User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 171

  1. #101
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    I wouldn't be so certain he nuetralized it.
    He? No, "we." As in we, the democrats. Okay, maybe I used the wrong word... the intent wasn't neutralized, but if we no longer find it offensive, then the intended insult has certainly been successfully neutralized!
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  2. #102
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle View Post
    He? No, "we." As in we, the democrats. Okay, maybe I used the wrong word... the intent wasn't neutralized, but if we no longer find it offensive, then the intended insult has certainly been successfully neutralized!
    What matters is how Independent voters view the term.

  3. #103
    Starcrossed Seafarer Aquarelle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    4w5
    Posts
    3,532

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    What matters is how Independent voters view the term.
    No, what matters is how the Independents view the policy.
    Masquerading as a normal person day after day is exhausting.

    My blog:
    TypeC: Adventures of an Introvert
    Wordpress: http://introvertadventures.wordpress.com/

  4. #104
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquarelle View Post
    No, what matters is how the Independents view the policy.
    While that is certainly more important, its not what we were discussing; 'Obamacare' preserves the (accurate) narrative that the ACA is a hyper-partisan program, instituted without due consideration, and Obama (and the Democratric party) owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

  5. #105
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    While that is certainly more important, its not what we were discussing; 'Obamacare' preserves the (accurate) narrative that the ACA is a hyper-partisan program, instituted without due consideration, and Obama (and the Democratric party) owns it lock, stock, and barrel.
    If the ACA were a hyper-partisan program, it would have been single payer. It was made worse because Obama was foolish and tried to work with republicans.
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

  6. #106
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    1.) We seem to have far different opinions as to what constitutes Constitutional conservatism (I somehow doubt that his opinion is shared by most members of the Federalist Society); Constitutional conservatism is not synonymous with other types of 'conservatism'.
    You're right, we do disagree. I consider the Federalist Society a radical movement that seeks to fundamentally reshape the theoretical underpinnings of American jurisprudence to better reflect the values of the marketplace and capitalism in general. It works to change the core concept of justice in our system from equal treatment of aggrieved parties as a part of due process, to increased regularity of outcomes, predictability in judgments, and the reduction of procedural cost to better suit the desires of business, who would rather the legal system be a cognizable cost of operating, rather than the forum that brings them to account for the harm they inflict upon others.

    Constitutional conservatism is different in that it is more sober and reserved than political conservatism. It favors stare decisis and the canons of constitutional interpretation to public policy concerns, or even concerns based on amorphous concepts such as "liberty" or "general welfare," if their meanings have not already been made concrete in previous case law. It presumes the constitutionality of statutes, unless it involves the expansion of limited Congressional powers, as seen here in the Commerce Clause discussion. At the same time, it maintains due deference and assumes good faith of the political branches, as it is not the constitutional role of the judiciary to make policy determinations. In fact, Constitutional conservatism abhors this concept as a fundamental threat to representative government.

    2.) In what way does inventing the power to tax economic inactivity (You never did provide a precedent for it) vital to the preservation of the 'central public institutions' of the country? In what way did he justify his decision on that basis? How is that decision consistent with his previous opinions? Or is your contention that he was preserving the percieved legitimacy of the Supreme Court as a non-partisan institution (a concern that the media is certain to conveniently ignore whenever the Supreme Court is dominated by 'liberal' jurists), and any excuse to do so constitutes a 'conservative' judicial opinion?
    Well, if you're going to frame it as an unprecedented exercise of Congressional power, then you're never going to find a satisfying answer to that question. On the other hand, if you frame it as an across the board tax increase that is deducted in full upon the purchase of health insurance, it doesn't seem that out of the ordinary at all, and finds plenty of precedent that had been cited in the opinion (which I hope you take the opportunity to read in full). It's consistent with his previous opinions, not in what he ruled, but in how he ruled it. His rationale has always been deference to large institutions, mainly because of their competence and expertise that often far exceeds that which the Court itself can muster up.

    In this case, since it's the IRS that enforces the mandate charge, rather than the criminal justice system, and Congress has not expressed an aim to punish people for wrongdoing in the legislation, it is a tax. Those institutions' roles are what defines the nature of the legislation, and not what Roberts thinks of the statute himself. This is all part of the development of a very broad and influential doctrine known as Legal Process Theory, where institutional roles define how judges decide cases.

    Finally, he almost certainly had the perceived legitimacy of the Court on his mind, because its perceived legitimacy is the Court's only source of power. Congress does not have to write laws that respect the boundaries of the Court's previous decisions, and the executive branch does not have to enforce the judgments the Court makes. The two other branches do so, however, for two reasons: first, because the Supreme Court was provided for in the Constitution, and second, because the Constitution makes it clear that it is the heir to the thousand-year jurisprudential tradition of the English-speaking peoples. Now, I could go into a pages-long dissertation on the nature of the common law and English legal tradition, and how this fundamentally defines much of what we perceive our relationship with the government to be, but few other than complete legal nerds would want to read that.

    The legitimacy of the Court does not come from it being a non-partisan body, but from it being an apolitical body. The public trust comes from the perception that the Court looks solely at what the law is, and what the Constitution is, and not what they would like it to be. Loss of faith in the Supreme Court tends to be contemporary with the biggest crises in US history, from the Taney Court in the lead-up to the Civil War, through the New Deal courts during the Depression, and to the Warren Court of the 1960s (a very "liberal" court that was soundly criticized in many media outlets of the time). Roberts' conservatism here was in the preservation and maintenance of the Court's institutional integrity.

  7. #107
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    You're right, we do disagree. I consider the Federalist Society a radical movement that seeks to fundamentally reshape the theoretical underpinnings of American jurisprudence to better reflect the values of the marketplace and capitalism in general.

    Well, if you're going to frame it as an unprecedented exercise of Congressional power, then you're never going to find a satisfying answer to that question.
    A movement that Roberts joined, thereby implying that he at least adheres to its most basic principles....which is reinforced by his statements regarding the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause.

    That's my point, its qualitatively different and in fundamental conflict with even the most minimalist possible interpretation of Conservative jurisprudence, as defined by the movement he is a card-carrying member of.

    As for the power of percieved legitimacy, I am not convinced even in the slightest that a temporary image problem would result in the other two branches of government ignoring the letter of the law as determined by the Supreme Court. Hell, Republicans considered the Supreme Court as essentially an arm of the progressive wing of the Democratic party for decades without challenging its Constitutional authority.

  8. #108
    Senior Member Eileen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6?
    Posts
    2,191

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lowtech redneck View Post
    While that is certainly more important, its not what we were discussing; 'Obamacare' preserves the (accurate) narrative that the ACA is a hyper-partisan program, instituted without due consideration, and Obama (and the Democratric party) owns it lock, stock, and barrel.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jonnyboy View Post
    If the ACA were a hyper-partisan program, it would have been single payer. It was made worse because Obama was foolish and tried to work with republicans.
    God, seriously. This health care bill sucks because of the compromise and "consensus" that Obama wanted to build around it. Hyper-partisan. Heh. This was the Republicans' idea back in the 90s.
    INFJ

    "I can never be what I ought to be until you are what you ought to be. You can never be what you ought to be until I am what I ought to be. This is the interrelated structure of reality." -Martin Luther King, Jr.

  9. #109
    RETIRED CzeCze's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    MBTI
    GONE
    Posts
    9,051

    Default

    I admit, I am uninformed and out of the loop.

    What I want to know is re: "Obamacare"- how much money will I be forced to pay out of pocket for PRIVATE health care that has yet to be REGULATED enough to warrant being the defacto national health care provider?

    I don't really see how this is different from laws mandating car insurance except in this new scenario EVERYONE has a car. Is it just my crazy 6 wing??? I smell a huge set-up. And what happens when everyone and their mom and kid and great step-niece needs health care, are existing PRIVATE companies even prepared for that onslaught?

    I just imagine nightmare lines and waits with shitty health insurance that you pay too much for.

    How is this different from the mortgage industry. Except, again, now EVERYONE has a mortgage.

    Okay, /end rant/ <---that's how you do it, right?

    Or...is this a topic for another thread?
    “If you want to tell people the truth, make them laugh, otherwise they'll kill you.” ― Oscar Wilde

    "I'm outtie 5000" ― Romulux

    Johari/Nohari

  10. #110
    null Jonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    MBTI
    FREE
    Posts
    2,485
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]

Similar Threads

  1. Should the US move towards universal health care?
    By ajblaise in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 145
    Last Post: 12-30-2009, 04:41 PM
  2. US House + health care bill
    By Usehername in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 165
    Last Post: 11-15-2009, 04:23 PM
  3. Chuck Norris does not Approve of the Health Care Reform.
    By Gewitter27 in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-30-2009, 03:45 PM
  4. SCOTUS affirms Heller decision!
    By Oberon in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-26-2008, 09:40 PM
  5. Single Payor Health Care
    By INTJMom in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 02-24-2008, 09:16 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO