T1B

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2012 2:50 pm**

I don't know why anyone bothers to read your links, because it's clear that you don't either...

Romney campaign senior adviser Eric Fehrnstrom said the former Massachusetts governor “disagrees with the court’s ruling that the mandate was a tax.”

This may come as a shock to you, Jsc, but the four Liberal Justices in the Majority actually agreed with the four Conservative Justices in the Dissent that the Mandate was, well, a "Mandate". Of course, both sides arrived at different conclusions on the constitutionality of said mandate, but that's beside the point. Only Justice Roberts determined that the mandate was, indeed, a tax. How the hell do you think Obamacare passed in the first place?

Posted: **Wed Jul 04, 2012 3:10 pm**

It's not the reading part of it that befuddles Jsc, it's the comprehension part and the conclusions drawn.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:08 pm**

Truman wrote: Only Justice Roberts determined that the mandate was, indeed, a tax. How the hell do you think Obamacare passed in the first place?

So what you are saying is it was a 1-8 decision but it still passed. This on top of your "slavery is illegal in the US" rant makes you less informed on the Constitution than your average piece of broccoli.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 7:16 pm**

mvscal wrote: It's a pity Hitler gave genocide such a bad rap.

You do realize that when the next genocide starts that mud people like you are right at the top of the list?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 8:34 pm**

Moving Sale wrote:
Truman wrote: Only Justice Roberts determined that the mandate was, indeed, a tax. How the hell do you think Obamacare passed in the first place?
So what you are saying is it was a 1-8 decision but it still passed. This on top of your "slavery is illegal in the US" rant makes you less informed on the Constitution than your average piece of broccoli.

No, what I'm saying is that you are a walking legal malpractice law suit just waiting to happen.

Read Ginsburg's opinion and get back to me. Oh, and you might want to mix in some quality time with the XIIIth Amendment while you're at it....

You wanna take another hack at this, Spanky, or should we just go ahead and ring you up on a called third?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 9:55 pm**

So that means I'll have to stick around this joint beyond November?

:meh smilie dude:

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:13 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Meanwhile, even the WSJ realizes that Romney isn't going to beat Obama.

He doesn't speak for Romney or his campaign, you braindead fucktard. Romney has already yanked that clown's leash.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 10:19 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Meanwhile, even the WSJ realizes that Romney isn't going to beat Obama.

There you go again - drawing erroneous conclusions based on an article that suggests nothing of the sort and then trying to convince people that it says something it doesn't.

What is your major malfunction?

Are you seriously a trial lawyer who tries to cajole a jury with similar horseshit tactics?

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:44 pm**

88 wrote:
Truman wrote:Only Justice Roberts determined that the mandate was, indeed, a tax.

[i]National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius[/i] wrote:ROBERTS, C. J., announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III–C, in which GINSBURG, BREYER, SOTOMAYOR, and KAGAN, JJ., joined; In Part III-C, ROBERTS, C. J., concluded that the individual mandate may be upheld as within Congress’s power under the Taxing Clause.
Want to try again?

You bet. Apparently, you didn't read Justice Ginsburg's opinion either:

In today’s opinions, on the Commerce Clause question, the Justices tangled primarily over whether it matters if Congress regulates “activity” that affects interstate commerce – such as growing wheat – or an “inactivity,” such as not purchasing insurance. The five more conservative Justices found that this distinction matters because the power to “regulate” presumes the pre-existence of some activity, and because, if the government could require citizens doing nothing but “breathing in and out” to purchase a product, there would be no logical stopping point. Invoking what Justice Ginsburg called “the broccoli horrible,” the conservatives warned that such a broad reading of the Commerce Clause would enable the government to require that every American buy vegetables.

The four more liberal Justices disagreed, of course, but in doing so they accepted the conservatives’ framing of the relevant issue and basically contended that the mandate regulates a type of “activity.” Justice Ginsburg, for the four liberals, contended that there is no defensible difference between activity and inactivity, claiming that individuals subject to the mandate are engaged in the activity of “self-insuring.” In any event, she claimed, everyone “actively” participates in the health care market sooner or later, because almost everyone (note the slight fudge) needs a doctor sooner or later.

