Federal Judge Rules Obamacare mandate Unconstitutional.

[Firestorm Killa]

Liberals=PWNED

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fed-judge-rules-in-favor-of-va-hc-law-challenge/

[Rinualdo]

This is all nonsense until the SCOTUS hears the issue.

For posterity, did you think Conservatives=PWNED when the same lawsuit was thrown out by other judges of the same rank?

[Firestorm Killa]

This is all nonsense until the SCOTUS hears the issue.

For posterity, did you think Conservatives=PWNED when the same lawsuit was thrown out by other judges of the same rank?

Not really, it will be ruled unconstitutional when it gets to the supreme court. That newest Liberal Judge Obama appointed can't rule on it as she rallied for it before getting appointed. That leaves 8 judges able to rule on it, 5 of which lean conservative.

And in the case of a tie, it is automatically ruled unconstitutional.

[EasternBrand]

And in the case of a tie, it is automatically ruled unconstitutional.

I'm not entirely convinced that you understand how the federal courts work.

[Ryvicke]

daragons dont need helthcare cause daragons always win there barfights

lolpwnd@!!!!!!!!!

[Firestorm Killa]

I'm not entirely convinced that you understand how the federal courts work.

Look it up.

[Gan]

I'm not at all convinced that you understand how the federal courts work.

Fixed.

[Firestorm Killa]

daragons dont need helthcare cause daragons always win there barfights

lolpwnd@!!!!!!!!!

How's your woman doing after I pounded her ass last night?

[Rinualdo]

How's your woman doing after I pounded her ass last night?

Always the pillar of irrefutable intellectual discourse.

[Ryvicke]

How's you're woman doing after I pounded her ass last night?

frrrrrrrxed

[Firestorm Killa]

Always the pillar of irrefutable intellectual discourse.

In the case of a 4-4 tie in the Supreme court, the The Lower Court's ruling is upheld. Which would mean in this case that it would be found unconstitutional.

[Rinualdo]

You do understand that there is a line of legal progression that doesn't go directly from a District Judge to the Supreme Court, no?

[EasternBrand]

In the case of a 4-4 tie in the Supreme court, the The Lower Court's ruling is upheld. Which would mean in this case that it would be found unconstitutional.

I don't need to look it up, I am aware of what happens when there is a tie in the Supreme Court. Instead, here is a list of two very important things that you did not account for in your analysis:

1: Appellate courts.

2: Two other cases that have been decided in favor of the Government by the federal district courts.

[Firestorm Killa]

You do understand that there is a line of legal progression that doesn't go directly from a District Judge to the Supreme Court, no?

I do know. And the majority of judges that it goes to next are conservative.

[Firestorm Killa]

I don't need to look it up, I am aware of what happens when there is a tie in the Supreme Court. Instead, here is a list of two very important things that you did not account for in your analysis:

1: Appellate courts.

2: Two other cases that have been decided in favor of the Government by the federal district courts.

The other 2 were not challenging the individual mandate.

[Rinualdo]

I do know. And the majority of judges that it goes to next are conservative.

Which judges would those be?

[Firestorm Killa]

Which judges would those be?

The Appellate.

[Keller]

Why can't you learn the rules of capitalization.

Even just the basic ones would be a dramatic improvement.

[Firestorm Killa]

Why can't you learn the rules of capitalization.

Even just the basic ones would be a dramatic improvement.

hOw bOUt U Go anD fUcK YouRself?

[Rinualdo]

The Appellate.

Which one are you referring to?

[Firestorm Killa]

Which one are you referring to?

the 9th circuit court of appeals.

[Rinualdo]

the 9th circuit court of appeals.

You sure about that?

[Rinualdo]

Here's a hint:
The 9th Circuit has the largest percentage of judges appointed by Democratic Presidents.

[EasternBrand]

Also, I figured I would take advantage of some downtime right now to try and break down the court's opinion as basically as I can, hopefully without misconstruing the parties' positions, in case anyone wants to actually have some constructive dialogue (or is just interested). This may be old ground on these boards, but what the hell. The decision essentially comes down to the scope of the Commerce Clause. There is an argument based on the Necessary & Proper Clause that is dismissed because of the ruling that the law fails under Commerce Clause analysis, and an argument based on the taxation power that is dismissed because the court finds that the penalty for failing to purchase insurance is not a tax. Finally, the only portion of the law called unconstitutional is Section 1501, which mandates that people purchase healthcare coverage or else face monetary penalties. The rest of the omnibus bill was kept intact.

The U.S.'s argument: Supreme Court precedent is clear that Congress has the authority to regulate even isolated individual economic activity when, in the aggregate, that activity affects interstate commerce. The principal cases here involve personal cultivation and consumption of wheat and marijuana. The U.S. says that, just like an individual's choice to grow wheat for personal consumption may be regulated by Congress because of the hypothetical cumulative effect on the national market of one million hypothetical people making the same choice, an individual's choice not to purchase healthcare may be regulated because of the hypothetical cumulative effect on the national market. In addition, they use Supreme Court precedent stating that if a complex regulatory program can be considered as a whole a valid exercise of Congressional power, then a challenged provision is valid if that provision is an integral part of the regulatory scheme. Therefore, because Congress may unquestionably regulate the national healthcare market, and the purchase provision is the key to making the rest of the bill work, it's Constitutional.

Virginia's Argument: Virginia argues that the U.S. stretches the limits of the Commerce Clause too wide. They rely principally on two cases limiting the Clause to economic activity only, and argue that a decision to refrain from purchase is, by definition, not economic activity. They concede that there is probably an aggregate effect on the market of a person choosing not to purchase, but that because the aggregate effects test may only be applied to economic activity, and this is not economic activity, then the aggregate effects do not matter.

The court agrees with Virginia, finding that no federal appeals court has held that a decision not to purchase something should be considered economic activity. The court holds that an abstention from purchasing healthcare is not economic activity, therefore the aggregate effects test does not apply, and so a decision not to purchase does not affect interstate commerce. As a result the purchase provision exceeds Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. It also rejects arguments under the Necessary & Proper Clause and Tax power, as described above.

[Keller]

the 9th circuit court of appeals.

You are a riot!!

You liberally dispense the label "liberal" to anyone and everyone that maybe disagrees with you, but then call the 9th circuit conservative.

Just . . wow.

[Rinualdo]

I believe the DOJ will also argue that since the provision doesn't take effect until 2014, and no person has been subjected to it, the state has no standing to bring about the case in the first place.

[pabstblueribbon]

Liberals=PWNED

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/fed-judge-rules-in-favor-of-va-hc-law-challenge/

The supreme court also ruled that corporations and labor unions can directly give money to political campaigns.

I guess that means U.S. citizens == PWNED?

[Rinualdo]

You are a riot!!

You liberally dispense the label "liberal" to anyone and everyone that maybe disagrees with you, but then call the 9th circuit conservative.

Just . . wow.

In before the "I was just kidding, hahalol libtards" post

[Keller]

hOw bOUt U Go anD fUcK YouRself?

One step removed from asking another poster how his woman was doing after you had anal sex with her.

I'd say you are the intellectual peer of Warclaidhm, but I don't want to insult him.

[Bobmuhthol]

I had anal sex with all of your wives.

Respect.

[Firestorm Killa]

One step removed from asking another poster how his woman was doing after you had anal sex with her.

I'd say you are the intellectual peer of Warclaidhm, but I don't want to insult him.

Not only did I fuck your wives in the ass, I also made them suck the cum outta their asses.

[Firestorm Killa]

Here's a hint:
The 9th Circuit has the largest percentage of judges appointed by Democratic Presidents.

Made a mistake correcting it now, it's the 4th circuit it is going to.

[EasternBrand]

I believe the DOJ will also argue that since the provision doesn't take effect until 2014, and no person has been subjected to it, the state has no standing to bring about the case in the first place.

Pre-enforcement review (i.e., ripeness) and standing are two different concepts, although a lot of the considerations are similar. Justiciability is an incredibly confusing and contradictory body of law, but suffice it to say I think this argument is not a winner. Pre-enforcement review will usually be granted where a plaintiff can show that the harm sought to be avoided by seeking review is virtually certain to happen (so that, for instance, you needn't wait to be arrested to challenge a statute, if you can demonstrate that your prosecution is virtually certain), and I think this case definitely fits under that rubric.

[Firestorm Killa]

Pre-enforcement review (i.e., ripeness) and standing are two different concepts, although a lot of the considerations are similar. Justiciability is an incredibly confusing and contradictory body of law, but suffice it to say I think this argument is not a winner. Pre-enforcement review will usually be granted where a plaintiff can show that the harm sought to be avoided by seeking review is virtually certain to happen (so that, for instance, you needn't wait to be arrested to challenge a statute, if you can demonstrate that your prosecution is virtually certain), and I think this case definitely fits under that rubric.

The states can challenge it now since they have to do the prep work to get the health care bill underway.

[Rinualdo]

Pre-enforcement review (i.e., ripeness) and standing are two different concepts, although a lot of the considerations are similar. Justiciability is an incredibly confusing and contradictory body of law, but suffice it to say I think this argument is not a winner. Pre-enforcement review will usually be granted where a plaintiff can show that the harm sought to be avoided by seeking review is virtually certain to happen (so that, for instance, you needn't wait to be arrested to challenge a statute, if you can demonstrate that your prosecution is virtually certain), and I think this case definitely fits under that rubric.


I don't disagree. Was simply stating they will appeal on several grounds.

[Androidpk]

This made me happy.

[diethx]

I had anal sex with all of your wives.

Respect.

That's a lot of dildos.

[Firestorm Killa]

Update on Ruling. Virginia is now asking other states to support them to bypass court of appeals to go directly to the Supreme Court.

[Parkbandit]

You can spin it anyway you want it.. but it was certainly good news for Conservatives and bad news for Liberals.

[EasternBrand]

You can spin it anyway you want it.. but it was certainly good news for Conservatives and bad news for Liberals.

You can tell this is true because you won't hear any conservatives railing about judicial activism.

[Parkbandit]

You can tell this is true because you won't hear any conservatives railing about judicial activism.

And you will hear Liberals cry because it just isn't fair! NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!!!

[Cephalopod]

You can tell this is true because you won't hear any conservatives railing about judicial activism.


And you will hear Liberals cry because it just isn't fair! NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR! NOT FAIR!!!

NOT FAIR! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm (http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm)



Hudson's annual financial disclosures show that he owns a sizable chunk of Campaign Solutions, Inc., a Republican consulting firm that worked this election cycle for John Boehner, Michele Bachmann, John McCain, and a whole host of other GOP candidates who've placed the purported unconstitutionality of health care reform at the center of their political platforms. Since 2003, according to the disclosures, Hudson has earned between $32,000 and $108,000 in dividends from his shares in the firm (federal rules only require judges to report ranges of income).


HuffPo, the liberal rag, talked about this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/07/30/henry-hudson-judge-in-hea_n_665240.html) back in July, pointing out:


Another firm client is Ken Cuccinelli, the Attorney General of Virginia and the man who is bringing the lawsuit in front of Hudson's court. In 2010, records show, Cuccinelli spent nearly $9,000 for Campaign Solutions services.


And Campaign Solutions's response:


Judge Hudson has owned stock in Campaign Solutions going back 13 years to the founding of the company or well before he became a federal judge. Since joining the federal bench, he has fully disclosed his stock ownership in the company. He is a passive investor only, has no knowledge of the day to day operations of the firm, and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.


I don't really think this matters in this case, but I just wanted to point out that we liberals can cry JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!, too.

[Firestorm Killa]

You can tell this is true because you won't hear any conservatives railing about judicial activism.

What you mean like the Liberals with Roe v. Wade?

[ClydeR]

..and has never discussed any aspect of the business with any official of the company.

I don't know why people say stuff like that. The smart thing would have been to stop after the first two sentences.

[Firestorm Killa]

NOT FAIR! JUDICIAL ACTIVISM!

Judge Who Ruled Health Care Reform Unconstitutional Owns Piece of GOP Consulting Firm (http://gawker.com/5713041/judge-who-ruled-health-care-reform-unconstitutional-owns-piece-of-gop-consulting-firm)

.

It is not illegal for a federal judge to own stock in anything so long as they have no direct control over the company/organization, and as long as they report it. Which this judge does report it. You lose once again Nachos, go chew on some more paint chips bitch.

[ClydeR]

Also, I figured I would take advantage of some downtime right now to try and break down the court's opinion as basically as I can, hopefully without misconstruing the parties' positions, in case anyone wants to actually have some constructive dialogue (or is just interested). This may be old ground on these boards, but what the hell. The decision essentially comes down to the scope of the Commerce Clause. There is an argument based on the Necessary & Proper Clause that is dismissed because of the ruling that the law fails under Commerce Clause analysis, and an argument based on the taxation power that is dismissed because the court finds that the penalty for failing to purchase insurance is not a tax. Finally, the only portion of the law called unconstitutional is Section 1501, which mandates that people purchase healthcare coverage or else face monetary penalties. The rest of the omnibus bill was kept intact.

The U.S.'s argument: Supreme Court precedent is clear that Congress has the authority to regulate even isolated individual economic activity when, in the aggregate, that activity affects interstate commerce. The principal cases here involve personal cultivation and consumption of wheat and marijuana. The U.S. says that, just like an individual's choice to grow wheat for personal consumption may be regulated by Congress because of the hypothetical cumulative effect on the national market of one million hypothetical people making the same choice, an individual's choice not to purchase healthcare may be regulated because of the hypothetical cumulative effect on the national market. In addition, they use Supreme Court precedent stating that if a complex regulatory program can be considered as a whole a valid exercise of Congressional power, then a challenged provision is valid if that provision is an integral part of the regulatory scheme. Therefore, because Congress may unquestionably regulate the national healthcare market, and the purchase provision is the key to making the rest of the bill work, it's Constitutional.

Virginia's Argument: Virginia argues that the U.S. stretches the limits of the Commerce Clause too wide. They rely principally on two cases limiting the Clause to economic activity only, and argue that a decision to refrain from purchase is, by definition, not economic activity. They concede that there is probably an aggregate effect on the market of a person choosing not to purchase, but that because the aggregate effects test may only be applied to economic activity, and this is not economic activity, then the aggregate effects do not matter.

The court agrees with Virginia, finding that no federal appeals court has held that a decision not to purchase something should be considered economic activity. The court holds that an abstention from purchasing healthcare is not economic activity, therefore the aggregate effects test does not apply, and so a decision not to purchase does not affect interstate commerce. As a result the purchase provision exceeds Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause. It also rejects arguments under the Necessary & Proper Clause and Tax power, as described above.

Thank you. That was interesting. It looks like the feds' best argument is the part about the "complex regulatory program," and Virginia's best argument is that the fed's argument does not apply because declining to buy insurance is not "economic activity." Is there a link that explains what the two cases were about that Virginia relied on?

[EasternBrand]

Thank you. That was interesting. It looks like the feds' best argument is the part about the "complex regulatory program," and Virginia's best argument is that the fed's argument does not apply because declining to buy insurance is not "economic activity." Is there a link that explains what the two cases were about that Virginia relied on?

By way of background, the Court has enumerated the three types of acceptable Commerce Clause regulation: (i) the channels of interstate commerce, (ii) the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, and (iii) activities that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce. All of these cases, including the Virginia case, fall under category 3.

The cases are U.S. v. Lopez and Morrison (I can't remember the other party's name). Information about them is pretty easy to find all over the web. They are the only two Supreme Court cases since 1937 to limit Congressional power under the Commerce Clause. I can give brief rundowns from what I remember, with the caveat that they're only as accurate as my memory.

Lopez is from 1995 and about the Gun Free School Zone Act, where Congress passed a law making it illegal to carry guns into schools. The argument was that Congress couldn't regulate this, because they had provided no link between interstate commerce and the activity to be regulated. The decision was like a bombshell, because almost 60 years had passed since the Court had overturned an Act of Congress for violating the limits of the Commerce Clause.

Morrison, in 2000, was based on the Violence Against Women Act. There, Congress made a series of findings that violence against women affected interstate commerce. These findings were largely a response to the Court's decision in Lopez, which suggested that if Congress made rationally based findings of fact that supported a link to interstate commerce, the activity could be regulated. The Court, however, said that violence against women was not an economic activity, and therefore the aggregate effects test could not be used to determine the effect on interstate commerce.

The U.S. relied primarily on Gonzalez v. Raich, the marijuana case, which in the mid-2000s upheld provisions of a comprehensive drug act--the name escapes me--allowing for federal oversight of personal use of marijuana, and on Wickard, the wheat case.

[Firestorm Killa]

The U.S. relied primarily on Gonzalez v. Raich, the marijuana case, which in the mid-2000s upheld provisions of a comprehensive drug act--the name escapes me--allowing for federal oversight of personal use of marijuana, and on Wickard, the wheat case.

Hmm. Coulda sworn Marijuana is illegal because of Nixon making an executive order and no other president dropping it. Oh well.

[Showal]

Hmm. Coulda sworn Marijuana is illegal because of Nixon making an executive order and no other president dropping it. Oh well.

Marijuana fucks with your mind. You know what else does? Seeing civilians killed in war as an on call network engineering.


Being that I have seen civilians killed in war, no I am not, fucks with your mind.

[Bobmuhthol]

Marijuana was illegal decades before Nixon took office.

[Firestorm Killa]

Marijuana was illegal decades before Nixon took office.

No it wasn't. They tried to illegalize it but they couldn't. What they did was make a coupon you had to buy from the government to be able to possess and use marijuana, but the government refused to sell the coupons to people.
Someone took that to the supreme court and won.

[Rinualdo]

No it wasn't. They tried to illegalize it but they couldn't. What they did was make a coupon you had to buy from the government to be able to possess and use marijuana, but the government refused to sell the coupons to people.
Someone took that to the supreme court and won.

First- lol at "illegalize"

Second, it was illegal. The Marijuana tax act of '37 was overturned in Leary v US, which was repealed and then made into the Controlled Substances Act in '70.

[EasternBrand]

Controlled Substances Act in '70.

Oh yeah, this was the statute at issue in Raich.

[Firestorm Killa]

First- lol at "illegalize"

Second, it was illegal. The Marijuana tax act of '37 was overturned in Leary v US, which was repealed and then made into the Controlled Substances Act in '70.

That.

[Bobmuhthol]

Oh, so what you're saying is that marijuana wasn't illegal since it could be used medicinally, just like today except that it's illegal now for some arbitrary and unrelated reason.

[Cephalopod]

It is not illegal for a federal judge to own stock in anything so long as they have no direct control over the company/organization, and as long as they report it. Which this judge does report it. You lose once again Nachos, go chew on some more paint chips bitch.

Who said it was illegal, or that the judge didn't report it? It was very clear in the article that he reports it; making it more surprising that he didn't recuse himself, as opposed to being ignorant to his the firm's clients are.

A few months ago, a judge made a ruling on prop 8 in California, and someone on the PCs was saying he was a libtard activist judge, but had no backing for such. The judge in question was a Reagan-appointee and about as far from an activist judge as you can get, but it didn't stop folks from screaming foul at the top of their lungs.

Now we have a judge hearing a case filed by VA attorney general Ken Cuccinelli. The judge happens to own a portion of a company that received (in 2010) almost $9,000 from... Ken Cuccinelli.

If you feel that is entirely irrelevant, so be it. I just want to note the minor hypocrisy.

[TheEschaton]

Made a mistake correcting it now, it's the 4th circuit it is going to.

The 4th Circuit is comprised of 13 judges, the head judge of whom was appointed by Bill Clinton. Of the 13 judges, 5 are Clinton nominees, 1 is a Reagan nominess, one a Bush Sr. nominee, 3 a Bush Jr. nominee, and 3 an Obama nominee.

Putting aside the grey area of jurisprudence and how a judge rules, since you probably think Clinton and Obama are fascists, that's 8 judges appointed by "Liberals" ie Democrats, and 5 by Republicans.

-TheE-

[Cephalopod]

Health care lawsuit heard in Pensacola (http://www.pnj.com/article/20101216/NEWS01/101216004/Health-care-lawsuit-heard-in-Pensacola)

No news yet, just noting that the case is being heard today... maybe news later?

Also:
Health Suits Stir Concerns on Court Partisanship (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/16/health/policy/16health.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss)

[Rinualdo]

It will be at least 2 years before anything meaningful is decided.
I'm curious to see what public sentiment will be at that time.

[Parkbandit]

Bump: Federal judge in Florida just ruled Obamacare Law unconstitutional.

[Cephalopod]

Bump: Federal judge in Florida just ruled Obamacare Law unconstitutional.

2-2, and we continue our march to the Supreme Court...

[EasternBrand]

Haven't yet seen the opinion, but the report is that Judge Vinson said the entire law should be struck if his ruling is upheld on appeal. This appears to go further than Judge Hudson's ruling, which held the mandatory insurance provision severable.

[Rinualdo]

What a waste of time and money. Get it to the SCOTUS already

[TheEschaton]

Our whole legal system is based on being a waste of time and money.

