No. Could Congress still direct their actions pursuant to the interestate commerce clause? Yes, because Congress had a rational basis to think that the sort of purely local, non-commercial activities that they were engaged in could have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.

    Can you distinguish the cases?
    Last edited by AdamT; 03-29-12 at 01:49 PM.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  6. #586
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    You are making the assumption that those that would uphold the mandate are basing it on law. That would be an incorrect assumption, yet again, on your part. You would understand this if you would simply read the documents I previously suggested you read.
    And you're making an assumption they wouldn't be. However, I am certain the majority opinion will point to the law they used and how it supported their decision. Some will agree and others will disagree, NO MATTER HOW THEY RULE. This is the point.

    And everyone involved has read those documents. You mistakenly think there can be no disagreement in what is said. On this, you are completely wrong.

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  7. #587
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Harshaw View Post
    Well, he apparently thinks Bush v. Gore was decided 5-4, so this isn't surprising.

    (For the record, the equal protection portion of Bush v. Gore was decided 7-2, so the ongoing count was going to be thrown out on that basis. The 5-4 decision on the deadline was decided with the majority going with the letter of Florida law. The minority wanted to finesse the statutory deadline into something different, which would be far closer to any rational definition of "judicial activism," given that it would have invented something not there in the law.)
    Apparently you don't understand what the import of the various decisions actually was. While you are correct that the equal protection issue was decided 7-2, the decision to prevent a recount -- and thus to throw the election to Bush, came down 5-4, with the familiar conservatives comprising the five.
    "The necessaries of life occasion the great expense of the poor. They find it difficult to get food, and the greater part of their little revenue is spent in getting it. The luxuries and vanities of life occasion the principal expense of the rich, and a magnificent house embellishes and sets off to the best advantage all the other luxuries and vanities which they possess. ... It is not very unreasonable that the rich should contribute to the public expense, not only in proportion to their revenue, but something more than in that proportion."

    -- Adam Smith

  8. #588
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Well, as I keep telling you, I obviously cannot question your superior understanding of how I intended this or that. It's obvious that you know better than I do what the thoughts are inside my head. Obviously there is no point in my simply telling you what I meant because you will only fire back with your devastating "I don't believe you" retort.
    Waaah waaaah waaaah. The tantrum is all very well, but it could be avoided if you don't try to weasel out of what you say. First it's a "joke," then it isn't.

    Kinda like the insurance mandate is "clearly" meant to be a tax, then it's a "clearly" a regulation of interstate commerce. (Who knows how many times that's gone back and forth.) You latch on to whatever you think will help you most at the moment.

    Can you distinguish the cases?
    Sure. Easily. The fact patterns are nothing alike, especially in Raich, where the grower was doing something illegal. Nor did either case involve a law which required the purchase of anything and fines if that item wasn't purchased (not to mention exempting a lot of people from it altogether). Not to mention that the congressional schemes involved were meant to address extremely different sets of circumstances and meant to effect very different outcomes from what we have today. The analysis of everything is different.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  9. #589
    Filmmaker Lawyer Patriot
    Harshaw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 11:27 PM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    29,605

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    Apparently you don't understand what the import of the various decisions actually was. While you are correct that the equal protection issue was decided 7-2, the decision to prevent a recount -- and thus to throw the election to Bush, came down 5-4, with the familiar conservatives comprising the five.
    No, I said exactly what it was. The majority didn't seek to prevent another recount, it ruled that the deadline was what the statute said it was. The majority did not seek to prevent any other recount in the time that was left, though it was quite brief. It was the minority which tried to manipulate the statute into something which it didn't say.

    "Import," eh? How is that but a code word for initiating judicial meddling? The statute said what it said, and it was very specific. When you begin to argue that it "effectively" prevented another recount, with the assumption that there should have been another one, you're looking for the court to ignore the law and rule differently from what it says. That's "activism" if the word means anything.
    “Offing those rich pigs with their own forks and knives, and then eating a meal in the same room, far out! The Weathermen dig Charles Manson.”-- Bernadine Dohrn

  10. #590
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:38 AM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,344
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court health care arguments under way

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    Moderator's Warning:
    Supreme Court health care arguments under wayFor such a contentious issue this thread has remained relatively civil and within the rules. Baiting comments like the above need to end, now, or one way tickets out of this thread will quickly be given
    Moderator's Warning:
    Supreme Court health care arguments under waySince it was buried a few pages back, going to be nice and bump this up as a reminder. Some posts are pushing things again.
    We became a great nation not because we are a nation of cynics. We became a great nation because we are a nation of believers - Lindsey Graham

    Quote Originally Posted by Fiddytree View Post
    Uh oh Megyn...your vagina witchcraft is about ready to be exposed.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •