Does anyone give a shit about the law anymore? Really? Did you ever?

[CyranoJ]

Going quietly into lurk mode.

DON'T DO IT!

The world needs wetness.

 

[Conager]

Well, there's a case to made for that view, granted. Except that the SCOTUS weighing in unmistakable fashion does arguably discourage further feckless and irresponsible challenges to (and attempts to gut) the law, which do after all cost time and money that could be otherwise spent. That kind of shaping of the landscape of court and legal processes is part of a Supreme Court's purpose and the most basic reason for it to agree to hear cases; and given the amount of time and resources that ACA's opponents are clearly prepared to expend in attempts to sink it, consequences be damned, I would argue against the proposition that its hearing this case or issuing a ruling on it was "gratuitous" in this instance. The "gratuitous" business was already happening and would have continued to clog the court system downriver in absence of a clear signal not to bother.

Feckless and irresponsible? Really?

The case brought was asking that the law be enforced and administered as written and enacted. How is that irresponsible?

If the words of a piece of legislation is fungible to mean whatever an administration wants them to mean, all that has to happen is a hail mary half-measure piece of legislation is tossed up there, signed into law, then the bureaucrats simply do what they want and hang their authority on a law that is nothing but a working title.

 

[CyranoJ]

The case brought was asking that the law be enforced and administered as written and enacted. How is that irresponsible?

Not "as enacted." The case was brought as an attempt to gut the basic support structure of the legislation as enacted* based on a technicality that was clearly irrelevant to the legislation's intent, and that's feckless and irresponsible, yes. Which unfortunately pretty much describes the whole saga of right-wing opposition to the ACA. (There are all sorts of real improvements to be made to that legislation, of course, but this kind of political/legal Calvinball characteristically shows no interest in them. It's partisanship by other means and nothing more, and the SCOTUS was right to see through it.)

* Of course the reality that the legislation was in process of being enacted as intended was precisely and hugely transparently what the challenge was intended to cut off.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

I know this, but there is a distinction, which it is clear you know. They cannot judge on the law based on itself, they are generally solely judging the legal framework of that case as it has been handled so far in courts.

A lot of people don't get this fact. No new evidence. The reality is, they are judging on procedure, not broadly judging on the law except where previous procedure has made that possible, which is not all that common.

Yes. Very good points.

 

[Conager]

Not "as enacted." The case was brought as an attempt to gut the basic support structure of the legislation as enacted* based on a technicality that was clearly irrelevant to the legislation's intent, and that's feckless and irresponsible, yes. Which unfortunately pretty much describes the whole saga of right-wing opposition to the ACA. (There are all sorts of real improvements to be made to that legislation, of course, but this kind of political/legal Calvinball characteristically shows no interest in them. It's partisanship by other means and nothing more, and the SCOTUS was right to see through it.)

* Of course the reality that the legislation was in process of being enacted as intended was precisely and hugely transparently what the challenge was intended to cut off.

You are obviously passionate about this but you are absolutely wrong. The Fed's argument in court, repeated in various outlets that it was some little technicality, some accident of verbiage. It should not have withstood scrutiny. The actual stated intent of the act was to coerce the states into setting up exchanges. It was the carrot. The stick was that the citizens of your state do not get the benefit if your state refuses to play ball.

This is not a technicality. This was a standard federal inducement, no different than if you do not lower your speed limit to 55, you get no Federal highway funds. The feds have no power in any state except as much as the state legislatures allow them in. It always worked in the past. States do not like to turn down 'boatloads of Federal money." The law was written assuming no state would dare refuse it.

The proper remedy for a flawed piece of legislation (whether as you suggest, a mere technicality or not) is an amendment. Not having SCOTUS paper over it. This ruling benefits Republicans in that there is no way they would have stood in the way of those payouts. Something would have been cobbled together, and that would have angered their base.

Roberts is feckless and irresponsible. He is more concerned with how he will be vilified by those outlets that support the administration than jurisprudence. There is no point to going to law school, studying case law, or even owning a copy of Black's Law dictionary, if the actual words of a law can mean something different if the way it is written doesn't "works."