[EasternBrand]

What a waste of time and money. Get it to the SCOTUS already

There's still, what, 2 years before the challenged provisions go into effect? The Court technically does have the authority to reach down and grab a case at any point, but almost never does so outside of extreme circumstances. Taking a case through the system gives the parties time to develop their arguments and strategies, no small chores given the enormity of the stakes. The appellate argument is also quite distinct from the trial-level, so even if the appellate courts are really an overblown "practice round," it will only help clarify the issues and presentation to the Supreme Court. The federal government's response to the lawsuits is actually quite centralized and efficient. I don't see the rush.

[Parkbandit]

What a waste of time and money. Get it to the SCOTUS already

Many people believe this is time and money well spent.. that once the full nature of the law goes into effect, that it will be a colossal waste of money we don't have.

I'm all for making sure a law passed by our Government is constitutional. I'm not sure why you wouldn't be...

[Latrinsorm]

The only way to establish constitutionality with finality is with the Supreme Court. Hence, "get it to the SCOTUS" means establish the constitutionality right off, as opposed to spending time and money hearing a case in lesser courts that has 0 impact on the final decision.

[Rinualdo]

Many people believe this is time and money well spent.. that once the full nature of the law goes into effect, that it will be a colossal waste of money we don't have.

I'm all for making sure a law passed by our Government is constitutional. I'm not sure why you wouldn't be...

Do you purposely enjoy being obtuse?

[Parkbandit]

Do you purposely enjoy being obtuse?

Which part do you need me to dumb down for you?

[Parkbandit]

The only way to establish constitutionality with finality is with the Supreme Court. Hence, "get it to the SCOTUS" means establish the constitutionality right off, as opposed to spending time and money hearing a case in lesser courts that has 0 impact on the final decision.

You do know how our judicial system works, right? That the steps taken now, through the "lesser courts", are part of the lengthy process of getting it heard by the SCOTUS?

[EasternBrand]

The only way to establish constitutionality with finality is with the Supreme Court. Hence, "get it to the SCOTUS" means establish the constitutionality right off, as opposed to spending time and money hearing a case in lesser courts that has 0 impact on the final decision.

My point, though, is that it doesn't have 0 impact on the Court's decision. The record is developed, the legal issues are sharpened, and the parties get practice at the appellate level. It's not like this is an emergency that must be solved by the Court in an extremely narrow time frame.

Consider Bush v. Gore. Now raise your hands if you're still in favor of a quick resolution by the Supreme Court.

[Rinualdo]

My point, though, is that it doesn't have 0 impact on the Court's decision. The record is developed, the legal issues are sharpened, and the parties get practice at the appellate level. It's not like this is an emergency that must be solved by the Court in an extremely narrow time frame.

Consider Bush v. Gore. Now raise your hands if you're still in favor of a quick resolution by the Supreme Court.

The solicitor general, state's attorney generals, etc... aren't fucking junior varsity lawyers. They sure as shit shouldn't need practice or a warm up.

[EasternBrand]

The solicitor general, state's attorney generals, etc... aren't fucking junior varsity lawyers. They sure as shit shouldn't need practice or a warm up.

Even the top appellate lawyers in the country--the Ted Olsons, the Seth Waxmans--don't go into a Supreme Court argument cold. Hell, even the Lakers don't take on the Cavs without a warm-up.

[Parkbandit]

Consider Bush v. Gore. Now raise your hands if you're still in favor of a quick resolution by the Supreme Court.

That needed to be resolved quickly.. and thankfully they got it right.

[Firestorm Killa]

That needed to be resolved quickly.. and thankfully they got it right.

As much as I hate bush, I hate gore more. Then again they both had the same agenda when it came to 'global climate change'. Thanks bush for the $7 'green' light bulbs that require you to call a hazmat team by law to clean up if broken because they are toxic(contains mercury). Thank you bush for banning those easy to clean up cheaper incandescent light bulbs.

[Tgo01]

As much as I hate bush, I hate gore more. Then again they both had the same agenda when it came to 'global climate change'. Thanks bush for the $7 'green' light bulbs that require you to call a hazmat team by law to clean up if broken because they are toxic(contains mercury). Thank you bush for banning those easy to clean up cheaper incandescent light bulbs.

Do you believe everything you read? There is more mercury in one of those old mercury fillings for your teeth than there are in those CFL light bulbs, there is more mercury in a thermometer as well. Hell, there is even more mercury in a can of tuna fish than there is in those light bulbs, am I required by law to call a hazmat team if I drop some tuna fish on the ground?

[Latrinsorm]

You do know how our judicial system works, right? That the steps taken now, through the "lesser courts", are part of the lengthy process of getting it heard by the SCOTUS?You can just admit that you only read the first sentence of Rinualdo's post if you want.
My point, though, is that it doesn't have 0 impact on the Court's decision. The record is developed, the legal issues are sharpened, and the parties get practice at the appellate level. It's not like this is an emergency that must be solved by the Court in an extremely narrow time frame.

Consider Bush v. Gore. Now raise your hands if you're still in favor of a quick resolution by the Supreme Court.I think the question is less of being an emergency and more that certainly these courts have other things to do with their time. I am somewhat suspicious of the idea of legal issues being "sharpened", but will begrudgingly concede that point.

[Firestorm Killa]

Do you believe everything you read? There is more mercury in one of those old mercury fillings for your teeth than there are in those CFL light bulbs, there is more mercury in a thermometer as well. Hell, there is even more mercury in a can of tuna fish than there is in those light bulbs, am I required by law to call a hazmat team if I drop some tuna fish on the ground?

Read the bills that bush passed as president and the regulations that followed. In fact read the damn light bulb which it tells you it is against the law to dispose of those light bulbs with normal trash. And btw you do know they took mercury out of fillings years ago right?

[EasternBrand]

That needed to be resolved quickly.. and thankfully they got it right.

This has been done to death, but suffice it to say that agreeing with the result doesn't mean you have to agree with the rationale or the process. Yes, it did need to be resolved quickly, in contrast with deliberations over a law whose challenged provisions are still 2 years away from kicking in. We may disagree over the necessity of the Supreme Court stepping in on what was essentially a matter of state law construction. I think we both agree, however, that the wisest thing is to let the healthcare cases take their normal course to the high court.

In any event, the lasting implication of Bush v. Gore for the Court is that they are going to be extremely careful not to hurry a case that doesn't need to be hurried. Whether you like the result or not, that case cost them an enormous amount of institutional capital. That the Court would rather put that case behind them is evident in the fact that even the majority said the case was not precedential, and that it has not been cited in a majority opinion since it was issued. I wouldn't look for the Court to go jurisdiction-grabbing again anytime soon without VERY good reason, and this just isn't it.

[Tgo01]

Read the bills that bush passed as president and the regulations that followed. In fact read the damn light bulb which it tells you it is against the law to dispose of those light bulbs with normal trash. And btw you do know they took mercury out of fillings years ago right?

Since you're the one making the case would you mind linking the bill/law that states if you break a CFL bulb you are required to call a hazmat team to clean up the mess?

Also there is a world of difference between disposing of the light bulbs in the normal trash and requiring a hazmat team to come out to clean up a broken light bulb. I have bought several of those CFL bulbs, I don't recall any of the packages stating it is against the law to throw them away in the normal trash, I do recall them saying to recycle them if possible.

And yes I know they got rid of those mercury fillings years ago but it's the point that many people had those fillings put in and I've never heard of a story of a link between the mercury and any sort of poisoning/cancer as a result, yet CFL light bulbs, which have a fraction of the mercury in those fillings, is so dangerous we require trained professionals in full radiation garb to clean up a broken light bulb.

[Firestorm Killa]

Since you're the one making the case would you mind linking the bill/law that states if you break a CFL bulb you are required to call a hazmat team to clean up the mess?

Also there is a world of difference between disposing of the light bulbs in the normal trash and requiring a hazmat team to come out to clean up a broken light bulb. I have bought several of those CFL bulbs, I don't recall any of the packages stating it is against the law to throw them away in the normal trash, I do recall them saying to recycle them if possible.

And yes I know they got rid of those mercury fillings years ago but it's the point that many people had those fillings put in and I've never heard of a story of a link between the mercury and any sort of poisoning/cancer as a result, yet CFL light bulbs, which have a fraction of the mercury in those fillings, is so dangerous we require trained professionals in full radiation garb to clean up a broken light bulb.

Pick up a light bulb when you are the store and read the warning. And referenced laws. There is your link. And go fuck yourself find it yourself I don't care if you believe me or not, you should already know it but oh well your ignorance knows no bounds.

[Tgo01]

Pick up a light bulb when you are the store and read the warning. And referenced laws. There is your link. And go fuck yourself find it yourself I don't care if you believe me or not, you should already know it but oh well your ignorance knows no bounds.

Whoa there killer, my bad for assuming you actually knew of the laws you are claiming to have read and could provide me an easy reference. Guess I can just chalk this up to another Firestorm Killa made up fact.

[Firestorm Killa]

Whoa there killer, my bad for assuming you actually knew of the laws you are claiming to have read and could provide me an easy reference. Guess I can just chalk this up to another Firestorm Killa made up fact.

Seriously it is literally on the light bulb and package dude. Next time your in the store check it out.

[Tgo01]

Seriously it is literally on the light bulb and package dude. Next time your in the store check it out.

It literally says on a package "If you break this bulb please call a hazmat team to clean up the mess"? I mean really? It seriously does say that? Or are you just saying that?

[Firestorm Killa]

It literally says on a package "If you break this bulb please call a hazmat team to clean up the mess"? I mean really? It seriously does say that? Or are you just saying that?

It says refer to local and state laws for disposal and clean up. Some cities and states do require hazmat teams if the bulb is broken, and you are required to dispose of them at special disposal sites.

The whole point I was making though at first was there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats. My guess is the Republicans will be just like the Whig party and vanish to the dust bins of history by 2016 and replaced with a new party that really is conservative.

[waywardgs]

You're also supposed to dispose of paint at special sites. Luckily there's a sewer outside my house for that kind of stuff.

[crb]

Do you believe everything you read? There is more mercury in one of those old mercury fillings for your teeth than there are in those CFL light bulbs, there is more mercury in a thermometer as well. Hell, there is even more mercury in a can of tuna fish than there is in those light bulbs, am I required by law to call a hazmat team if I drop some tuna fish on the ground?

Seriously, I'm no crazy environmentalist, but mercury is dangerous shit.

Mercury is an actual very bad thing that we can actually scientifically prove has actual real effect on actual human beings living today

They don't make mercury thermometers for consumers anymore AFAIK, modern thermostats no longer use them.

The tuna fish point is a bit wrong, considering more cfl bulbs will make the tuna even more dangerous.