The conservatives arguably have the better of the argument on the point of primary contention. That is, there is a difference between activity and inactivity that raises concerns about individual liberty. But they come to the wrong conclusion on the individual mandate for the very simple reason that the individual liberty concern is not relevant in the context of interpreting the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause does not exist to draw a line between government authority and individual freedom like, for example, the First Amendment does. The Commerce Clause exists to determine where the proper scope of federal power ends and state power begins.

http://www.volokh.com/2012/06/28/ginsbu ... g-reasons/

That's the author's take, from a Liberal Blog. While I don't necessarily agree with him, fact remains that the Commerce Clause used as a mechanism to fund healthcare melted 5-4. This is indisputable. Only Roberts interpreted the mandate to be a tax (and yes Midget Sale, that means Obamacare passed 1-8. ). The Libs signed off on Roberts ruling to see it through, despite Ginsburg's apoplexy. I stand by my orignal post.

Posted: **Thu Jul 05, 2012 11:59 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Why bother, 88? He thinks he has it all figured out, no sense in disabusing him of that notion.

I'm not the one tilting at windmills, Jsc. The electorate of 32 states couldn't be wrong...

Posted: **Mon Jul 09, 2012 6:22 pm**

Truman wrote: Read Ginsburg's opinion and get back to me.

Robert's wrote the Majority Opinion you hapless sack of prairie dog dung and that opinion is 5-4 not 1-8 you stupid fucksicle. Even your boy 88 thinks you are full of shit on this.

Oh, and you might want to mix in some quality time with the 13th Amendment while you're at it....

So your take is that the word 'except' is not in the text of the 13th Am?

Posted: **Mon Jul 09, 2012 9:10 pm**

Truman wrote:In today’s opinions, on the Commerce Clause question, the Justices tangled primarily over whether it matters if Congress regulates “activity” that affects interstate commerce – such as growing wheat – or an “inactivity,” such as not purchasing insurance.

The fact that there was even a discussion of the subject clearly demonstrates that these people and lawyers in general are clinically insane and, for the benefit of humanity, should be herded into pens, humanely euthanized and mulched into fertilizer.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:18 am**

Regarding the Commerce Clause…

Chief Justice Roberts wrote:The Affordable Care Act is constitutional in part and unconstitutional in part. The individual mandate cannot be upheld as an exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause. That Clause authorizes Congress to regulate interstate commerce, not to order individuals to engage in it.

That’s one against, and here’s four more…

Justice Scalia, Justice Kennedy, Justice Thomas, and Justice Alito, dissenting wrote:Whatever may be the conceptual limits upon the Commerce Clause and upon the power to tax and spend, they cannot be such as will enable the Federal Government to regulate all private conduct and to compel the States to function as administrators of federal programs.

That’s 5-4 against the Commerce Clause argument, Short Round, as you'll see below.

Tax vs. Mandate

Justice Roberts goes on to write…”In this case, however, it is reasonable to construe what Congress has done as increasing taxes on those who have a certain amount of income, but choose to go without health insurance. Such legislation is within Congress’s power to tax."

Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas and Alito vehemently disagreed: “The Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write. It rules that what the statute declares to be a requirement with a penalty is instead an option subject to a tax.”

1-4, Mandate. I’ll ask you again Dreikäsehoch: Did you read Ginsburg’s opinion?

Justice Ginsburg, with whom Justice Sotomayor joins, and with whom Justice Breyer and Justice Kagan join as to Parts I, II, III, and IV, concurring in part, concurring in the judgment in part, and [b]dissenting[/b] in part wrote:I agree with THE CHIEF JUSTICE that the Anti-Injunction Act does not bar the Court’s consideration of this case, and that the minimum coverage provision is a proper exercise of Congress’ taxing power. I therefore join Parts I, II, and III–C of THE CHIEF JUSTICE’s opinion. Unlike THE CHIEF JUSTICE, however, I would hold, alternatively, that the Commerce Clause authorizes Congress to enact the minimum coverage provision.

Justice Ginsburg summarizes: “Whatever one thinks of the policy decision Congress made, it was Congress’ prerogative to make it. Reviewed with appropriate deference, the minimum coverage provision… should survive measurement under the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clauses.”

Translation: Well, yeah, John, we recognize that Congress does, indeed, have the power to levy a tax on the people to make them buy health care insurance, but before you pulled that ruling out of your ass, we thought the Commerce Clause made it legal anyway.

1-8, Mandate interpretation, Spanky.

Moving Sale wrote:So your take is that the word 'except' is not in the text of the 13th Am?

No, my “take” is try making your “except” argument before the Supremes after the authorities find your mail-order Vietnamese child-bride chained to your bedpost, and see where that gets you.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 5:20 am**

Thanks for the tip, 32, but I kinda had that pegged as I read the Decision. And yes, I know how the vote was tallied. :wink:

My point has been all along that eight out of nine justices never even considered the minimum coverage provision to be a proper exercise of Congress’ taxing power, as the legislation was not written to ever suggest that it was. The argument presented to the Court was whether the mandate was a proper use of the Commerce Clause.

The Liberals said yes, the Conservatives said no… But then Roberts determined in his deliberation that, while the mandate failed constitutionality under the Commerce Clause, it most certainly fell under Congress’ authority to tax.

Don’t you see? Hell yes the Liberals joined Roberts Opinion – it gave them almost everything they wanted - even if they might've fundamentally disagreed with how his opinion was arrived. In their view, the mandate was already constitutional under the Commerce Clause. Period. Why else publish a dissent to a case you've just won?

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:36 pm**

Terry in Crapchester wrote:I do agree with Reich's conclusion that the Taxing Clause was a rather flimsy justification for ACA. I think the Commerce Clause, which was what oral argument focused on, is a much stronger argument.

I have a question, Terry.

Do you believe there is ANYFUKKINGTHING the precious commerce clause does not cover? Is it simply the catch all that allows the feds do do whatever the fukk they please? If that was the case, why the fukk don't we just do away with the rest of the fukking thing as it is nothing more than toilet paper?

It really is time to amend the comm. clause so that it reads as it should have. Basically it says that the US is a free trade zone and states can not levy tariffs against other states.

This was its original intent and you fukking know it.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 7:45 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Original intent .... oh never mind.

I see. The good ole "you're too dumb to 'splain it" card. Libs are good at going to that when they can't justify their position.

I clicked 88's link and read a little bit of it. Way too long for my ADD addled brain to get through though.

Anyhoo, trying to figure out exactly what some dead white slaveowner dude meant is kind of pointless. We can read the words and come up with different interpretations, so when that is the case, what do you do? I think that in such a case you must take a minimalist attitude. We can all agree that interstate trade wars was a concern and this was meant to address this problem. Beyond that it is pure fukking speculation. And when we are talking about a document who's purpose is to set limits, would it make even the slightest bit of sense to use an interpretation that gives the benefit of the doubt to the absolute loosest definition?

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 9:04 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:you also have to look at the prior jurisprudence.

That is, of course, complete nonsense and without a shred of doubt that is NOT what the Founders intended.

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 10:22 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:you also have to look at the prior jurisprudence.
That is, of course, complete nonsense and without a shred of doubt that is NOT what the Founders intended.

But...but your talking to a DEFENDER in court of the Constitution...

Posted: **Tue Jul 10, 2012 11:27 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:The Court decides the meaning of the Commerce Clause.

Which means The Court can also revisit previous decisions with a "new understanding" and overturn the prior "meaning" of the Commerce Clause.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:24 am**

^^^^^^

Lawyer smack--boring....

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:25 am**

88 wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:The Court decides the meaning of the Commerce Clause.
How? Are there any restraints on the Court?

Not according to GaySC. Unfortunately, he's too dim to understand that this concept of judicial review must necessarily include the power to review previous judicial decisions. In GaySCLand, the only restraint on judicial power is the discretion of some hypothetical future court.

Needless to say, that's not a particularly stable foundation.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 2:11 am**

Jsc810 wrote:Which is what the Founders intended.

How the fuck do you know what the Founders intended?

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 3:20 pm**

War Wagon wrote:
Jsc810 wrote:Which is what the Founders intended.

How the fuck do you know what the Founders intended?

He is a DEFENDER of the Constitution. As such, I am sure he has them channeled up on speed dial and can get an opinion with one phone call, instead of just pulling this shit out of his ass, which it appears he does.

Tell me you knew that a DEFENDER of the Constitution would not have the Founding Fathers on a consulting retainer.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:48 pm**

War Wagon wrote:How the fuck do you know what the Founders intended?

You can get a pretty good idea by knowing some history and reading Publius.

88,
You are not a fan of Marbury are you? What do you think is the role of the USSC?

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 5:50 pm**

Truman wrote:Only Justice Roberts determined that the mandate was, indeed, a tax.

Truman wrote: Hell yes the Liberals joined Roberts Opinion....

Make up your mind you fucking twit.

Posted: **Wed Jul 11, 2012 9:37 pm**

Jsc810 wrote:Now add the concept of stare decisis and you'll be well on your way.

Now apply the concept of stare decisis to gay marriage and you'll be well on your way to fucking yourself. "The concept of stare decisis" is another one of those things that means whatever The Court wants it mean. You know...like the Commerce Clause. It, also, is subject to "new understandings" and it can be (and frequently is) discarded at will.

As for restrictions on judicial power, perhaps this chart might help.

It might help you look like even more of an idiot but I'm not seeing much in the way of any checks on judicial power. The executive's power to appoint and legislative's power to approve appointments is pretty weak sauce. Once these clowns get in, they can pretty well do or say whatever the fuck they want. There is absolutely no restraint whatsoever on their ability to conjure "new meanings" out of the plain English of our Constitution.

I suppose it's way overdue for Congress to discover some "new understandings" of their own and start impeaching Supremes for their lousy decisions. "Good behavior" is suitably vague phrase for the purpose.

Posted: **Sat Jul 14, 2012 7:58 pm**

88 wrote:Your math and logic is all fucked up, dog.

Could be. And it probably won’t be the last time, either, 8’s. But help me understand:

1) So Justice argued that the mandate was a tax, and the Supremes as a body slapped them down, because the court cannot hear legal challenges on a tax until it’s been paid. Well-and-good.

2) Next, Justice argued the mandate was a penalty, and that Congress has the authority to level such a penalty per the Commerce Clause. That take also failed, 5-4. The Libs were crushed, and posted a “Majority Dissent” to that effect. I believe I posted something similar to that affect a bit earlier.

3) Now, here’s where things get a bit curious. So Justice – once again - argues the mandate was a tax, not a penalty, and that Congress has the authority to impose such a tax under its constitutional powers, and Roberts agreed with the Libs.

:?

Now wait a minute.

The Supremes had already ruled unanimously that they couldn’t hear a case on taxation until the tax had actually been paid. But Point 3 of your take presents the same argument, and all-of-a-sudden, it was ruled that Congress did, and I quote, have “the authority to impose the ‘tax’ under its taxing power. Roberts agreed with the liberals on this one, and the argument prevailed 5-4 (Part III-C of Roberts' Opinion, which Ginsburg/Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan joined).”

So if the Supremes couldn’t hear this case under Point 1, what changed to allow them to rule under Point 3? The argument was the same.

And MY logic is all fucked up?

My 1-8 take all along was based on the fact that Libs were ready to rock on Point 2 of your post. When Roberts decided that the mandate was actually a tax under Congressional powers, the Libs collectively said, “well, duh”, and signed on. Trouble is, the damn Libs had already decided the ACA was already constitutional under the Commerce Clause. The Conservatives were correct when they suggested that “the Court today decides to save a statute Congress did not write.”

I suppose I’m inviting a return trip to the woodshed, but please explain to me how the Supremes could rule upon a tax that they were supposedly constitutionally prohibited to rule upon. TIA, Mang.

Posted: **Thu Jul 26, 2012 5:54 pm**

88 wrote: For me, it is a question of judicial restraint rather than the power of the Court to determine whether an act of Congress is constitutional or not.

Sounds like a "who's ox is getting gored" type of answer to me. CU could have easily gone the other way, seeing as the alternative had been the law of the land for 100's of years, and yet you nut-hug that holding like it was a statue of a golden pussy. Wickard was the single biggest power grab of the last century and yet I rarely see you bitch and moan about it. Sure when I bring it up you give it lip service, but that’s about it. You sound like a typical right wing hypocrite to me.

Posted: **Fri Jul 27, 2012 10:39 am**

88 wrote:
Moving Sale wrote: Wickard was the single biggest power grab of the last century and yet I rarely see you bitch and moan about it. Sure when I bring it up you give it lip service, but that’s about it.
How many times do I have to agree that Wickard is a complete abomination of a court decision before you will believe me?

Simple agreement is just lip service. Need to kick it up a notch on the bitching & moaning. That'll fix things, by Gadfrey.

Posted: **Sat Jul 28, 2012 3:24 pm**

88 wrote: How many times do I have to agree that Wickard is a complete abomination of a court decision before you will believe me?

Three or four more times should do it.

T1B

Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps

Re: Suck it Dittochumps