- Joined
- Apr 3, 2011
- Messages
- 489
- Reaction score
- 241
Haha, lol @ CNN. scotusblog is the only place for this story.
Lots and lots of tears will be spilled by conservatives today.
I think the most tears will be shed by small business owners.
I think the most tears will be shed by small business owners.
Anyone care to explain how these doomsday scenarios are going to come about? It's a pretty ineffective bill and won't have much of an effect at all.
Anyone else kind of impressed by Roberts strategy? Ignoring the content of the ruling, the Supreme Court could ill afford deciding this case 5-4 on partisan lines or risk further tarnishing its reputation.
I knew what would happen if it looked like a 5-4 decision for the President's bill - Roberts would join to make it 6-3 instead.
I had no idea what would happen if it went 5-4 against the President's bill. it seems like that is what was going to happen, and Roberts also switched his vote so that although it would be a 5-4 decision, it was not a partisan one.
Maybe he really just decided on the merits of the law, but if his goal was salvaging the reputation of the Supreme Court as an apolitical body, he made the right move.
It's good that he focused on the constitutionality of a statute, rather than politics. Roberts left the fate of law with political branches and voters, where it belongs. He's a predictable conservative.
Incidentally, why is it that when a black or a woman is a "conservative" it arouses such ire and hate? Just wondering...
Yes, many business cannot afford to hire more employees and expand business due to the requirement of providing health care. Small businesses will likely lay off or cease hiring. A man I know whose business produces $6-7 million per year told me that he is cutting back to as few employees as possible. He is in the manufacturing industry, so he is considering using machinery instead as well. He told me that before this bill with all of the business taxes in place his business only kept 25% of what it made. With the new bill, he will surely survive, but he said it makes more financial sense to cut employment as much as he hates firing people.
It's clear he jumped through hoops and performed grotesque distortions to make his "constitutional" argument.
And when it's all said and done, it's not like politics was avoided - see the repugnant bashing by liberals of Scalia and Thomas.
Incidentally, why is it that when a black or a woman is a "conservative" it arouses such ire and hate? Just wondering...
Oh, and did you notice that the fact that Kagan, Sotomayor, Breyer, and Ginsburg were shoe-ins was never deemed political? No, no way. at the hypocrisy.
I agree. It's just a little ironic how Roberts was the swing vote, and that all 3 women Justices stood together in the 5-4 majority.
It's not ironic at all. As chief justice, his primary objective aside from upholding the law as he sees it is maintaining the dignity of the court.
Repeated 5-4 partisan decisions diminish the court.
Had he allowed another one to go forward that reversed the major "accomplishment" of the Obama presidency, the Supreme Court would have been dismissed as another political body and Denocrats would have been gunning for it.
With his opinion, he simultaneously set a precedent limiting federal power and maintained the court's independence.
He's not a dummy.
I agree with this. Much of his decision should make conservatives happy, especially with the precedent he just set for the commerce clause. The only thing he did was to uphold the taxation interpretation of the health care bill.
It's not ironic at all. As chief justice, his primary objective aside from upholding the law as he sees it is maintaining the dignity of the court.
Repeated 5-4 partisan decisions diminish the court.
Had he allowed another one to go forward that reversed the major "accomplishment" of the Obama presidency, the Supreme Court would have been dismissed as another political body and Denocrats would have been gunning for it.
With his opinion, he simultaneously set a precedent limiting federal power and maintained the court's independence.
He's not a dummy.
Really? Is that in his job description? To get favorable Letters-to-the-Editor in the New York Times?
Edit: Obama already has targeted the Court. Did you see him lie about them in his State of the Union address? Absolutely disgraceful. Talk about unqualified.
Really? Is that in his job description? To get favorable Letters-to-the-Editor in the New York Times?
Edit: Obama already has targeted the Court. Did you see him lie about them in his State of the Union address? Absolutely disgraceful. Talk about unqualified.
Every time I read your interpretation of this amendment all I can think is "six degrees to Kevin Bacon".....
Can you fond even a single instance where anyone in congress has proposed such an over extended interpretation of that amendment?
P.s. the amendment does not guarantee protection by police. It guarantees protection FROM police.
Your partisan vitriol has become ridiculous. If you're talking about the way he addressed the Citizens United case, you need to understand that the ruling totally changed the way elections are run and was misleading at best. It's impossible to stop a candidate from coordinating with a super pac, even if they cannot legally corroborate directly. And yes, the chief justice always leaves a legacy based on the rulings his court has made. Look at how cases like Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Ed. or Marbury v. Madison changed history. As justices serve for life, most of them are well aware of how their votes can affect people's daily lives. Chief Justice John Roberts understands the importance of his decisions in setting and following precedent, for the continued legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Obama: Citizens United "open[ed] the floodgates for special interests - including foreign corporations - to spend without limit in our elections. Well I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities."