The real crime is not that cfl bulbs exist, but that the people who pushed them for years, including the large manufacturers who are making tons of cash off of them, did NOTHING to educate the public on proper disposal.

Personally, I'd like to be able to eat fish in 30 years.

Finally public awareness is growing, and places like Home Depot offer free recycling, these are good things.

Still, the best thing will be when LED bulbs finally get to the point where they put out enough lumens to work for consumers, then we can stop all fluorescent lighting.

If you don't think CFL's are a big deal, drop one on the floor where your baby plays. Go ahead, take us a picture.

[crb]

By the way...

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/products/lighting/cfls/downloads/CFL_Cleanup_and_Disposal.pdf

That is how the government says you should clean up after a broken bulb. Note how they suggest you open windows, keep people out of the area, double bag debris, and then duct tape your entire floor to make sure you pick up every little bit.

A hazmat team is hyperbole, but it doesn't make them safe, especially around kids, and pregnant women.

[crb]

Oh, and environmentally speaking, the amount in a single bulb isn't much, but you have to multiply it by the couple billion that have been made and will probably end up in landfills.

[EasternBrand]

I am somewhat suspicious of the idea of legal issues being "sharpened", but will begrudgingly concede that point.

I win! In your FACE!

Actually, this can be fairly easily illustrated. The core argument is whether or not the mandatory insurance provision violates the Commerce Clause. Assume, for argument's sake, that it does. Does that invalidate the entire structure of the law? Of the two trial courts to have ruled that the provision is unconstitutional, each came to a different conclusion on this point. As you might imagine, the question is nuanced and requires an analysis of the structure of the bill and the role of the stricken provision.

Now the government has to strengthen their argument that, even if the provision is held unconstitutional, the rest of the bill should stand. This is what I mean by sharpening the legal issues, and why a normal ascent through the court system is preferable.

[~Rocktar~]

Also, I figured I would take advantage of some downtime right now to try and break down the court's opinion as basically as I can, hopefully without misconstruing the parties' positions, in case anyone wants to actually have some constructive dialogue (or is just interested). This may be old ground on these boards, but what the hell. The decision essentially comes down to the scope of the Commerce Clause. There is an argument based on the Necessary & Proper Clause that is dismissed because of the ruling that the law fails under Commerce Clause analysis, and an argument based on the taxation power that is dismissed because the court finds that the penalty for failing to purchase insurance is not a tax. Finally, the only portion of the law called unconstitutional is Section 1501, which mandates that people purchase healthcare coverage or else face monetary penalties. The rest of the omnibus bill was kept intact.

Could you not argue the unconstitutionally of this law based on the idea that it imposes a form of slavery on people? It requires you to spend money (trade your labor), provides no recompense (I could argue that transference of risk is not a material good or service unless and until loss is experienced) and provides a criminal penalty for not doing so. So, you must work for someone else with no assured compensation and face criminal prosecution if you don't. Sure sounds like forced labor to me and that is slavery.


The U.S.'s argument: Supreme Court precedent is clear that Congress has the authority to regulate even isolated individual economic activity when, in the aggregate, that activity affects interstate commerce. The principal cases here involve personal cultivation and consumption of wheat and marijuana. The U.S. says that, just like an individual's choice to grow wheat for personal consumption may be regulated by Congress because of the hypothetical cumulative effect on the national market of one million hypothetical people making the same choice, an individual's choice not to purchase healthcare may be regulated because of the hypothetical cumulative effect on the national market. In addition, they use Supreme Court precedent stating that if a complex regulatory program can be considered as a whole a valid exercise of Congressional power, then a challenged provision is valid if that provision is an integral part of the regulatory scheme. Therefore, because Congress may unquestionably regulate the national healthcare market, and the purchase provision is the key to making the rest of the bill work, it's Constitutional.

I would further argue that since insurance is not bought or sold across state lines, then it cannot be considered interstate commerce and therefore beyond the scope of Federal jurisdiction.


Virginia's Argument: Virginia argues that the U.S. stretches the limits of the Commerce Clause too wide. They rely principally on two cases limiting the Clause to economic activity only, and argue that a decision to refrain from purchase is, by definition, not economic activity. They concede that there is probably an aggregate effect on the market of a person choosing not to purchase, but that because the aggregate effects test may only be applied to economic activity, and this is not economic activity, then the aggregate effects do not matter.

I would tend to agree because this concept of the aggregate effect of the choice not to purchase could open a huge can of worms allowing all kinds of other enforced purchasing bills. Imagine the aggregate effect of too many people not buying gasoline or cars or any number of things. This is simply far to broad a definition and expansion as to be considered constitutional.

[Tgo01]

Seriously, I'm no crazy environmentalist, but mercury is dangerous shit.

Yes it is, if you bathe in or ingest large quantities of it.


The tuna fish point is a bit wrong, considering more cfl bulbs will make the tuna even more dangerous.

No the tuna fish point is very much right, there is more mercury in a can of tuna fish than there is in one CFL light bulb.


The real crime is not that cfl bulbs exist, but that the people who pushed them for years, including the large manufacturers who are making tons of cash off of them, did NOTHING to educate the public on proper disposal.

I agree there should have been more education about the proper disposal of them but the 'dangers' of CFL light bulbs is very much over exaggerated.

Yes, CFL light bulbs do have mercury in them. The majority of the electricity produced in this country comes from burning coal, the amount of mercury that gets released into the air from burning coal to power 1 incandescent bulb is actually more mercury than is burned/contained in 1 CFL bulb. Also that mercury is released right into the very air we breath.


If you don't think CFL's are a big deal, drop one on the floor where your baby plays. Go ahead, take us a picture.

CFL's are not a big deal, they even make CFL's now that have a harder shell surrounding the part that contains mercury so even if the part containing mercury gets broken the outer shell still contains the mercury. Saying CFL's are a danger then saying 'break one where your baby plays' is quite the fallacy.


Note how they suggest you open windows, keep people out of the area, double bag debris, and then duct tape your entire floor to make sure you pick up every little bit.

Yes, open windows, keep people out of the area, wear gloves. You should do the same thing if you accidentally spill an entire bottle of bleach on the floor, should we outlaw bleach too?

[TheEschaton]

Could you not argue the unconstitutionally of this law based on the idea that it imposes a form of slavery on people? It requires you to spend money (trade your labor), provides no recompense (I could argue that transference of risk is not a material good or service unless and until loss is experienced) and provides a criminal penalty for not doing so. So, you must work for someone else with no assured compensation and face criminal prosecution if you don't. Sure sounds like forced labor to me and that is slavery.

The federal government can "require" you to pay money to them, where not doing so is against the law. I believe the federal income tax counts as an example...you may never see any benefit from the programs you pay for with your income tax, it's still against the law to not pay it. I never really took Tax in school, but I believe (?), but don't remember fully, that the income tax was also attacked in that way, and failed. In cases like that, I imagine that as long as the government can show a "compelling common good" or something like that, it can't be seen as slavery to require citizens to pay for something, even if in this case it's a tangible good as opposed to a tax for unseen whatever.





I would further argue that since insurance is not bought or sold across state lines, then it cannot be considered interstate commerce and therefore beyond the scope of Federal jurisdiction.



I would tend to agree because this concept of the aggregate effect of the choice not to purchase could open a huge can of worms allowing all kinds of other enforced purchasing bills. Imagine the aggregate effect of too many people not buying gasoline or cars or any number of things. This is simply far to broad a definition and expansion as to be considered constitutional.

I imagine the argument here would be that insurance is a good that travels with people. As long as people are travelling amongst states, the possibility exists that a NY insurance policy has to be executed or enforced in PA, or NJ, or what have you. Furthermore, if a policy covers you for more than one state, it's essentially selling you insurance in all those states, which is why you don't need to purchase new insurance every time you visit New Mexico.

The second argument is kind of novel as far as I know, and all turns on whether the choice to not buy something can be considered activity. It seems hard to argue that it is - a person who chooses not to buy stocks cannot be considering to be in the activity of stock trading. However (and this is just a semantics game that the government might engage in), the choice to actively not participate in an economic activity that is considered pervasive and largely necessary, might be engaging in activity by taking a stance towards it. This is largely a sin of omission/comission argument, imo.

[EasternBrand]

Just finished skimming the opinion (http://documents.nytimes.com/judge-vinsons-ruling). It's on the long side. There's a pretty thorough and even-handed history of Commerce Clause jurisprudence from pp. 20-37, for anyone who is interested in how we got to where we are. It's passably readable.

Brief Summary: Judge Vinson, like Judge Hudson, strikes down the law on Commerce Clause grounds for similar reasons. He holds that activity is a prerequisite to allow federal regulation pursuant to the Clause, and that the individual mandate is not activity. There is no discussion about the tax power like there was in the Virginia ruling, but I haven't looked at the government's brief so I don't know if there was a conscious choice not to make the argument here.

Unlike the Virginia ruling, Judge Vinson strikes down the entire law, not just the mandate. Striking the entire statute is a pretty big deal--there are a lot of provisions in the law that are not constitutionally defective. Judge Vinson likens the Act to a "finely crafted watch," where the individual mandate is the key cog that turns the whole thing. Once that fundamental part is cut out, he says, the rest must go too. Trying to determine which parts are wholly dependent on the individual mandate and which parts are not would get too close to legislative line-drawing, which the courts should refrain from doing.

My Opinion: I'm not convinced by Judge Vinson's ruling on severability. He seems to rely an awful lot on the government's Necessary and Proper Clause argument. To be sure, it's a little strange for the government to say, on the one hand, that the individual mandate is a necessary feature of the statute for purposes of the N&P Clause argument, then turn around and say on the other hand that it is not necessary for purposes of severability. But I think it's too rigidly formalistic to rely too heavily on that connection. They really are two separate arguments. He is unable to divine Congressional intent, but does not refer to the legislative history (it may be that he is in principle opposed to that, but I don't know). He also notes that the name of the Act is the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," so that patient protection and affordable care are "inextricably linked" to the purpose of the Act. Although it's a backstop point, and later used for a rhetorical flourish, I find connecting the name of an Act to its purpose, when conducting a severability analysis, to be somewhat dubious. Names are just names - sometimes they are boring, sometimes they are politically charged. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act tells you nothing about what it does. The Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act is obviously a politically-charged name. In reality, the name thing is a minor point, and it doesn't underpin the analysis, but it bothered me.

Also of note: apparently ~Rocktar~'s argument that insurance is not commercial because it's neither a good nor a service was actually accepted by the Supreme Court in the mid-19th century, but rejected by the Court in the 1940s. Congress then passed an Act to leave insurance regulation to the states.