Scalia is 100% right here.

As far as delays in enacting, that is all on the administration. The delays were political calculations and changed the outcome of two election cycles.

 

[Conager]

*I had to look up Calvinball. I know the comic, I thought, but somehow missed that reference. I was wondering sports/ Calvinists? Good reference.

I would maintain, and the lawsuit alleges that it was the administration playing Calvinball.

 

[CyranoJ]

The Fed's argument in court, repeated in various outlets that it was some little technicality, some accident of verbiage. It should not have withstood scrutiny. The actual stated intent of the act was to coerce the states into setting up exchanges.

Nonsense. The actual stated intent was not to "coerce" anyone, it was simply to expect the States to behave sanely and according to precedent. "It always worked before" because there was no rational reason for states to go out of their way to interfere in government attempts to provide services. There still isn't. That the ACA did not anticipate insane scorched-earth partisanship going to this degree is why the "accident of verbiage" became at all relevant, but that's on the insane scorched-earth partisans, not the people who drafted the law.

The proper remedy for a flawed piece of legislation (whether as you suggest, a mere technicality or not) is an amendment. Not having SCOTUS paper over it.

In the case of a normally-functioning Congress, maybe (if the whole circumstance of the argument were not totally absurd in the first place). But pretending that Congress at present is normally-functioning... uh, no. You're in a situation where part of the political establishment has repeatedly and actively tried to break and/or shut down basic government functions in order to prevent the opposition from governing normally, to the point of getting your country's credit rating downgraded. Expecting the SCOTUS to pretend that normal circumstances obtain or have any bearing on this kind of irresponsible bullshit is unrealistic, and is basically asking them to behave like fools. Or partisans. Except they are not in fact obligated to behave like either.

This ruling benefits Republicans in that there is no way they would have stood in the way of those payouts.

You mean in the same way Republicans have never, say, stood in the way of Medicaid expansions?

Laughable. The whole purpose of the gambit was quite obviously to prevent the payouts and kill the law, because all other stratagems for killing it had failed. (The ruling probably does benefit Republicans indirectly in that it discourages the Tea Party faction from any more ACA-related folly, and probably keeps the Party electorally viable for at least one more White House contest in its current form. And I have no doubt that Roberts may well be conscious of that. But that's very much against their will and the obvious intent of this gambit.)

Scalia is a hypocritical bullshitter and partisan hack, and his dissent in this case proves it beyond all doubt if there was any remaining.

 

[Conager]

OK, so for these exceptional circumstances where an opposition party is disinclined to support the proposed policy, we just ignore what the law actually says, how it is written, the actual design features (not bugs) and have SCOTUS "fix" it, given that the party that drafted the law was thrown out of office, largely because of the law and do not wield the power necessary to get their way?

got it.

Probably a very good thing that in the past no party in power ever opposed a piece of legislation enacted by previous congresses.

I am being sarcastic of course. Republicans should either fix or repeal the law and explain in clear terms why their way is better. Democrats shouldn't weasel about and pretend that the flaws in the law are anything but their doing.

 

[CyranoJ]

OK, so for these exceptional circumstances where an opposition party is disinclined to support the proposed policy

Except if you're going to accuse people of weaseling, don't use weasel-phrases and avoidance yourself. It's extremely obvious that the ACA scorched-earth shenanigans go so far beyond being "disinclined to support the proposed policy" as to be in another ZIP code. It's futile and foolish to pretend otherwise or to expect anyone else to do so. So don't do that. Have an honest conversation, at least.

 

[Conager]

Except if you're going to accuse people of weaseling, don't use weasel-phrases and avoidance yourself. It's extremely obvious that the ACA scorched-earth shenanigans go so far beyond being "disinclined to support the proposed policy" as to be in another ZIP code. It's futile and foolish to pretend otherwise or to expect anyone else to do so. So don't do that. Have an honest conversation, at least.

I am referring to the fact that the wrote one thing and twice argued the opposite of what they wrote before SCOTUS (successfully.) Every word of that law was written by Democratic staffers and more to the point, the lobbyists that supported them. Recall that none of the Democrats that voted for this law as written with all of its flaws even pretended to have read it. The corporations that filled their campaign coffers and their Democrat leadership (who also hadn't read it) told them it was a good bill, so they voted for it.

For them to now claim that the words "meant" something different than they actually say is nonsense. They had no idea.

 

[Conager]

Except if you're going to accuse people of weaseling, don't use weasel-phrases and avoidance yourself. It's extremely obvious that the ACA scorched-earth shenanigans go so far beyond being "disinclined to support the proposed policy" as to be in another ZIP code. It's futile and foolish to pretend otherwise or to expect anyone else to do so. So don't do that. Have an honest conversation, at least.

And the "disinclined" part was tongue in cheek. You honestly have no idea of the history of quite inventive obstruction that Democrats have pulled with Republican Administrations? Tip O'Neil ring a bell, at all? Democrats are Lucy with the football, Republicans are the hapless Charlie Brown.

 

[CyranoJ]

We can probably do without the semantic weaselling too, right? I mean, it's fairly obvious as you yourself have pointed out that the law was drafted with precedents in other, similar state-federal cooperative measures in mind. That the legislators didn't expect an absurd legal challenge designed to undermine it based on technicalities of wording which in any other situation would likely have been ignored doesn't mean they were unaware of how the law was intended to function, and pretending otherwise is silliness.

It's not the Dems who are "weaselling" here. It's Scalia. It's an attempt to make excuses for frivolous use of the courts to torpedo legislation because Republicans fundamentally don't believe that anyone other than them should be allowed to govern normally; let's just stow the bullshit and the squirming and the fog of disinformation and fallacy and call it what it is. The SCOTUS followed common-sense and a reasonable, in-context interpretation of the law. Scalia didn't like that because he wanted to use the SCOTUS for advancing partisan objectives as he's done before. Fuck that, and fuck him. I'm glad he lost, and Americans are better off for it.

 

[CyranoJ]

Democrats are Lucy with the football, Republicans are the hapless Charlie Brown.

I do want a gram of whatever you're smoking.

If you don't see the difference between "inventive opposition" and literally shutting down the government over raising the debt ceiling there isn't much I can do for you. Or, you know, show me a Democratic Senate that held more than fifty meaningless symbolic votes to repeal a key piece of legislation when it was already operating. I'll wait.

 

[miles]

I predicted this last week. Obama and everything he does is untouchable. There was no way the SC was going to rule against ACA.

Just another branch of government circling the drain.

 

[Conager]

I do want a gram of whatever you're smoking.

If you don't see the difference between "inventive opposition" and literally shutting down the government over raising the debt ceiling there isn't much I can do for you. Or, you know, show me a Democratic Senate that held more than fifty meaningless symbolic votes to repeal a key piece of legislation when it was already operating. I'll wait.

Yes the Democrats did shut it down didn't they? Oops, did you not realize that there are two sides to an impasse?

Tip O'Neil held up the Regan tax cuts for two whole years despite a recession.

The Charlie Brown reference is famous because the Democrats always promise spending cuts later for concessions their way now, and later has never arrived. Ever.

Just like amnesty now, border security "later." Reagan fell for that one too.

 

[Palamino19]

I find it hard to respect the law when one party has literally based all their elections for the last ten years on frivolous laws that cannot pass the constitutional test.

Marriage acts, evolution bans, now so-called religious freedom acts. All clearly going to go down, all merely a reason to whip up their base at a cost to the American taxpayers.

Then, you looks at what they did focus on actually passing, often with support from the other side. Citizens United(which granted power to entities that are not people, and thus, not citizens), the Patriot Act.

I can understand interest in technical matters, but the system is being log jammed for the benefit of politics, not people.

 

[Conager]

I find it hard to respect the law when one party has literally based all their elections for the last ten years on frivolous laws that cannot pass the constitutional test.

Marriage acts, evolution bans, now so-called religious freedom acts. All clearly going to go down, all merely a reason to whip up their base at a cost to the American taxpayers.

Then, you looks at what they did focus on actually passing, often with support from the other side. Citizens United(which granted power to entities that are not people, and thus, not citizens), the Patriot Act.

I can understand interest in technical matters, but the system is being log jammed for the benefit of politics, not people.

"Citizen's United" was not "passed". It was a SCOTUS decision and it granted no "powers" to anyone. It simply said that how you hold your money has no bearing on whether you can or cannot use your money to influence issues that matter to you. You know...like labor unions are not "people" but the people that make up the leadership of a labor union can use that money as well.

 

[Palamino19]

"Citizen's United" was not "passed". It was a SCOTUS decision and it granted no "powers" to anyone. It simply said that how you hold your money has no bearing on whether you can or cannot use your money to influence issues that matter to you. You know...like labor unions are not "people" but the people that make up the leadership of a labor union can use that money as well.

Why should non-citizens be able to influence our election politics?

Because corporations and unions are not citizens, and if the people in corporations want to, they already could put their own money into politics. This was a favor to powerful interest groups. It's a corrupt practice.

Now, they can use money to pull favors that basically pay that money back, and then some.

 

[Conager]

Why should non-citizens be able to influence our election politics?

Because corporations and unions are not citizens, and if the people in corporations want to, they already could put their own money into politics. This was a favor to powerful interest groups. It's a corrupt practice.

Now, they can use money to pull favors that basically pay that money back, and then some.

Citizen's United was not a ruling that allowed the unions to spend dues to elect Democrats. That was already considered legal. And it isn't "basically pay that money back" it is paid back with interest. Government workers are unionized, and most large cities vote democrat. The person that the union put into office is the person across the table from the union "negotiating" for benefits.

Because Democrats were never going to give up that cash cow of campaign money, and tried to hobble Republicans fund raising efforts that case had to be. Why is the bully pulpit of the guy that owns the media conglomerate any different than the ads bought by any entity to advance their message. They don't get an actual vote and they have a right to shout as loudly as they wish to the voters on any issue or candidate that they wish. voters still have to pull the levers.

The nonsense about corporations having some mega voice was invented by Democrats to squelch distaste for them extracting dues from unwilling union members in non-right to work states for no other purpose but to elect Democrats.

I would like to see candidates required to wear nomex suits with sponger labels on them in the interest of full disclosure...

Like Whack-a-mole in here with the canned talking points. At least no one has said it is the Jews or the 1%ers yet.

 

[Palamino19]

Citizen's United was not a ruling that allowed the unions to spend dues to elect Democrats. That was already considered legal. And it isn't "basically pay that money back" it is paid back with interest. Government workers are unionized, and most large cities vote democrat. The person that the union put into office is the person across the table from the union "negotiating" for benefits.

Because Democrats were never going to give up that cash cow of campaign money, and tried to hobble Republicans fund raising efforts that case had to be. Why is the bully pulpit of the guy that owns the media conglomerate any different than the ads bought by any entity to advance their message. They don't get an actual vote and they have a right to shout as loudly as they wish to the voters on any issue or candidate that they wish. voters still have to pull the levers.

The nonsense about corporations having some mega voice was invented by Democrats to squelch distaste for them extracting dues from unwilling union members in non-right to work states for no other purpose but to elect Democrats.

I would like to see candidates required to wear nomex suits with sponger labels on them in the interest of full disclosure...

Like Whack-a-mole in here with the canned talking points. At least no one has said it is the Jews or the 1%ers yet.

The owners of companies already could spend their own money to make their voice heard. The decision was that the corporation had a voice with a right to be heard, which is BS, and has already led to further corruption.

It's funny how so-called fiscal conservatives think spending on education is throwing money at a problem, but use trebuchets to throw as much money as possible at politicians.

