Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: Obamacare to Fall
62 views
Skip to first unread message
BillB
Mar 29, 2012, 7:09:43 AM3/29/12
to
I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral
submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...maybe not the details of the legislation, but the answers the
justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.
Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked
Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.
Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!
So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I
won't get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess
it's back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of
coverage. Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans
should be proud. They have denied the black man his singular
achievement. Next time it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this
constitutional mess, but I'm sure another 400,000 will die, at least,
before that ever comes to pass. That's almost like nuking a city. The
Republicans are actually more dangerous than al-Qaeda!
I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the
Republicans for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy
cancelled. Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for
your college kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even
the most mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed
at some point?
That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.
submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
did...maybe not the details of the legislation, but the answers the
justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.
Rule #1: Answer the question asked, not the question you hoped would be
asked
Rule #2: Be clear and succinct.
Rule #3: When they give you the answer to the question, take it!
So, they can't sever this individual mandate, because the rest of the
legislation necessarily stands or falls with it (for many reasons I
won't get into). I'm pretty sure the whole thing is going down. I guess
it's back to 40,000 Americans dying needlessly every year for want of
coverage. Expect that number to rise as costs escalate. The Republicans
should be proud. They have denied the black man his singular
achievement. Next time it has to be "Medicare for all" to avoid this
constitutional mess, but I'm sure another 400,000 will die, at least,
before that ever comes to pass. That's almost like nuking a city. The
Republicans are actually more dangerous than al-Qaeda!
I'm just wondering if there's going to be any blow-back on the
Republicans for this. Back to the status quo. Policy denied. Policy
cancelled. Pre-existing conditions. Lifetime limits. No insurance for
your college kids. Rising policy prices. Higher deficits. Doesn't even
the most mindless right-wing ideologue clue in that he just got screwed
at some point?
That's the Republican's for you though: they just love to blow shit up.
VegasJerry
Mar 29, 2012, 9:42:39 AM3/29/12
to
Either they pay for their own care by purchasing insurance, or we pay for
them; like we're doing now.
Jerry (paying) 'n Vegas
_____________________________________________________________________
Mossingen
Mar 29, 2012, 12:41:13 PM3/29/12
to
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:VpXcr.43571$%P4.2...@newsfe05.iad...
I've argued lots of cases in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.
Also, the tone of the arguments are often counterintuitive. Many times, I
have seen the judges pound my opponent (usually the attorney general in
capital cases), and an observer might get the sense that they are going to
rule in my favor. In reality, it usually turns out that they are ruling
against me and are just testing the state's case at the argument to verify
their decision.
Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes some
major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).
Getting trapped at the arguments is a painful thing. I remember one time I
was in Denver arguing a case in the Tenth Circuit. I was last, so there
were several arguments before mine, so I had to sit in and watch them. One
was a typical search and seizure issue stemming from a traffic stop. The
appellant's lawyer got about 3 minutes into it and appeared to have a super
strong case. One of the judges piped up, "But, counsel, how does your
client have standing to object to the search?" Oh shit. The car was a
rental car and the appellant was just a passenger or some such. It was
obvious that the lawyer arguing the case had not considered the standing
issue and we had to watch that poor guy tapdance under a barrage of
questions about standing for the rest of his time. It was horrible.
news:VpXcr.43571$%P4.2...@newsfe05.iad...
Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.
Also, the tone of the arguments are often counterintuitive. Many times, I
have seen the judges pound my opponent (usually the attorney general in
capital cases), and an observer might get the sense that they are going to
rule in my favor. In reality, it usually turns out that they are ruling
against me and are just testing the state's case at the argument to verify
their decision.
Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes some
major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).
Getting trapped at the arguments is a painful thing. I remember one time I
was in Denver arguing a case in the Tenth Circuit. I was last, so there
were several arguments before mine, so I had to sit in and watch them. One
was a typical search and seizure issue stemming from a traffic stop. The
appellant's lawyer got about 3 minutes into it and appeared to have a super
strong case. One of the judges piped up, "But, counsel, how does your
client have standing to object to the search?" Oh shit. The car was a
rental car and the appellant was just a passenger or some such. It was
obvious that the lawyer arguing the case had not considered the standing
issue and we had to watch that poor guy tapdance under a barrage of
questions about standing for the rest of his time. It was horrible.
Clave
Mar 29, 2012, 2:52:17 PM3/29/12
to
"Mossingen" <jhan...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:jl23am$gen$1...@dont-email.me...
<...>
> Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
> from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes
> some major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).
I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
Jim
news:jl23am$gen$1...@dont-email.me...
<...>
> Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
> from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes
> some major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).
strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
Jim
Truthseeker
Mar 29, 2012, 3:57:46 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/12 12:52 PM, Clave wrote:
> I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
> strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
> clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
> I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
>
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
> I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
> strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the commerce
> clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
> I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
>
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
have no effect on past decisions.
Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
from 35% to 65%.
http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
unconstitutional.