[Latrinsorm]

If you don't think CFL's are a big deal, drop one on the floor where your baby plays. Go ahead, take us a picture.This is also why it is illegal to own firearms, knives, alcohol, antibacterial soap, aspirin, baby aspirin, fetus aspirin... WHAT IF A BABY GETS AT THEM?!?!?!?!!!!

[Parkbandit]

This has been done to death, but suffice it to say that agreeing with the result doesn't mean you have to agree with the rationale or the process. Yes, it did need to be resolved quickly, in contrast with deliberations over a law whose challenged provisions are still 2 years away from kicking in. We may disagree over the necessity of the Supreme Court stepping in on what was essentially a matter of state law construction. I think we both agree, however, that the wisest thing is to let the healthcare cases take their normal course to the high court.

It wasn't that I agree with the result, but more from the recounts done in Florida by different groups over the years, having the same result: Bush won Florida which means Bush won the election.

I agree though, move Obamacare through the judicial system and to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the makeup of the court will not change between now and then...

[Parkbandit]

You're also supposed to dispose of paint at special sites. Luckily there's a sewer outside my house for that kind of stuff.

You realize they take this stuff for free at your local dump, right?

[crb]

I win! In your FACE!

Actually, this can be fairly easily illustrated. The core argument is whether or not the mandatory insurance provision violates the Commerce Clause. Assume, for argument's sake, that it does. Does that invalidate the entire structure of the law? Of the two trial courts to have ruled that the provision is unconstitutional, each came to a different conclusion on this point. As you might imagine, the question is nuanced and requires an analysis of the structure of the bill and the role of the stricken provision.

Now the government has to strengthen their argument that, even if the provision is held unconstitutional, the rest of the bill should stand. This is what I mean by sharpening the legal issues, and why a normal ascent through the court system is preferable.

AFAIK, to get the bill to pass they purposefully removed severability from any aspect of the law. The people who wrote it. Because they had to have all those buyoffs to get votes, people were concerned their buyoff could be severed out, so the people who wrote the bill removed the ability for any part to be severed off, which is what the judge said.

Furthermore, even if this is not the case, the individual mandate is the foundation the rest of the bill rests on. Without it you don't get enough money to fund everything, and all the insurance reforms (preexisting conditions, etc) would fail. IF you kept the forced acceptance of preexisting conditions but removed the mandate, healthy people would drop coverage, the sick would not. This negative selection would create an insurance death spiral as the sicker risk pool necessitates higher premiums, which causes more healthy people to drop coverage, which makes a sicker risk pool, spiral spiral spiral down until all insurers went bankrupt.

So either way, the law is screwed.

[crb]

Yes it is, if you bathe in or ingest large quantities of it.



No the tuna fish point is very much right, there is more mercury in a can of tuna fish than there is in one CFL light bulb.



I agree there should have been more education about the proper disposal of them but the 'dangers' of CFL light bulbs is very much over exaggerated.

Yes, CFL light bulbs do have mercury in them. The majority of the electricity produced in this country comes from burning coal, the amount of mercury that gets released into the air from burning coal to power 1 incandescent bulb is actually more mercury than is burned/contained in 1 CFL bulb. Also that mercury is released right into the very air we breath.



CFL's are not a big deal, they even make CFL's now that have a harder shell surrounding the part that contains mercury so even if the part containing mercury gets broken the outer shell still contains the mercury. Saying CFL's are a danger then saying 'break one where your baby plays' is quite the fallacy.



Yes, open windows, keep people out of the area, wear gloves. You should do the same thing if you accidentally spill an entire bottle of bleach on the floor, should we outlaw bleach too?

I don't think we should outlaw bleach, or CFLs. I think the people who pushed them on us were irresponsible and short sighted.
Oh, and the big difference is, everyone knows bleach is dangerous. Many people don't know CFLs are. A couple years ago GE sponsored this big push for CFLs on EarthDay, and had tons of media parroting for them. Not a single story I saw (national cable news, local news, local newspaper) mentioned that you should recycle them, or be careful when they break. Not even 10 seconds of airtime and it was the lead story of the day, it was one of those stores that they covered from multiple angles with multiple reporters, and not a mention. That was irresponsible.
I knew you'd bring up the coal argument, but it runs on the assumption that...

1. Your electricity is from coal, it is true for many, but not all.

2. The coal plant does not have antipollution measures in place to limit mercury today (they didn't in the past, which allowed mercury to build up in the environment), but regulations have been increased

3. That the incandescent bulb is used frequently. What if it is a light you rarely turn on?

4. That other alternatives, such as LEDs, do not exist.


What is wrong is certain states... like say California, banning incandescents.

[Atlanteax]

Our whole legal system is based on being a waste of time and money.

Thereby the American Bar Association profits by maintaining this as the status quo and ferociously resisting any reform to the legal system, whether it is litigation-based or streamlining the processes involved.

[crb]

Thereby the American Bar Association profits by maintaining this as the status quo and ferociously resisting any reform to the legal system, whether it is litigation-based or streamlining the processes involved.

:beer:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking

[Tgo01]

3. That the incandescent bulb is used frequently. What if it is a light you rarely turn on?

Doesn't matter how often it's on, it still produces more mercury than it does to light a CFL bulb.


4. That other alternatives, such as LEDs, do not exist.

As of now (at least the last I knew) LEDs are only used for certain things, like flood lights and accent lighting because they can't produce the same type of lighting that a regular bulb and a CFL bulb can. So for lighting up a room they just don't work.


What is wrong is certain states... like say California, banning incandescents.

Doesn't really matter seeing as how most incandescent bulbs are being phased out in the entire country.

[pabstblueribbon]

Doesn't matter how often it's on, it still produces more mercury than it does to light a CFL bulb.



As of now (at least the last I knew) LEDs are only used for certain things, like flood lights and accent lighting because they can't produce the same type of lighting that a regular bulb and a CFL bulb can. So for lighting up a room they just don't work.



Doesn't really matter seeing as how most incandescent bulbs are being phased out in the entire country.

I remember reading a /. article about the last US based incandescent manufacturing plant closing down recently.

[EasternBrand]

AFAIK, to get the bill to pass they purposefully removed severability from any aspect of the law. The people who wrote it. Because they had to have all those buyoffs to get votes, people were concerned their buyoff could be severed out, so the people who wrote the bill removed the ability for any part to be severed off, which is what the judge said.

Furthermore, even if this is not the case, the individual mandate is the foundation the rest of the bill rests on. Without it you don't get enough money to fund everything, and all the insurance reforms (preexisting conditions, etc) would fail. IF you kept the forced acceptance of preexisting conditions but removed the mandate, healthy people would drop coverage, the sick would not. This negative selection would create an insurance death spiral as the sicker risk pool necessitates higher premiums, which causes more healthy people to drop coverage, which makes a sicker risk pool, spiral spiral spiral down until all insurers went bankrupt.

So either way, the law is screwed.

Regarding the severability clause, you're right that it's not there. The judge addresses this by noting that the lack of a severability doesn't create a presumption that certain provisions are not severable, but then pretty much goes and analyzes it as if it does create that presumption. I don't know anything about Vinson, but if he's a conservative jurist with a disdain for legislative history, and if your analysis of the situation (that is, the horse-trading of provisions for votes) is correct, then the analysis strikes me as rather troublesome. He would not consider the legislative history--which at least is a written record of the happenings in Congress--but would consider the behind-the-scenes politics. That's a far less accurate tool with which to divine Congressional intent, and accuracy is the center of the debate over the use of legislative history in the first place.

Your second paragraph is more to the point, but the opinion seemed quite vague to me. It was almost like the judge was saying, "in one section the government claims the mandate is necessary, therefore it is so necessary that it can't be cleanly severed." I don't think his analysis was as clear or thorough as it could have been. Honestly, yours is clearer.

[Parkbandit]

As of now (at least the last I knew) LEDs are only used for certain things, like flood lights and accent lighting because they can't produce the same type of lighting that a regular bulb and a CFL bulb can. So for lighting up a room they just don't work.



I don't want to get in between your pissing match, but this is false. LED lights are available for all applications. I have my entire pool area lit up by them and plan to replace my halogen landscaping lights with them this summer.

Some household bulbs are also available:

http://chinaledsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/rgblgb-e27-5-350lm.jpg

http://www.oursbiz.com/Products/b/196/LED-Spot-Light-LED-Lighting-Bulb-PAR38-12-1W-E27-1Wx12-W--22720.jpg

http://buildaroo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Sylvania-LED-light-bulb.jpg

[g++]

Im usually prepared for the idea that the title and what is actually discussed in the thread will have nothing to do with each other but I have to say I was kind of suprised to see the "Federal Judge Rules Obamacare mandate Unconstitutional. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1230838#post1230838) " thread had turned into a debate about light fixtures.

[Keller]

Thereby the American Bar Association profits by maintaining this as the status quo and ferociously resisting any reform to the legal system, whether it is litigation-based or streamlining the processes involved.

What types of reform are you referring to?

[pabstblueribbon]

Im usually prepared for the idea that the title and what is actually discussed in the thread will have nothing to do with each other but I have to say I was kind of suprised to see the "Federal Judge Rules Obamacare mandate Unconstitutional. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?p=1230838#post1230838) " thread had turned into a debate about light fixtures.

Firestorm Killa explains it.

[Rinualdo]

Firestorm Killa explains it.

This.

[Cephalopod]

Just wait until the Egypt thread turns into a thread about window treatments.

[Gan]

LED lights rock.

I like them because of the little to no heat source.

[~Rocktar~]

It wasn't that I agree with the result, but more from the recounts done in Florida by different groups over the years, having the same result: Bush won Florida which means Bush won the election.

I agree though, move Obamacare through the judicial system and to the Supreme Court. Hopefully, the makeup of the court will not change between now and then...

What I find interesting about the Bush/Gore case is that a few years ago, the woman who was in charge of the election commission in the county in question was found guilty of vote fixing and election fraud in favor of getting Liberal/Democrat Party candidates elected. I don't know of any count done by anyone other than her and her crew that put Gore ahead so really, in the historical perspective, the issue is dead and done and likely a case of more of her tampering.

[Tgo01]

I don't want to get in between your pissing match, but this is false. LED lights are available for all applications. I have my entire pool area lit up by them and plan to replace my halogen landscaping lights with them this summer.

I don't keep up to date on this much but again last I heard those types of led lights were expensive and the cost savings versus a cfl bulb weren't worth the cost.

But by all means if someone can afford the upfront costs and the mercury bothers them then led lights are the way to go. If not cfl bulbs are a much better alternative than incandescent.

[~Rocktar~]

I don't keep up to date on this much but again last I heard those types of led lights were expensive and the cost savings versus a cfl bulb weren't worth the cost.

