1 registered members (1 invisible),
461
guests, and 64
spiders. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums21
Topics43,354
Posts1,086,401
Members10,381
|
Most Online1,254 Mar 13th, 2025
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: AppleOnYa]
#592864
02/01/11 03:22 PM
02/01/11 03:22 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468 With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
dontomasso
Consigliere to the Stars
|
Consigliere to the Stars

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
|
It is interesting how some feel that the Supreme Court will be split by party lines on this decision, even though it is over a year away.
If their Honors simply pay attention to the law, AND the U.S. Constitution, then it may not be up to Justice Kennedy to 'break a tie." table This is a politicized court, and has been regrettably since Bush v. Gore. The best of the "conservatives," Sandra Day O'Connor who sometimes went against the political right and of the "liberals" John Paul Stevens are gone, and Kennedy is the swing vote. The other eight are very predictable.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
"I stood in the courtroom like a fool."
"I am Constanza: Lord of the idiots."
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: dontomasso]
#592877
02/01/11 06:09 PM
02/01/11 06:09 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238 The Ravenite Social Club
Don Cardi
Caporegime
|
Caporegime

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238
The Ravenite Social Club
|
THe 11th Cir. may well just forward this to the Supremes. I believe that this may get forwarded to the Supremes. If they don't my guess is they will affirm the part that strikes down the individual mandate and reverse the part that strikes down the entire law. To be perfectly honest here, while I have been and still am against the mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance ( as our President Obama who was totally against a mandate once said "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house." ) I am not against the ENTIRE Law. There are some good things included in that law. I am really interested to learn why, and how legally, the Judge decided that the ENTIRE law must be struck down. And I don't believe that his decision has anything to do with partisan politics. The partisan part probably took place when our government officials originally voted on this, (for or against) without reading the entire content! There has to be some kind of legal language that this Judge felt he could base this decision on. Very interesting.
Don Cardi Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: olivant]
#592885
02/01/11 08:39 PM
02/01/11 08:39 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,224 New Jersey
AppleOnYa
|

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,224
New Jersey
|
I wouldn't get happy too soon Apple. The decision will be appealed to the 11th circuit court and the Supreme Court does not have to accept an appeal. Yes, I know...that's why prefaced with '...for now...'. It is a HUGE victory nonetheless and the judge's decision, especially the way he came about it..should be applauded and celebrated. ... while I have been and still am against the mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance ... I am really interested to learn why, and how legally, the Judge decided that the ENTIRE law must be struck down. ... Because of the mandate that requires everyone to purchase insurance. I believe the bill was put forth in such a way that the only way the rest of it could be implemented was if everyone were required to buy insurance at risk of penalty if they did not. If that mandate is struck down, then the entire bill is null & void. Or, as olivant so succinctly put it...no severability clause.
Last edited by AppleOnYa; 02/01/11 09:33 PM.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
- THOMAS JEFFERSON
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: svsg]
#592887
02/01/11 09:38 PM
02/01/11 09:38 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,224 New Jersey
AppleOnYa
|

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,224
New Jersey
|
Oops..!!!  My bad...correction noted and made. (Of all the words to mess up...I've only been hearing it for the past day and a half!!!)
Last edited by AppleOnYa; 02/01/11 09:45 PM.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
- THOMAS JEFFERSON
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: svsg]
#592989
02/02/11 11:37 PM
02/02/11 11:37 PM
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 112 FF
Cool hand fluke
Made Member
|
Made Member
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 112
FF
|
Does anyone here see the Constitution as a "living document?" I know that Scalia and Thomas are big texualists when interpreting the meaning of the Constitution, and wondered what everyone else thought about how to go about deciphering that wonderful document.
Last edited by Cool hand fluke; 02/02/11 11:38 PM.
I was on a 4 day suspension and all I got was this lousy T-shirt.
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: Don Cardi]
#593017
02/03/11 01:09 PM
02/03/11 01:09 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325 MI
Lilo
|

