Thread: Obama’s ‘Unprecedented’ Remarks: Is the President Running Against the Supreme Court?

Originally Posted by AdamT

Come back when you figure out the difference between direct and indirect regulation of commerce. Until you get that distinction I just don't see the point in trying to discuss this with you.

Ah, tucking tail and running again.

Look, you made a dumb claim. It would have looked better for you if you'd have just manned up and admitted it.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

Ah, tucking tail and running again.

Look, you made a dumb claim. It would have looked better for you if you'd have just manned up and admitted it.

You're funny. But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water....

Originally Posted by AdamT

You're funny. But as the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water....

...buy you can't make him understand the Constitution.

Originally Posted by Erod

...buy you can't make him understand the Constitution.

The "constitution"? He just said something dumb, to wit, the housing market doesn't substantially affect interstate commerce. In facyt, home sales, according to him, affect interstate commerce less than anything else he can think of. This is what he said.

Then, he tried to twist everything I said around to cover it and save face.

I mean, come on . . . HE says buying a home doesn't affect interstate commerce, but then says I'm arguing that Congress doesn't regulate home loans. Contradiction, you think? A feeble and obvious attempt at a particularly flimsy strawman? Yes, yes it is. But that's AdamT.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

The "constitution"? He just said something dumb, to wit, the housing market doesn't substantially affect interstate commerce.

Again, your failure to grasp the argument must be very very frustrating for you. It's like a puppy trying to grab a treat from the table. He jumps and jumps and jumps, but his little legs just can't lift him high enough!

So AGAIN ... I (and the Supreme Court) make the distinction between directly regulating interstate commerce (i.e. the health insurance market) and regulating things -- like home sales -- that might have an INDIRECT affect on interstate commerce.

Stop running away from the argument. It was the central point of the Lopez case which you have cited but apparently don't understand. It is the difference that distinguishes Lopez from the mandate case. So you can see how snarky comments that miss the point aren't earning you a lot of points. Nor is stupidly conflating the regulation of home sales (local) with the regulation of mortgage banking (national).

Originally Posted by AdamT

Again, your failure to grasp the argument must be very very frustrating for you. It's like a puppy trying to grab a treat from the table. He jumps and jumps and jumps, but his little legs just can't lift him high enough!

So AGAIN ... I (and the Supreme Court) make the distinction between directly regulating interstate commerce (i.e. the health insurance market) and regulating things -- like home sales -- that might have an INDIRECT affect on interstate commerce.

Stop running away from the argument. It was the central point of the Lopez case which you have cited but apparently don't understand. It is the difference that distinguishes Lopez from the mandate case. So you can see how snarky comments that miss the point aren't earning you a lot of points. Nor is stupidly conflating the regulation of home sales (local) with the regulation of mortgage banking (national).

There are times when I wonder if what I think is abject dishonesty on your part stems more from just saying whatever you have to say at the moment and not even caring what you said before.

This is what you said:

Originally Posted by AdamT

It's hard to imagine anything LESS connected to interstate commerce than the sale of a house (provided it's not a mobile home).

To which I was responding. All of your other bull**** has to do with the strawmen you want to raise about it, not what I said.

Health care itself is intrastate, too. It happens locally. You go to your doctor or hospital and you rarely ever cross state lines to do it. Everything that happens, happens in-state.

Thus, it's very much like buying a home.

Buying a home is every bit as "connected to" interstate commerce as going to a doctor or hospital -- health care -- is, not least because of the financing.

The financing is currently in crisis, just as, supposedly, health care financing is. This can be alleviated in part by forcing people to engage in the market, just as the mandate is supposed to do for health care financing.

It's an apples-to-apples comparison. The mechanism for one works with the other.

You, of course, will never, ever agree, but denying it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means you refuse to acknowledge it. And I get why you would -- because it shows a very real, and very unpalatable, implication of the arguments you're making. Uncomfortable with it? Perhaps you should take a wider view before you commit to the arguments.

Never mind that the idea that the housing market isn't connected to interstate commerce SHOULD be laughable on its face.

(Oh, and as for Lopez, which I didn't bring up here, but it didn't stop you from attributing it to me anyway -- the regulated activity which was considered not to have enough of an effect didn't involve buying anything or participating in commerce of any kind. Unlike, of course, buying a home and participating in the financing market. This, I'm sure, will be one of your famous "distinctions without a difference.")

Originally Posted by AdamT

So AGAIN ... I (and the Supreme Court) make the distinction between directly regulating interstate commerce (i.e. the health insurance market) and regulating things -- like home sales -- that might have an INDIRECT affect on interstate commerce.