But by all means if someone can afford the upfront costs and the mercury bothers them then led lights are the way to go. If not cfl bulbs are a much better alternative than incandescent.

Initially the cost savings of CFL bulbs made them marginal as well. With the rise in energy costs and the coming skyrocket in energy costs from Crap and Raid going through as well as the ramp up of production, they will become much more attractive, just as CFL bulbs have.

[Warriorbird]

I don't want to get in between your pissing match, but this is false. LED lights are available for all applications. I have my entire pool area lit up by them and plan to replace my halogen landscaping lights with them this summer.

Some household bulbs are also available:

http://chinaledsystem.com/wp-content/uploads/rgblgb-e27-5-350lm.jpg

http://www.oursbiz.com/Products/b/196/LED-Spot-Light-LED-Lighting-Bulb-PAR38-12-1W-E27-1Wx12-W--22720.jpg

http://buildaroo.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Sylvania-LED-light-bulb.jpg

One of those issues I totally agree with PB on. They're great.

[crb]

Please point me to where I can buy a standard household LED bulb that produces more than 1000 lumens.

The only ones I've seen in stores do like 400 lumens, which is about what a 40 watt can do. Not too great.

I'm not even arguing here, please, give me a link, because I have been looking for good led bulbs for a long time. I want something that can replace a 100 -150 watt incandescent and is dimmable.

[Warriorbird]

Please point me to where I can buy a standard household LED bulb that produces more than 1000 lumens.

The only ones I've seen in stores do like 400 lumens, which is about what a 40 watt can do. Not too great.

I'm not even arguing here, please, give me a link, because I have been looking for good led bulbs for a long time. I want something that can replace a 100 -150 watt incandescent and is dimmable.

http://trinorthlighting.com/Store/index.php?main_page=product_info&products_id=11229&zenid=cb8ea3be6d2c67ce07294f873e84640b

Not the ones they have, but the ones I use are 1000.

[pabstblueribbon]

70 bucks.. fuck me in the goat ass.

50,000 hours.. hows that compare to CFL or regular incandescent?

[~Rocktar~]

About 1000 hours for standard incandescent and 5000 hours for average CFL

[pabstblueribbon]

About 1000 hours for standard incandescent and 5000 hours for average CFL

Not so bad then. Needing a fan scares me though. Is the bearing that runs that fan guaranteed for 50,000 hours?

If the bearing fails, the fan stops blowing and the light overheats.

[Tgo01]

70 bucks.. fuck me in the goat ass.

50,000 hours.. hows that compare to CFL or regular incandescent?

This is what I was getting at earlier. CFL's cost around 2-3 dollars now, are 60-80% more efficient than standard incandescent and can last up to 15,000 hours. LED's on the other hand do indeed last up to 50,000 hours and are 90% or more efficient than incandescent bulbs, the major drawback is of course the price, but they also do not contain mercury. Also LED's have a half life which means they get dimmer the more they are used, this starts at around 10,000 hours I believe. Although honestly if you're using a light for 4-5 hours a day you'll probably never even notice the difference, it's when you start using a light bulb 12 or more hours a day you'll run into this problem with LED's.

[Parkbandit]

Dem senator asks to fast-track healthcare lawsuits to Supreme Court


A Democratic senator is asking his colleagues to back a resolution calling for the Supreme Court to decide quickly on the constitutionality of the healthcare reform act.

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) is raising the resolution after a federal judge in his home state ruled on Monday that the entire reform law is unconstitutional. Another judge struck down the law’s requirement for individuals to purchase health insurance, while two judges have upheld the individual mandate.

With those cases now headed for appellate court, Nelson wants the Supreme Court to "immediately" decide on the reform law.

“The vote to repeal healthcare is largely symbolic because the Supreme Court is going to have to be the one to decide this matter,” Nelson said. “We ought to do the right thing and ask the high court to rule quickly so we don’t keep arguing over this for the next several years.”

In light of the separate rulings, there has been confusion about whether implementation should continue until the Supreme Court decides on the competing court challenges. Some states on the 26-state lawsuit in Florida have said they will halt implementation efforts in light of the most recent ruling.

Leading Republican lawmakers have been calling for an expedited Supreme Court hearing, but the Obama administration so far has seemed content to let the legal challenges play out through the appeals process. If the healthcare lawsuits aren’t fast-tracked, the Supreme Court likely wouldn’t decide on the reform law’s constitutionality until 2012 or later.

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/health-reform-implementation/141789-dem-senator-asks-to-fast-track-healthcare-lawsuits-to-supreme-court

I'm shocked that Bill Nelson is pushing this.. but if it passes, this is good news for both sides of the debate. Let SCOTUS rule on it's constitutionality and let the chips fall where they may. I'll be surprised if SCOTUS rules against Obamacare and the entire law is ruled unconstitutional to be honest.. even with the current court makeup.

[Cephalopod]

I'm shocked that Bill Nelson is pushing this.. but if it passes, this is good news for both sides of the debate. Let SCOTUS rule on it's constitutionality and let the chips fall where they may. I'll be surprised if SCOTUS rules against Obamacare and the entire law is ruled unconstitutional to be honest.. even with the current court makeup.

I agree. I think it's in everyone's best interests to get this ruling overwith, otherwise if we wind up waiting two years for this to hit SCOTUS and they strike down part or all of it, there's going to be an expensive 'unwinding'.

[Gan]

I question the effacacy of the resolution. Can SCOTUS be compelled by a congressional resolution to hear a case?

I bet SCOTUS will take it's own sweet time and let the case follow it's due course before they decide what they will do.

[Cephalopod]

I question the effacacy of the resolution. Can SCOTUS be compelled by a congressional resolution to hear a case?


While I want this to move fast, I agree with this sentiment, too: SCOTUS should not be compelled by a congressional resolution to hear a case.

[EasternBrand]

I question the effacacy of the resolution. Can SCOTUS be compelled by a congressional resolution to hear a case?

I bet SCOTUS will take it's own sweet time and let the case follow it's due course before they decide what they will do.

This is a really good separation of powers question. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure, but probably. Congress can mess with the path of particular issues. For instance, it used to be (it may still be, but I'm not sure) that certain cases brought under the Voting Rights Act were brought before 3 judge panels, with two trial-level judges and one appellate-level judge on the panel. The case could then be appealed to the Supreme Court, which as I recall had no disrection for a while over whether or not to take it.

Constitutionally speaking, given Congress's general authority over the federal courts' jurisdiction, and given that SCOTUS could just reach down and take the case if it wanted to (although, as I explained earlier, is virtually certain not to happen for practical reasons of institutional capital), I think a Congressional resolution could compel the Court to hear a specific case over which it otherwise could have jurisdiction.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

This thread is now about balls.

Disco balls.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_mXWnIY7DgRE/TPUb4-hBN3I/AAAAAAAABCY/jOIyX_0Kc1Q/s1600/disco-ball.jpg

[Stanley Burrell]

http://www.ehow.com/how-does_4574262_disco-ball-work.html

[Ryvicke]

http://www.funnykittensite.com/pictures/A_Cute_Kitten_Ball.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://idav.ucdavis.edu/~okreylos/ResDev/NanoTech/Buckyball.png

[Cephalopod]

http://upgrademywardrobe.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/lady-gaga-disco-ball.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://blogs.dailyrecord.com/warpedculture/files/2009/07/AngusGilletteCrop-1024x963.jpg

[Ryvicke]

It was revealed in the recent "Oral History of Ayn Rand" by Scott McConnell (founder of the media department at the Ayn Rand Institute) that in the end Ayn (relied on socialism) as well. An interview with Evva Pryor, a social worker and consultant to Miss Rand's law firm of Ernst, Cane, Gitlin and Winick verified that on Miss Rand's behalf she secured Rand's Social Security and Medicare payments which Ayn received under the name of Ann O'Connor (her name through husband Frank O'Connor)

Did you by any chance read the biography written a few years ago, Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne C. Heller? Really fucking fantastic look at her life and the Ayn Rand Institute and all her followers. It doesn't really take sides, but if you're putting that in your sig you would absolutely LOVE that book.

[Warriorbird]

Did you by any chance read the biography written a few years ago, Ayn Rand and the World She Made, by Anne C. Heller? Really fucking fantastic look at her life and the Ayn Rand Institute and all her followers. It doesn't really take sides, but if you're putting that in your sig you would absolutely LOVE that book.

I think it was excerpted in one of my classes. Some quality biographies of her out there.

[Parkbandit]

http://img.perthstreetbikes.com/img/8/9/3/van_news.jpg

[Ryvicke]

I think it was excerpted in one of my classes. Some quality biographies of her out there.

BUT THIS ONE IS THE BEST WHY DO YOU THINK I'M MAKING POSTS ABOUT IT. READ IT.

[Warriorbird]

BUT THIS ONE IS THE BEST WHY DO YOU THINK I'M MAKING POSTS ABOUT IT. READ IT.

Ha ha ha. On my list now.

[Warriorbird]

http://img.perthstreetbikes.com/img/8/9/3/van_news.jpg

http://ninecooks.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/06/30/balsamic1.jpg

[Cephalopod]

Obama Administration Scores Legal Victory On Health Care (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/03/obama-health-care-legal-victory_n_818428.html)

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration won a victory Thursday in the winding legal debate surrounding the president's signature health care law, as a federal judge in Mississippi threw out a suit challenging the constitutionality of the bill.

The judge, Keith Starret, who serves on the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, ruled that plaintiffs suing over the coming implementation of the individual mandate did not demonstrate sufficient standing for him to take the case. He "granted in part" the administrations motion to dismiss the case, but gave the plaintiffs 30 days to amend their complaint.

"The Court finds that the allegations of Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition, as stated therein, are insufficient to show that they have standing to challenge the minimum essential coverage provision of the PPACA [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act]. Therefore, the Court dismisses Plaintiffs' First Amended Petition without prejudice."

The ruling is welcome news for the president, who earlier this week suffered a legal setback when a federal judge in Florida called the individual mandate unconstitutional and ruled that as such, the entire health care law was void.

Starret didn't weigh into the legal debate surrounding Congress' ability to force individuals to buy health insurance. Rather, he determined that those filing suit had failed to fully demonstrate that their constitutional rights were being violated.

...

It wasn't a complete victory for the president's legal team. Starret seemed to dismiss the argument that a legal debate over whether the individual mandate violated constitutional rights had to be put off until the provision was actually implemented. (The defense argued that it was impossible to determine how the law would impact the plaintiffs until then).

"The Court is not persuaded by this argument for the same reasons stated by the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida," he wrote.

But, he added, in moving towards dismissal, that the principle worked both ways. "If the Court may not imagine circumstances that would deprive a plaintiff of standing, it likewise may not imagine circumstances that would confer standing upon a plaintiff."


Not quite a full-out 'win', so maybe we'll call it "2.5 v 2".

[Rinualdo]

Interesting tak (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41424402/ns/politics-more_politics/)e on the Constitutionality by some noted lawyers and teachers.

[EasternBrand]

Not quite a full-out 'win', so maybe we'll call it "2.5 v 2".

The judge dismissed the case on standing grounds, which says absolutely nothing about the merits of the case. I'm not even sure you can call it half a win, it just means that these particular plaintiffs can't even bring this case for some reason particular to their circumstances.

[Cephalopod]

The judge dismissed the case on standing grounds, which says absolutely nothing about the merits of the case. I'm not even sure you can call it half a win, it just means that these particular plaintiffs can't even bring this case for some reason particular to their circumstances.

Well, poop on you.

[EasternBrand]

Well, poop on you.

Duly noted. To be more specific after a brief skim, the plaintiffs were all private persons. The crux of any standing argument is that the plaintiff must allege that an invasion of a legally protected right is actual or imminent. The court held that these individuals did not allege facts sufficient to prove that an injury was imminent. Sure, they could be forced to buy coverage or face the tax penalty, but between now and 2014 they could also become eligible for Medicare or Medicaid, or take a job that provides healthcare, or otherwise be subject to a way out of the requirement.

[Parkbandit]

So, we're still at 2-2.

[EasternBrand]

Pretty much.

[Parkbandit]

Pretty much.


Not quite a full-out 'win', so maybe we'll call it "2.5 v 2".

http://www.failfunnies.com/images/gif/spray-fail.gif

[Rinualdo]

Alaska Governor refuses (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41651066/ns/politics-more_politics/) to enact heathcare law.

Another example of the confusion created by multiple federal court rulings and why this needs to be fast-tracked to the SCOTUS for a clear and precise ruling.

[Showal]

I miss Firestorm killa.

[Parkbandit]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - An appeals court ruled Friday that President Barack Obama's healthcare law requiring Americans to buy healthcare insurance or face a penalty was unconstitutional, a blow to the White House.
The Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also ruled that the rest of the wide-ranging law could remain in effect.
The legality of the so-called individual mandate, a cornerstone of the 2010 healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the Supreme Court. The Obama administration has defended the provision as constitutional.
The case stems from a challenge by 26 U.S. states which had argued the individual mandate, set to go into effect in 2014, was unconstitutional because Congress could not force Americans to buy health insurance or face the prospect of a penalty.
"This economic mandate represents a wholly novel and potentially unbounded assertion of congressional authority: the ability to compel Americans to purchase an expensive health insurance product they have elected not to buy, and to make them re-purchase that insurance product every month for their entire lives," a divided three-judge panel said.
Obama and his administration had pressed for the law to help halt the steep increases in healthcare costs and expand insurance coverage to the more than 30 million Americans who are without it.
It argued that the requirement was legal under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion.
The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.
Many other provisions of the healthcare law are already being implemented.
The decision contrasts with one by the U.S. Appeals Court for the 6th Circuit, based in Cincinnati, which had upheld the individual mandate as constitutional. That case has already been appealed to the Supreme Court.
The Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond, has yet to rule on a separate challenge by the state of Virginia.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/appeals-court-rules-against-obama-healthcare-law-171829777.html

Send it to SCOTUS already.. let's kill this shit before 2013.

[Tsa`ah]

Send it to SCOTUS already.. let's kill this shit before 2013.

What makes you think SCOTUS will kill it?

[Tgo01]

What makes you think SCOTUS will kill it?

Pretty sure he means kill the circus of sending this case to various courts just to have each one arrive at a different conclusion.

Then again that's just the way I feel so maybe I'm projecting.

[Parkbandit]

Pretty sure he means kill the circus of sending this case to various courts just to have each one arrive at a different conclusion.

Then again that's just the way I feel so maybe I'm projecting.

Both, actually. It's all for nothing until it get to the SCOTUS and there, hopefully, it will be deemed unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is slightly leaning to the right.. and with Kagan recusing herself, it should be a good time to put this terrible legislation to bed before it has more opportunity to fuck up the economy.

[Tsa`ah]

Both, actually. It's all for nothing until it get to the SCOTUS and there, hopefully, it will be deemed unconstitutional. The SCOTUS is slightly leaning to the right.. and with Kagan recusing herself, it should be a good time to put this terrible legislation to bed before it has more opportunity to fuck up the economy.

I don't recall Kagan making such a statement ... never mind that Scalia, despite being blatantly partisan in his decisions, would seem to be THE decision that matters in this case. And from his past decisions in reference to interstate commerce ... I would worry if I were you. I'll just bite my nails.

Then again I fail to see how said legislation is fucking anything up in the economy.

[TheEschaton]

A law passed by Congress doesn't have to be "fucking anything up" to fail the constitutionality test of the Interstate Commerce clause.

[~Rocktar~]

Kagan worked for the Pres while this piece of shit was written. As an adviser to one of the primary drivers of the legislation, she better recuse herself or nothing she ever does will be of any value again. Alternately, she might get impeached for being a dumbass.



Then again I fail to see how said legislation is fucking anything up in the economy.

So, you don't think that the complex and unclear regulations, unknown costs and over all lack of confidence in this legislation adds to the general economic malaise and a climate of business insecurity?

[Tsa`ah]

Kagan worked for the Pres while this piece of shit was written. As an adviser to one of the primary drivers of the legislation, she better recuse herself or nothing she ever does will be of any value again. Alternately, she might get impeached for being a dumbass.

Somehow I don't believe that Kagan really cares what conservatives think of her ... nor do I think the demands from conservatives that she recuse herself from this inevitable case taken all that seriously ... nor do I think the threat of impeachment is taken seriously. After all, Thomas is still a SCOTUS justice.

The only way conservatives know that this legislation, or more specifically the mandate it contains, goes down is if Kagan recuses herself (which I do not see happening since she worked with the administration and not congress) ... why are they adamant that she does ... because they have no idea which way Scalia will go.


So, you don't think that the complex and unclear regulations, unknown costs and over all lack of confidence in this legislation adds to the general economic malaise and a climate of business insecurity?

I think you should probably be specific ... which should be entertaining.

[Parkbandit]

I don't recall Kagan making such a statement ... never mind that Scalia, despite being blatantly partisan in his decisions, would seem to be THE decision that matters in this case.

Kagan worked on the legislation, so she would be forced to recuse herself. And I have no idea what your rant about Scalia has to do with this.. but rant on.


And from his past decisions in reference to interstate commerce ... I would worry if I were you. I'll just bite my nails.

It won't really affect me.. since my companies are pretty much recession proof and I'll simply pass along the additional expense to my tenants and the municipalities I contract for.



Then again I fail to see how said legislation is fucking anything up in the economy.

You are still of the mindset that this legislation will be budget neutral? What's it like to be that fucking blissfully ignorant?

[Tsa`ah]

Kagan worked on the legislation, so she would be forced to recuse herself. And I have no idea what your rant about Scalia has to do with this.. but rant on.

Please source the law that forces a sitting judge to recuse theirself from cases and explain how Thomas was able to skirt this law.

If you don't know what Scalia has to do with this ... you should probably do some reading into his past decisions.


It won't really affect me.. since my companies are pretty much recession proof and I'll simply pass along the additional expense to my tenants and the municipalities I contract for.

Unless you're in the perishable markets ... there's no such thing. That and passing along costs will only get you so far and then customers and contracts will go elsewhere. But this statement by you is a facepalm and irrelevant.


You are still of the mindset that this legislation will be budget neutral? What's it like to be that fucking blissfully ignorant?

You tell me ... you keep talking out of your ass and proving that it would probably be better if you actually read something informative before you formed an opinion or at the very least splattered the forums with ignorant bullshit.

[Parkbandit]

Please source the law that forces a sitting judge to recuse theirself from cases and explain how Thomas was able to skirt this law.

For someone who is a pseudo-intellectual googlexpert.. it's amazing how lazy you can be.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/05/kagan-should-recuse-herself-as-to-obamacare/

It was the first one... there's 200K more for you to peruse.



Unless you're in the perishable markets ... there's no such thing. That and passing along costs will only get you so far and then customers and contracts will go elsewhere. But this statement by you is a facepalm and irrelevant.

I have a brand new 10 year contract, Shit4Brains.. which has stipulations for cost increases every 2 years. I will pass along all my additional costs to my municipality. But hey.. you keep believing you know what the fuck you are talking about as usual. You are batting 1000 still.



You tell me ... you keep talking out of your ass and proving that it would probably be better if you actually read something informative before you formed an opinion or at the very least splattered the forums with ignorant bullshit.

You realize they will have been collecting taxes and fees for 3 years prior to it's implementation, right? Why is that?

Why do you believe hundreds of companies are requesting waivers from Obamacare? Do you think they simply don't want to save money or something equally stupid?

I would say you should actually read up about it.. but we both know you'll never be able to understand it... so why bother.

[Tsa`ah]

For someone who is a pseudo-intellectual googlexpert.. it's amazing how lazy you can be.


http://legalinsurrection.com/2011/05/kagan-should-recuse-herself-as-to-obamacare/

It was the first one... there's 200K more for you to peruse.

Is your palm grafted to your face? I asked you to provide the law that forces her to recuse herself and explain how Thomas was able to escape said law. I did not ask for a link to someone else's opinion.


I have a brand new 10 year contract, Shit4Brains.. which has stipulations for cost increases every 2 years. I will pass along all my additional costs to my municipality. But hey.. you keep believing you know what the fuck you are talking about as usual. You are batting 1000 still.

And the fail train continues. How is this string of BS relevant?


You realize they will have been collecting taxes and fees for 3 years prior to it's implementation, right? Why is that?

Specifics if you will.


Why do you believe hundreds of companies are requesting waivers from Obamacare? Do you think they simply don't want to save money or something equally stupid?

Greed.


I would say you should actually read up about it.. but we both know you'll never be able to understand it... so why bother.

I've read plenty ... I learned to shift through the BS and BS opinions. You should probably at least to attempt to back up your statements with verifiable facts and not face palm fests.

[Parkbandit]

Is your palm grafted to your face? I asked you to provide the law that forces her to recuse herself and explain how Thomas was able to escape said law. I did not ask for a link to someone else's opinion.

Look it up, Shit4Brains. Do something.



And the fail train continues. How is this string of BS relevant?

It's relevant to your "bite your nails" comment, inferring that I'm somehow nervous from this legislation. I've proven I have zero to fear from it.




Specifics if you will.