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325
MI
|
THe 11th Cir. may well just forward this to the Supremes. I believe that this may get forwarded to the Supremes. If they don't my guess is they will affirm the part that strikes down the individual mandate and reverse the part that strikes down the entire law. To be perfectly honest here, while I have been and still am against the mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance ( as our President Obama who was totally against a mandate once said "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house." ) I am not against the ENTIRE Law. There are some good things included in that law. I am really interested to learn why, and how legally, the Judge decided that the ENTIRE law must be struck down. And I don't believe that his decision has anything to do with partisan politics. The partisan part probably took place when our government officials originally voted on this, (for or against) without reading the entire content! There has to be some kind of legal language that this Judge felt he could base this decision on. Very interesting. There was no severability included. Now this is NOT required for Congressional Statutes but is normally included in most bills. There is legal precedent for courts to only invalidate those sections of the law that they find unconstitutional (Canon of Constitutional Avoidance) but they are not required to hold to that precedent, especially when there is no severability explicitly included. The closest analogy I can think of is making a business presentation but neglecting to have thought through completely one abstract point that you think is pretty minor. Your boss' boss -who doesn't like you anyway- zooms in on that minor point and proceeds to use it to eviscerate your argument in front of the entire management committee. The outcome may be incorrect by your POV but then again you left yourself open for that by not dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's". As we discussed before I think, the constitutional question comes down to the basis for an individual mandate-Commerce/Necessary and proper- what exactly? I don't think there is a constitutional basis for an individual mandate. I would have preferred single payer or public option. Even if those were foreclosed for political reasons there are constitutional methods to arrive at the same end- ie. tax breaks for insurance premiums, shorter enrollment schedules, etc. The issue (and I don't necessarily think it's a left/right thing) is that this law seeks to claim Congressional Commerce Clause authority over inactivity. That is something that is new and different than what's happened in the past. The normal challenges to assertions of such authority have been made by people who were already unambiguously engaging in commerce-or at least activity (see Wickard). Here the logic is tautological. If you are selling or buying something then you fall under the ability of Congress to regulate. If you are NOT selling or buying something then your lack of commerce is commerce and you STILL fall under Congress' ability to regulate. I think it's a bridge too far. I am not worried so much about this Congress or this President as I am concerned about the mischief that future leaders could use this for.
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming
Now this is the Law of the Jungleāas old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: Lilo]
#593018
02/03/11 01:23 PM
02/03/11 01:23 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468 With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
dontomasso
Consigliere to the Stars
|
Consigliere to the Stars

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
|
1. Severability - This judge overstepped his boundaries by throwing out the baby with the bathwater, and I expect he will be reversed. This was a political decision and the proof of it was the judges' ill advised comments about the Boston Tea Party. Anyone from Florida knows that Pensacola is really an extension of Alabama, so we should not be surprised.
2. Commerce Clause - I would have preferred the public option and I do not know of any circumstance where the commerce clause was ever used to force someone into buying something like health insurance. Interestingly the Republican notion that Social Security be privatized would necssarily require the same kind of expansion of the commerce claise, the reasoning being that everyone needs a nest egg, but the investments to create them should be privatiazed. I can see both sides of the argument in the health care law. On the one hand the notion of being forced to buy a commercial product is a stretch, but on the other hand there is no question that the minute someone seeks medical care they are a part of interstate commerce, and the need for medical care for 99% of people is inevitable. So do we wait until someone gets sick, take advantage of the no pre-existing condition and then have them buy insurance?
The real overhaul in health care is going to be in the next few years as the role of nurse practitioners grows, as well as the role of supermarkets and pharmacies giving out vaccines and antibiotics increase, we're going to see a reduction in general practioners and expensive lab testing. Here they now have traveling bussed that do all kinds of bloodwork and testing that would trigger anyone with a bad result to seek out a specialist. This is going to drive down costs.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
"I stood in the courtroom like a fool."
"I am Constanza: Lord of the idiots."
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: AppleOnYa]
#593022
02/03/11 02:04 PM
02/03/11 02:04 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468 With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
dontomasso
Consigliere to the Stars
|
Consigliere to the Stars

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
|
Keep living in your dreamworld, DT. Long as you're in a happy place, we're all happy for you. Thanks Apple, I'm sure your buddy Glen Beck feels the same way.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
"I stood in the courtroom like a fool."
"I am Constanza: Lord of the idiots."
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: svsg]
#593023
02/03/11 02:21 PM
02/03/11 02:21 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,224 New Jersey
AppleOnYa
|

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 8,224
New Jersey
|
Funny how you & others constantly (including the MSNBC gang) feel a need to refer to Glen Beck. I really don't watch or listen to him at all, though I've occassionally heard him on Imus. I think he has a weekly sit-down w/ O'Reilly though, which I've seen a few of. He has a very good rapport with BOTH. But you all sure make Glen sound interesting, and apparently are happy to give him the publicity he deserves. Honestly though, the REAL expert on Obamacare and its down-the-road, yet-to-be experienced horrors (both medical and financial) is Betsy McCaughey. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...BETSY+MCCAUGHEY
Last edited by AppleOnYa; 02/03/11 02:28 PM.
A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government.
- THOMAS JEFFERSON
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: Lilo]
#593025
02/03/11 02:35 PM
02/03/11 02:35 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238 The Ravenite Social Club
Don Cardi
Caporegime
|
Caporegime