 

[Ishmael]

Well Col. I, like you, am not at all surprised by the decision. Or the convoluted logic used to uphold it.

I am considerably more interested in how the court handles the next case re. 'ShuckNJiveCare' coming it's way. A trap formed of their own devise. Once the court ruled that 'penalties' were in reality 'taxes', the entire Senate originated 'ShuckNJiveCare' Act was in clear violation of the Constitution.

Perhaps the court will rule that it matters not, the law was 'intended' to originate in the House.

Ishmael

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Citizen's United was not a ruling that allowed the unions to spend dues to elect Democrats. That was already considered legal. And it isn't "basically pay that money back" it is paid back with interest. Government workers are unionized, and most large cities vote democrat. The person that the union put into office is the person across the table from the union "negotiating" for benefits.

Because Democrats were never going to give up that cash cow of campaign money, and tried to hobble Republicans fund raising efforts that case had to be. Why is the bully pulpit of the guy that owns the media conglomerate any different than the ads bought by any entity to advance their message. They don't get an actual vote and they have a right to shout as loudly as they wish to the voters on any issue or candidate that they wish. voters still have to pull the levers.

The nonsense about corporations having some mega voice was invented by Democrats to squelch distaste for them extracting dues from unwilling union members in non-right to work states for no other purpose but to elect Democrats.

I would like to see candidates required to wear nomex suits with sponger labels on them in the interest of full disclosure...

Like Whack-a-mole in here with the canned talking points. At least no one has said it is the Jews or the 1%ers yet.

The Citizens United decision enabled the affluent few to overshadow the voices of the many, perpetuating an oligarchy rather than a representative government. Your Media conglomerate owner's "Bully Pulpit".

Money != Speech

“Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results.” - Justice John Stevens

In the Citizen's United decision the court did not find in favor of free speech. The majority found in favor of allowing our government to be bought by the highest bidder rather than influenced by better ideas.

Why should the voice of one person who is able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars be heard over the hundreds of thousands of people who cannot? It shouldn't, unless your aim is to form a government that answers to the rich and powerful few rather than the people being governed.

 

[BoyNextDoor]

Taking a few words in isolation and attaching meaning to them without context when applying the law (any law) is absurd. The whole case was a waste of time and money.

Maybe it is time to have a lawsuit brought where the court can reassess the context of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

 

[Ishmael]

Taking a few words in isolation and attaching meaning to them without context when applying the law (any law) is absurd. The whole case was a waste of time and money.

Maybe it is time to have a lawsuit brought where the court can reassess the context of "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,"

You might want to try diagramming the second amendment. If you do it properly, according to the rules of English, you will find that the sentence protects BOTH the collective (Militia clause) and individual (the people clause) rights from infringement.

Ishmael

 

[Yardley]

The Citizens United decision enabled the affluent few to overshadow the voices of the many, perpetuating an oligarchy rather than a representative government. Your Media conglomerate owner's "Bully Pulpit".

Money != Speech

“Money is property; it is not speech. Speech has the power to inspire volunteers to perform a multitude of tasks on a campaign trail, on a battleground, or even on a football field. Money, meanwhile, has the power to pay hired laborers to perform the same tasks. It does not follow, however, that the First Amendment provides the same measure of protection to the use of money to accomplish such goals as it provides to the use of ideas to achieve the same results.” - Justice John Stevens

In the Citizen's United decision the court did not find in favor of free speech. The majority found in favor of allowing our government to be bought by the highest bidder rather than influenced by better ideas.

Why should the voice of one person who is able to spend hundreds of millions of dollars be heard over the hundreds of thousands of people who cannot? It shouldn't, unless your aim is to form a government that answers to the rich and powerful few rather than the people being governed.

The right to free speech is the right to speak not the right to be heard not to have equal time not to have equal voice not to have an equal audience.

Just because you have the right to free speech doesn't mean that you have the right to free access to Shea Stadium.

You can stand on an apple box and shout anything you like. What you can't do is demand that everyone else only speak from Apple boxes.