Bill passed in 2010... taxes/fees being collected now. Law doesn't go into effect until 2013.

2013 - 2010 = 3 years.

Mathrhard?



Greed.

Riiiiight.




I've tried to read... but never got the hang of it. I learned to ignore anything I didn't understand or disagreed with. By the way, I just learned the term "facepalm" and have used it in most of my posts this evening.

FTFY

[Tsa`ah]

Look it up, Shit4Brains. Do something.

I'm asking you to prove a claim that you made. In any event it is not up to me to prove your statements ... especially when they're wrong.



It's relevant to your "bite your nails" comment, inferring that I'm somehow nervous from this legislation. I've proven I have zero to fear from it.

You responded to the statement with a string of irrelevant BS. No one gives a shit about your businesses or how "recession proof" you believe them to be. It had nothing to do with Scalia's previous decisions regarding the interstate commerce clause ... which is directly brought into question regarding the HRC mandate.


Bill passed in 2010... taxes/fees being collected now. Law doesn't go into effect until 2013.

2013 - 2010 = 3 years.

Taxes have been collected prior to HCR ... so you need to be specific about which taxes.

Not to mention HCR has a schedule of implementation in which certain provisions go into effect. Several of them already are.

The rest of your responses are just a further decent into deflection via ignorance. I'd say it's amusing ... but amusement has has given way to pity.

[TheEschaton]

Tsa`ah, you might be misreading Scalia. He's generally against a broad interpretation of interstate commerce, though his most well-known opinions on the subject are the highly hypocritical (to his past work) opinions on the federal government to regulate growing marijuana even if states have legalized the personal, private growing of it.

In other words, I think Scalia has only ever supported broad "interstate commerce" laws in the case of law enforcement, and even then, not always, ie if you're a woman and the crime is domestic violence (cf U.S. v. Morrison).

In re: the commerce clause enactment of this law, I seem to think it'll be found constitutional. Wickard sets clear precedent that "Congress could regulate an individual act that lacked a substantial effect on interstate commerce if, when aggregated, acts of that sort had the required relation to interstate commerce." As far as I remember, Wickard has yet to be overturned or even broadly addressed except in Lopez, which won't apply to Obamacare. The distinction that conservatives want to make between governing actions and governing inactions is irrelevant and doesn't really have a legal leg to stand on, as deliberate inaction is an action in and of itself. The best part is, Scalia used Wickard to justify his opinions in ruling against California pot growers. It'll be funny when he flips on this issue, but I don't doubt for a second that he'll flip, and write a gorgeous opinion that makes you think it's valid until you pause for 5 minutes to realize how much bullshit it contains.

-TheE-

[Tsa`ah]

Tsa`ah, you might be misreading Scalia. He's generally against a broad interpretation of interstate commerce, though his most well-known opinions on the subject are the highly hypocritical (to his past work) opinions on the federal government to regulate growing marijuana even if states have legalized the personal, private growing of it.

-TheE-

I'm not so much misreading him as reading conservative paranoia about which way he'll go. This is why there is an attempt to pressure Kagan ... conservatives hope Scalia will tow the line, they're not sure that he will. The only way to lock up the scuttling of the HCR mandate is for Kagan to recuse herself (even though there is absolutely no way to force her to do so ... sorry PB).

[TheEschaton]

Oh, and btw, Thomas ruled on Bush v. Gore despite his wife working for the Bush campaign. He never recused himself and that was a much more serious entanglement. A law enacted by Congress has nothing to do with the former White House Counsel, even if the Administration supported the law - that's simply not the scope of the office of the WHC. If she had been the SecJustice, that might even be a different question.

ETA: Sorry, she was Solicitor General for Obama, WHC for Clinton....the SG has even less of a scope to be ethically bound to recuse herself, since the SG doesn't advocate any policy at all, but merely represents the U.S. gov't before SCOTUS when a plaintiff sues the U.S. gov't. Considering the health care law has never been heard before SCOTUS, and thus she never argued it, which would be the first time she saw it, it's hard to say she needs to recuse herself.

[EasternBrand]

Kagan has no ethical need to recuse, as far as I can see; she was certainly never involved in crafting policy, and the only emails I've seen linked in this thread have essentially said, "Let's find someone else to deal." Scalia is not "THE" vote; it is, as always, Kennedy. The individual mandate will be stricken in a case that generations of law students will parse with their professors. Orin Kerr thinks that 6 will affirm it constitutional, but despite being very smart, he is wrong (sorry, Orin). I have been drinking heavily for hours.

PREDICTION MADE. I am off to read A Clash of Kings, good night.

[TheEschaton]

I dunno who Orin's 6 are, but I can easily see Kennedy and Alito flipping to the other side on this issue.

[Thickbeard]

I dunno who Orin's 6 are, but I can easily see Kennedy and Alito flipping to the other side on this issue.

I can't see Alito flipping on this issue.

[TheEschaton]

Who are you, and what do you judge that on? Alito, while generally siding with the conservatives, is constantly narrowing his opinion. When Scalia and Thomas wrote that Roe should be overturned in the abortion case last year, Alito refused to join that opinion, even though the 5 conservatives agreed on the late term abortion limitations.

Alito is constantly narrowing his opinions in such a manner. I don't know that he'll be able to narrow this case though. The government's case is based on pretty strong precedent, and, imo, the plaintiff states are reaching.

Is this guy the new ClydeR?

[Latrinsorm]

As an adviser to one of the primary drivers of the legislation, she better recuse herself or nothing she ever does will be of any value again.I fail to see how Justice Kagan ruling on this matter will impact her sandwich-making ability.

[~Rocktar~]

Somehow I don't believe that Kagan really cares what conservatives think of her ... nor do I think the demands from conservatives that she recuse herself from this inevitable case taken all that seriously ... nor do I think the threat of impeachment is taken seriously. After all, Thomas is still a SCOTUS justice.

Clinton didn't think the threat was serious either.


I think you should probably be specific ... which should be entertaining.

I think you should answer the questions put before you and stop trying to appear more intelligent than my cocker spaniel. It isn't hard, it's a yes or no question, even you can manage that.



I fail to see how Justice Kagan ruling on this matter will impact her sandwich-making ability.


Goddamnit! You are probably right, having seen her, she hasn't missed to many sandwiches in her life, that's for sure.

[Tsa`ah]

Clinton didn't think the threat was serious either.

Is there a fail train the runs in a continuous loop through your neighborhood to PB's and back again?

Last I checked ... Clinton wasn't removed from office. So I don't think Clinton took said impeachment seriously either. That only begs the question ... on what grounds would Kagan be impeached?


I think you should answer the questions put before you and stop trying to appear more intelligent than my cocker spaniel. It isn't hard, it's a yes or no question, even you can manage that.

It's a bullshit question bloated with your own misinformed opinions that are so far removed from reality ... I could answer 42 and the answer would have had a better grounding in some reality than that string of crap you put together.

[~Rocktar~]

Is there a fail train the runs in a continuous loop through your neighborhood to PB's and back again?

Last I checked ... Clinton wasn't removed from office. So I don't think Clinton took said impeachment seriously either. That only begs the question ... on what grounds would Kagan be impeached?

Asked and answered above, please read.



It's a bullshit question bloated with your own misinformed opinions that are so far removed from reality ... I could answer 42 and the answer would have had a better grounding in some reality than that string of crap you put together.

In other words, you can't read it, don't understand it OR simply know the answer is true and you don't want to admit it. Gotcha.

[Tsa`ah]

Is the world you live in lonely?

[~Rocktar~]

Still no answer as usual shit4brains. I expected none and you met my expectation perfectly.

[Tsa`ah]

Still no answer as usual shit4brains. I expected none and you met my expectation perfectly.

You should probably stick to making your own creative insults rather than borrowing them from a guy who has the creativity of stale horse shit and hasn't shown much hope of improving on that in the last 10 or so years.

C'mon ... you're the hypno lactating BDSM garn/gurn/whatever the fuck guy ... surely you can be a little creative.

In any event, you asked a pretty vague question and failed to elaborate ... never mind you based your question on failed talking points that have no factual backing.

The question doesn't deserve any more time than to point that out. Now if you care to ask me about verifiable specifics ... we'll go from there. Until then, lactate on.

[~Rocktar~]

No, I asked a pretty specific question and you refused to answer. then you further discount it in an attempt to justify your refusal to answer followed by personal insults and more discounting statements. Par for the course for you so again, you continue to meet most everyone's expectations of your reply 100%.

I have more HR policies to study for an eval tomorrow so you can continue your mock argument in peace.

Stay useless.

[Parkbandit]

You should probably stick to making your own creative insults rather than borrowing them from a guy who has the creativity of stale horse shit and hasn't shown much hope of improving on that in the last 10 or so years.

This from someone who JUST discovered "in" terms like "QQ" and "Facepalm".

But seriously though, someone translated Tsa`ah into Shit4brains and it seems extremely appropriate given your posting history on this forum. I offer it freely to anyone who wants to use it.

[TheEschaton]

Who are you, and what do you judge that on? Alito, while generally siding with the conservatives, is constantly narrowing his opinion. When Scalia and Thomas wrote that Roe should be overturned in the abortion case last year, Alito refused to join that opinion, even though the 5 conservatives agreed on the late term abortion limitations.

Alito is constantly narrowing his opinions in such a manner. I don't know that he'll be able to narrow this case though. The government's case is based on pretty strong precedent, and, imo, the plaintiff states are reaching.

Is this guy the new ClydeR?

LOL, the neg rep I got to this post was "Fuck off and die you arrogant prick"?

Care to explain what part of the post you have an issue with? Or would like to proffer a rebuttal for?

[Rinualdo]

And two more (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/08/7672480-appeals-court-tosses-out-health-care-lawsuits-in-va) lawsuits tossed out.

[EasternBrand]

And two more (http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/09/08/7672480-appeals-court-tosses-out-health-care-lawsuits-in-va) lawsuits tossed out.

To be clear, both of these cases were dismissed on justiciability grounds. One was dismissed for lack of standing--that is, the plaintiff could not show a particularized harm. The other was dismissed as (and this is just what I gleaned from glancing at the WSJ story for like 2 seconds) a nonjusticiable political question, which is a doctrine that basically states that the courts don't second guess the other two branches when the issue is, at its heart, political and not legal. That's an incredibly simplified explanation of a very complex doctrine, and I may be wrong on the actual grounds for dismissal since I've been too busy to actually look into these.

They never did reach the merits, which is a lawyerly way of saying they never decided its constitutionality. The 6th Circuit is the only appellate court that's upheld it on constitutional grounds. It's still a victory for the administration in the end--a dismissal is a dismissal, after all.

[Cephalopod]

I bet the Cooch is crushed.