and that's what originalists don't want to accept and English majors know: interpreting law is interpreting literature.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:46 (twelve years ago) link
the most obvious: a person can go her whole life without participating in the broccoli market. a person can never, ever, ever go her whole life without participating in the healthcare market.
― Kiarostami bag (milo z), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:46 (twelve years ago) link
if you go your whole life without participating in the broccoli market you are def participating in the healthcare market
― iatee, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:48 (twelve years ago) link
idk all the experts seem to agree this p much describes the situation
strongly disagree. this law is clearly blazing new territory, a point made several times in the questioning excerpts posted above. if i didn't agree very strongly that "something needs to be done" about the cost of healtcare/health insurance in america, and if i wasn't a die-hard political supporter of the democratic party, i'd probably agree that it should be struck down.
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:49 (twelve years ago) link
i was talking abt what experts think
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:50 (twelve years ago) link
uh have you read stuff that wasn't the questioning excerpts posted above
― iatee, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:50 (twelve years ago) link
The only experts we should pay attention to are the ones we agree with.
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:51 (twelve years ago) link
theres a reason why 85% of experts polled think the law will stand despite the courts strong conservative bias and tendency to behave politically
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:52 (twelve years ago) link
Toobin: the 1% of experts.
― BIG HOOS aka the steendriver, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:56 (twelve years ago) link
well it would be interesting to have them repolled now, since he was in the 85% at the outset
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:57 (twelve years ago) link
Did these experts expect the Court to rule definitively about the entire law?
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:58 (twelve years ago) link
its was specifically re the individual mandate
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:59 (twelve years ago) link
whoah dandy don! where ya been
― the sir edmund hillary of sitting through pauly shore films (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:00 (twelve years ago) link
all of the "expert" opinions I've read are sort of stretched reasoning by analogy one way or the other. I really don't think there's any part of "...to regulate commerce...among the several states" that makes it clear that Congress can or can't require people to buy health insurance. It's a blank slate as far as I'm concerned. I mean if you were to go by the *original intent* (drudge sirens) of the *founding fathers*, Congress couldn't do 90% of what it does under the commerce clause as it is, b/c the point of the commerce clause was to prevent interstate trade problems, not to engender national regulation of all commercial activity. So at this point it's just a question of whether the court decides the reasoning of post-FDR commerce clause jurisprudence should be taken yet another little step further or not, and I think that decision is pretty arbitrary without politics coming into it.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:03 (twelve years ago) link
if you were a conservative justice concerned abt political optics preparing oneself to uphold the individual mandate youd prob want to look tough and skeptical during the oral arguments so as to project that you pondered the whole thing v seriously
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:03 (twelve years ago) link
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, March 27, 2012
"We are under a Constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is" – Charles Evans Hughes
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:04 (twelve years ago) link
whether the court decides the reasoning of post-FDR commerce clause jurisprudence should be taken yet another little step further or not, and I think that decision is pretty arbitrary without politics coming into it.
there's not a way for politics to not come into it, even if we were pretending that they were good little legal philosophers and not political actors
― iatee, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:04 (twelve years ago) link
My legal theory, btw, is that conservatives are really appealing to the Constitution's implied "you can't make me do stuff" clause, but they don't want to admit it.
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:05 (twelve years ago) link
― lag∞n, Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:50 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― iatee, Tuesday, March 27, 2012 11:50 AM (12 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
"experts" aren't unitary, and aren't the easiest group to define for polling purposes
yes, i've read stuff beyond the questioning
the simple fact that the individual mandate federally compels all american citizens to participate in a market in a certain way makes that part of the legislation constitutionally novel - note that i'm not saying anything about whether or not it will be overturned
― Fozzy Osbourne (contenderizer), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:07 (twelve years ago) link
Sotomayor's explanation of how insurance provides care (instead of conflating the two, as we and the media have often done) was lucid.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:08 (twelve years ago) link
Working too much, family, etc. Also, waiting anxiously for threads like this to arrive and wishing Gabbneb would come join the fun or something.
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:09 (twelve years ago) link
gabbneb's been permabanned
― You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:13 (twelve years ago) link
He's on the short list of Obama's high court nominees though.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:14 (twelve years ago) link
seriously?
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:17 (twelve years ago) link
my god Roberts and Alito arguing with Verrilli about the efficacy of offering substance abuse riders, maternity, etc and Stuff Lots of People Won't Use.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:19 (twelve years ago) link
is Nino this out of touch?
GENERAL VERRILLI: Well, that was the point I was trying to make, Justice Kagan, that you're young and healthy one day, but you don't stay that way, and the system works over time. And so, I just don't think it's a fair characterization of it. And it does get back to, I think, a problem I think is important to understand -
JUSTICE SCALIA: These people are not stupid. They're going to buy insurance later. They're young and need the money now.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But that's -
JUSTICE SCALIA: When they think they have a substantial risk of incurring high medical bills, they'll buy insurance, like the rest of us.
GENERAL VERRILLI: But that's -- that's -
JUSTICE SCALIA: I don't know why you think that they're never going to buy it.
GENERAL VERRILLI: That's the problem, Justice Scalia. That's -- and that's exactly the experience that the States had that made the imposition of guaranteed issue and community rating not only be ineffectual but be highly counterproductive.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:22 (twelve years ago) link
yeah I forget why. it was awhile ago.
xp
― You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:22 (twelve years ago) link
Can't we just end this whole charade and give everyone Medicaid/Medicare who wants it?
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:24 (twelve years ago) link
the problem is people only want it when they're sick
― You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:25 (twelve years ago) link
dandy don otm
― i don't believe in zimmerman (Hurting 2), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:25 (twelve years ago) link
Ten or whatever years ago, this would have actually bothered me.
Now I just don't give a fuck anymore.
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:27 (twelve years ago) link
I've listened to three quarters of this thing, and I can't understand Toobin's hysterics. Verrilli did fine. Roberts, to my surprise, agreed with him on a number of points and sounds like he's ready to affirm at least a part of the law; what concerns him, as he also pointed out several times, is the federal government's control over the method of payment.
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:29 (twelve years ago) link
It would be a shock if most of the law wasn't affirmed.
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:32 (twelve years ago) link
when you look at how heavy the media scrutiny is of this case its inevitable that some of them are gonna think they see some crucial piece of info and freak out over it
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:33 (twelve years ago) link
x-post-
Not really.
― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:35 (twelve years ago) link
if it's struck down, Obama will def get a landslide in November
― You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:37 (twelve years ago) link
if its struck down, im not saying that someone should assassinate a justice or two
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:38 (twelve years ago) link
or yknow 5
― Nicholas Pokémon (silby), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:38 (twelve years ago) link
TPM otm;
The snap reactions to today’s Supreme Court arguments about the constitutionality of the health care law’s individual mandate gave reform supporters a collective case of heartburn. The conservative justices seemed broadly hostile to the law’s requirement that everyone carry health insurance. President Obama’s Solicitor General, Donald Verrilli, was widely panned by experienced court watchers for stumbling at key moments. Jeffery Toobin — a seasoned vet of the high court — called it a “train wreck” for the Obama administration.
Here’s some antacid.
Over the first two days of arguments, two of the Court’s five conservative justices have expressed sympathy for key parts of the administration’s arguments. And the administration probably only needs one of their votes to fully uphold the law.
That’s the view of former acting Clinton Solicitor General Walter Dellinger, who sat down with me and a handful of other reporters after watching the arguments. Dellinger tamped down on some initial criticism’s of his successor’s performance before the court. And, crucially, he highlighted an exchange that occurred on Monday — one we broke down here — in which Chief Justice John Roberts appeared to reject the cornerstone of the challenger’s argument.
“Yesterday the Chief Justice said that it doesn’t make much sense to say that the mandate is separate from the penalty or the tax,” Dellinger said. “He seemed yesterday to have accepted the government’s argument that there’s a real choice here. If you don’t want to have health insurance that you can pay the tax penalty.”
― Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:39 (twelve years ago) link
i personally dont believe in assasinating supreme court justices, but if i did and if i had high level sniping skills
― lag∞n, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:40 (twelve years ago) link
If you don’t want to have health insurance that you can pay the tax penalty.”
I need to make a poster from this phrase.
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:44 (twelve years ago) link
Only I think it will say,
"If you don't want to have _____________________ " then you can pay the tax penalty.
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:45 (twelve years ago) link
an abortion
― You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:46 (twelve years ago) link
tacos
long-form TV dramas
― You big bully, why are you hitting that little bully? (Shakey Mo Collier), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:47 (twelve years ago) link
And also,
"If you want to have ________________________ then you can pay the tax penalty"
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:47 (twelve years ago) link
oh wait, I just advocated a lot of excise taxes and they aren't regressive. There I go again.
*progressive*
― dandydonweiner, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 19:48 (twelve years ago) link
I'm going to be hurt by the ACA: I use lower premium catastrophic insurance, ie insurance as it was known before the 1980s when it became low-copay comprehensive coverage. I was somewhat dubious about the mandate's constitutionality, but hopefully an adverse SC outcome will make single-payer or Medicare buy-in the necessary priority (as its been for progressive Dems for decades).
The ACA with the individual mandate struck down would be a disaster for the private health insurers. The big ones (UNH, AET, HUM, WLP, CI) were all down 1.5-2% by noon, but have largely recovered by the close. This suggests the equity market digested the hearings and thinks the likelihood of an adverse SC ruling hasn't changed much.
― I favor steatopygous buttocks and I do not dissimulate. (Sanpaku), Tuesday, 27 March 2012 20:11 (twelve years ago) link
Can't imagine the ACA surviving in any meaningful form without the mandate.
― Matt Armstrong, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 20:14 (twelve years ago) link