This is false. The Court held 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate spending, unconstitutional. Foreign nationals,including foreign corporations, are prohibited from donating to elections under 2 U.S.C.Section 441e. They are also prohibited from contributing to a political party's committee, and from making expenditures from electioneering communication.
I'll offer you a choice: either he is a liar, or incompetent.
This is false. The Court held 2 U.S.C. Section 441a, which prohibits all corporate spending, unconstitutional. Foreign nationals,including foreign corporations, are prohibited from donating to elections under 2 U.S.C.Section 441e. They are also prohibited from contributing to a political party's committee, and from making expenditures from electioneering communication.
Dave89 said:I'll offer you a choice: either he is a liar, or incompetent.
The current understanding of the ruling is that it is so loose, foreign nationals can easily donate to non-profit organizations that have no need to disclose their donor lists, but can in turn donate to a campaign.
Colbert exploited this when he set up his SuperPAC, think he called it his Super Secret PAC (I believe the entity involved is a 501.4(c))
It doesn't matter if you officially forbid foreign nationals from donating if there's no mechanism to make sure they don't.
The loophole is domestically organized companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests. Those are not prohibited by 411e form spending money to influence US elections. In this instance Obama's statement is perfectly reasonable.
He is displaying neither quality here. You, on the other hand, are turning into Old Faithful.
How did Citizens United reverse 100 years of precedent, as the President claimed?
there are many doctors supporting obamacare and just as many opposing it. The ama, for example, supported at least a big part of the bill.
it's weird to hear people going into medicine that think not all people should have health care. in the end, it costs everyone if an uninsured person has to wait 10 years to get treated because his illness has gotten so bad that one of the local hospital has to treat him/her.
Universal health care would hopefully prevent many people's diseases from progressing and costing society more in the end. At least this is an argument that i keep hearing in favor of obamacare.
We have to be honest and say that us healthcare sucks in regard to infant mortality . Not sure how all of this can be solved, but a black/white perspective won't help anyone. Unfortunately this is exactly what the us is famous for - a polarizing country where most people either are like "wtf" or "omg iluv".
If government says It's going to cost one dollar it is actually going to cost two dollars plus benefits and retirement plans for those who are well connected. For those who support the plan I have one question,
How many doctors will the plan add vs. how many thousands of IRS agents will be hired?
It's a mixed bag for small businesses. If I hire a tech right now I am under no obligation to provide health insurance (fewer than 50 employee rule), but I could get a tax credit for 35% of the premiums if I chose to provide it. I can see wage adjustments ameliorating the effects for business >50 employees.
It would be very nice for everyone, including entrepreneurs, to put an end to job-lock.
Your partisan vitriol has become ridiculous. If you're talking about the way he addressed the Citizens United case, you need to understand that the ruling totally changed the way elections are run and was misleading at best. It's impossible to stop a candidate from coordinating with a super pac, even if they cannot legally corroborate directly. And yes, the chief justice always leaves a legacy based on the rulings his court has made. Look at how cases like Roe v. Wade, Brown v. Board of Ed. or Marbury v. Madison changed history. As justices serve for life, most of them are well aware of how their votes can affect people's daily lives. Chief Justice John Roberts understands the importance of his decisions in setting and following precedent, for the continued legitimacy of the Supreme Court.
Liberals' faith in the CBO's fiscal forecasts for the ACA is really quite astonishing and inspiring.
In 1965, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that Medicare Part A would cost approximately $9 billion by 1990. Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. Even after inflation and other factors, reality was 165% higher than the estimate.
In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched in 1966, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billionoff by nearly a factor of 10.
"Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaids disproportionate share hospital (DSH) paymentswhich states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patientswould cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion. Among other things, federal lawmakers had failed to detect loopholes in the legislation..." (Emphasis added by me)
"Medicare home care benefit. When Congress debated changes to Medicares home care benefit in 1988, the projected 1993 cost of the benefit was $4 billion. The actual 1993 cost was more than twice that amount, $10 billion."
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/04/health-care-reform-cost-estimates-what-is-the-track-record/
And on and on and on and...
By the standard of the proverbial definition of insanity (trying failed approaches over and over again expecting different results), big-government advocates are off-the-wall certifiable lunatics.
EDIT: Hope and Change!
If government says It's going to cost one dollar it is actually going to cost two dollars plus benefits and retirement plans for those who are well connected.
I hate the guy but he speaks the truth.
Let me get this straight . . . Were going to be gifted with a health care Plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we dont, Which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesnt understand it, passed by a Congress that didnt read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didnt pay his taxes, for which well be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese, and financed by a country thats broke!!!!! What the hell could possibly go wrong?
Despite your hard work, no one will listen. It is always better to state moral cases and moral statistics rather than stating charts, graphs and analysis. Don't bother, the vast majority of Pre-Meds and Medical Students are for social justice and health activism. As a fellow libertarian, try to use Mises or Cato. Using Heritage, while they are capable, will just make people ignore you.