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238
The Ravenite Social Club
|
THe 11th Cir. may well just forward this to the Supremes. I believe that this may get forwarded to the Supremes. If they don't my guess is they will affirm the part that strikes down the individual mandate and reverse the part that strikes down the entire law. To be perfectly honest here, while I have been and still am against the mandate that requires everyone to purchase health insurance ( as our President Obama who was totally against a mandate once said "If a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house." ) I am not against the ENTIRE Law. There are some good things included in that law. I am really interested to learn why, and how legally, the Judge decided that the ENTIRE law must be struck down. And I don't believe that his decision has anything to do with partisan politics. The partisan part probably took place when our government officials originally voted on this, (for or against) without reading the entire content! There has to be some kind of legal language that this Judge felt he could base this decision on. Very interesting. There was no severability included. Now this is NOT required for Congressional Statutes but is normally included in most bills. There is legal precedent for courts to only invalidate those sections of the law that they find unconstitutional (Canon of Constitutional Avoidance) but they are not required to hold to that precedent, especially when there is no severability explicitly included. The closest analogy I can think of is making a business presentation but neglecting to have thought through completely one abstract point that you think is pretty minor. Your boss' boss -who doesn't like you anyway- zooms in on that minor point and proceeds to use it to eviscerate your argument in front of the entire management committee. The outcome may be incorrect by your POV but then again you left yourself open for that by not dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's". As we discussed before I think, the constitutional question comes down to the basis for an individual mandate-Commerce/Necessary and proper- what exactly? I don't think there is a constitutional basis for an individual mandate. I would have preferred single payer or public option. Even if those were foreclosed for political reasons there are constitutional methods to arrive at the same end- ie. tax breaks for insurance premiums, shorter enrollment schedules, etc. The issue (and I don't necessarily think it's a left/right thing) is that this law seeks to claim Congressional Commerce Clause authority over inactivity. That is something that is new and different than what's happened in the past. The normal challenges to assertions of such authority have been made by people who were already unambiguously engaging in commerce-or at least activity (see Wickard). Here the logic is tautological. If you are selling or buying something then you fall under the ability of Congress to regulate. If you are NOT selling or buying something then your lack of commerce is commerce and you STILL fall under Congress' ability to regulate. I think it's a bridge too far. I am not worried so much about this Congress or this President as I am concerned about the mischief that future leaders could use this for. Thank you Lilo. It's nice to see that there are still people on these boards, such as yourself, who can give an educated reply and opinion, regardless if they agree with others or not, WITHOUT the sarcasm, the belittling and the personal attacks.
Don Cardi Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: Don Cardi]
#593039
02/03/11 04:16 PM
02/03/11 04:16 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325 MI
Lilo
|

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325
MI
|
Thank you Lilo. It's nice to see that there are still people on these boards, such as yourself, who can give an educated reply and opinion, regardless if they agree with others or not, WITHOUT the sarcasm, the belittling and the personal attacks.
NP DC! I abhor discourtesy, generally speaking. Besides, there's no reason we can't be civil, is there? 
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming
Now this is the Law of the Jungleāas old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: olivant]
#593043
02/03/11 04:25 PM
02/03/11 04:25 PM
|
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325 MI
Lilo
|

Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 5,325
MI
|
Well Lilo, so many SCOTUS opinions are a function of the majority's ideology. Take for example the Heller opinion regarding the gun ban in DC. It wasn't until one of the last few pages of that opinion that Scalia referenced Oringinal Intent. The rest of the opinion consisted simply of historical references.
While the individual mandate may not have precedent, it could reasonably derive it constitutionality from the Elastic Clause or the "general welfare" provision of Article I, Section 8.
And by the way, cases are not forwarded to SCOTUS; they are solicited through the "rule of four" and certiorari. If the case gets there and Justice Kagan recuses herself, then a tie vote will leave it with the 11th circuit court opinion. Absolutely ideology plays a part, olivant. I still don't think the mandate will (or should) hold up even under elastic clause or general welfare but time will tell. There may be some surprises here. It may cut across normal ideological lines. Roberts and Scalia tend toward deference to Congressional claims of power. Actually the forwarding comments were quotes from DT and DC but that's a good point nonetheless...
"When the snows fall and the white winds blow, the lone wolf dies but the pack survives." Winter is Coming
Now this is the Law of the Jungleāas old and as true as the sky; And the wolf that shall keep it may prosper, but the wolf that shall break it must die. As the creeper that girdles the tree-trunk, the Law runneth forward and back; For the strength of the Pack is the Wolf, and the strength of the Wolf is the Pack.
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: Lilo]
#593053
02/03/11 05:49 PM
02/03/11 05:49 PM
|
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238 The Ravenite Social Club
Don Cardi
Caporegime
|
Caporegime

Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 18,238
The Ravenite Social Club
|
Don Cardi Five - ten years from now, they're gonna wish there was American Cosa Nostra. Five - ten years from now, they're gonna miss John Gotti.
|
|
|
Re: Random Obama Whoring
[Re: olivant]
#593534
02/08/11 12:46 PM
02/08/11 12:46 PM
|
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468 With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
dontomasso
Consigliere to the Stars
|
Consigliere to the Stars

Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 11,468
With Geary in Fredo's Brothel
|
Why would Justice Kagan recuse herself? She was White House counsel and Solicitor General. Then Clarence Thomas should recuse himself because his wife has lobbied against the health care law, and he failed to disclose that she made money doing it because he "forgot." Uh huh. Ditto for Scalia, who went to Capitol Hill to talk to the tea party behind closed doors and then skipped SOTUS.
"Io sono stanco, sono imbigliato, and I wan't everyone here to know, there ain't gonna be no trouble from me..Don Corleone..Cicc' a port!"
"I stood in the courtroom like a fool."
"I am Constanza: Lord of the idiots."
|
|
|
|