Can you regulate either if they haven't been purchased?

j-mac

Originally Posted by Harshaw

There are times when I wonder if what I think is abject dishonesty on your part stems more from just saying whatever you have to say at the moment and not even caring what you said before.

This is what you said:



To which I was responding. All of your other bull**** has to do with the strawmen you want to raise about it, not what I said.

Health care itself is intrastate, too. It happens locally. You go to your doctor or hospital and you rarely ever cross state lines to do it. Everything that happens, happens in-state.

Thus, it's very much like buying a home.

Buying a home is every bit as "connected to" interstate commerce as going to a doctor or hospital -- health care -- is, not least because of the financing.

The financing is currently in crisis, just as, supposedly, health care financing is. This can be alleviated in part by forcing people to engage in the market, just as the mandate is supposed to do for health care financing.

It's an apples-to-apples comparison. The mechanism for one works with the other.

You, of course, will never, ever agree, but denying it doesn't mean it isn't true. It just means you refuse to acknowledge it. And I get why you would -- because it shows a very real, and very unpalatable, implication of the arguments you're making. Uncomfortable with it? Perhaps you should take a wider view before you commit to the arguments.

Never mind that the idea that the housing market isn't connected to interstate commerce SHOULD be laughable on its face.

(Oh, and as for Lopez, which I didn't bring up here, but it didn't stop you from attributing it to me anyway -- the regulated activity which was considered not to have enough of an effect didn't involve buying anything or participating in commerce of any kind. Unlike, of course, buying a home and participating in the financing market. This, I'm sure, will be one of your famous "distinctions without a difference.")

Your problem is simply that you either cannot understand the argument, or you're just too bullheaded to even acknowledge it. The mandate isn't about health care; it's about health insurance. Specifically, it is intended to allow national health insurance companies -- companies that sell insurance all over the country -- to eliminate preexisting condition exclusions without going bust. It has to do with the DIRECT regulation of interstate commerce.

Home sales, in contrast, are local. They are governed by state contract law. The sale occurs in the state where the home is purchased. Houses don't move across state lines. It is hard to imagine a more local activity than buying a home. Of course like many local activities (growing wheat, for example), home sales can have a significant effect on interstate commerce -- WHILE NOT BEING THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Are you simply incapable of seeing that distinction? Yes or no?

Assuming, arguendo, that you answered yes, do you or do you not understand that there are different standards for direct and indirect regulation of interstate commerce? Yes or no?

Can you answer two yes or no questions without going off on another stalker-like tangent about what you think I *really* meant or *really* think?

Originally Posted by AdamT

Your problem is simply that you either cannot understand the argument, or you're just too bullheaded to even acknowledge it. The mandate isn't about health care; it's about health insurance. Specifically, it is intended to allow national health insurance companies -- companies that sell insurance all over the country -- to eliminate preexisting condition exclusions without going bust. It has to do with the DIRECT regulation of interstate commerce.

Home sales, in contrast, are local. They are governed by state contract law. The sale occurs in the state where the home is purchased. Houses don't move across state lines. It is hard to imagine a more local activity than buying a home. Of course like many local activities (growing wheat, for example), home sales can have a significant effect on interstate commerce -- WHILE NOT BEING THEMSELVES INTERSTATE COMMERCE. Are you simply incapable of seeing that distinction? Yes or no?

Assuming, arguendo, that you answered yes, do you or do you not understand that there are different standards for direct and indirect regulation of interstate commerce? Yes or no?

Can you answer two yes or no questions without going off on another stalker-like tangent about what you think I *really* meant or *really* think?

And . . . you ignored everything I said about the interstate market of financing home purchases being comparable to financing health care (health insurance) and instead decided to focus on the home purchase itself.

See, you're being every bit as stubborn as I said you were going to be. You're beyond rational conversation at this point; you just want to be right no matter what. You're simply trying to talk past me.

And ironically, I'm pretty sure it stems for your own, very real, failure to understand my hypothetical in the first place, while you keep accusing ME of not understanding things YOU post.

Originally Posted by Harshaw

And . . . you ignored everything I said about the interstate market of financing home purchases being comparable to financing health care (health insurance) and instead decided to focus on the home purchase itself.

See, you're being every bit as stubborn as I said you were going to be. You're beyond rational conversation at this point; you just want to be right no matter what. You're simply trying to talk past me.

And ironically, I'm pretty sure it stems for your own, very real, failure to understand my hypothetical in the first place, while you keep accusing ME of not understanding things YOU post.

Translation: "no, I cannot answer two simple yes/no questions."