--
Truthseeker
Dutch
Mar 29, 2012, 4:09:29 PM3/29/12
to
A two-fer, opposition to Obamacare and support for Zimmerman's
constitutional right to shoot other Americans.
An Argument Against Healthcare From the National Alliance of Funeral
Directors
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - The following message was released today
by the National Alliance of Funeral Directors:
This week, several Republican Supreme Court Justices have argued that the
Affordable Care Act supported by the Obama Administration is
unconstitutional. At the National Alliance of Funeral Directors, we couldn't
agree more.
It was Revolutionary War hero Patrick Henry who said, in 1775, "Give me
liberty or give me death." From that moment on, legal scholars have agreed
that the Constitution guarantees every American the liberty to be dead.
Here at the Alliance, we will fight for your right to be dead to the death.
Let's take a look, if you will, at the Second Amendment of the Constitution,
which protects every American's right to shoot another American. It says
nothing about giving the person who is shot health insurance to prevent him
from dying. This cherished constitutional right to shoot people and make
them dead is currently recognized in all fifty states, most recently
Florida.
In commenting on the Affordable Care Act this week, Justice Samuel Alito
compared the Obama healthcare plan to burial insurance. Coincidentally,
burial insurance is the Republican healthcare plan, and one that we
enthusiastically support. Under this plan, every American would be mandated
to buy a coffin from one of our member-owned and operated funeral homes.
May we recommend the Peaceful Valley Royale,T a luxury mahogany casket with
sienna satin interior and the finest imitation antique nickel handles
($2899).
As the organization representing America's funeral directors, gravediggers,
embalmers and cremators, we are confident that the Supreme Court will
ultimately do the right thing and decide that healthcare flies in the face
of every American's constitutional right to the pursuit of deadness. And
when they do, we'll be waiting for you.
Sincerely,
The National Alliance of Funeral Directors
constitutional right to shoot other Americans.
An Argument Against Healthcare From the National Alliance of Funeral
Directors
WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report) - The following message was released today
by the National Alliance of Funeral Directors:
This week, several Republican Supreme Court Justices have argued that the
Affordable Care Act supported by the Obama Administration is
unconstitutional. At the National Alliance of Funeral Directors, we couldn't
agree more.
It was Revolutionary War hero Patrick Henry who said, in 1775, "Give me
liberty or give me death." From that moment on, legal scholars have agreed
that the Constitution guarantees every American the liberty to be dead.
Here at the Alliance, we will fight for your right to be dead to the death.
Let's take a look, if you will, at the Second Amendment of the Constitution,
which protects every American's right to shoot another American. It says
nothing about giving the person who is shot health insurance to prevent him
from dying. This cherished constitutional right to shoot people and make
them dead is currently recognized in all fifty states, most recently
Florida.
In commenting on the Affordable Care Act this week, Justice Samuel Alito
compared the Obama healthcare plan to burial insurance. Coincidentally,
burial insurance is the Republican healthcare plan, and one that we
enthusiastically support. Under this plan, every American would be mandated
to buy a coffin from one of our member-owned and operated funeral homes.
May we recommend the Peaceful Valley Royale,T a luxury mahogany casket with
sienna satin interior and the finest imitation antique nickel handles
($2899).
As the organization representing America's funeral directors, gravediggers,
embalmers and cremators, we are confident that the Supreme Court will
ultimately do the right thing and decide that healthcare flies in the face
of every American's constitutional right to the pursuit of deadness. And
when they do, we'll be waiting for you.
Sincerely,
The National Alliance of Funeral Directors
BillB
Mar 29, 2012, 4:24:12 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 9:41 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> I've argued lots of cases in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the
> Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
> typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
> and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
> but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.
I was going to mention that, but in this case he did have an avuncular
> I've argued lots of cases in the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and in the
> Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals. On the whole, I'd say oral arguments
> typically do not matter that much. The cases are cited on the briefs, by
> and large. In a close case, oral argument might sway an equivocating judge,
> but my sense is that it doesn't work that way.
swing judge saying, essentially, "I'm skeptical. Convince me." It was an
uphill battle for sure, but if Verrilli convinced anyone of anything, it
was that even the Obama administration wasn't terribly confident of the
legislation's constitutionality.
> Also, the tone of the arguments are often counterintuitive. Many times, I
> have seen the judges pound my opponent (usually the attorney general in
> capital cases), and an observer might get the sense that they are going to
> rule in my favor. In reality, it usually turns out that they are ruling
> against me and are just testing the state's case at the argument to verify
> their decision.
>
> Bottom line is that, in my experience, we just can't tell much of anything
> from oral arguments (unless it is the rare case where one side concedes some
> major point or has overlooked a critical fact issue).
really don't think it applies in this particular case. Verrilli got
raped. The individual mandate, at least, is gone. I'd bet pretty heavily
on that.
> Getting trapped at the arguments is a painful thing. I remember one time I
> was in Denver arguing a case in the Tenth Circuit. I was last, so there
> were several arguments before mine, so I had to sit in and watch them. One
> was a typical search and seizure issue stemming from a traffic stop. The
> appellant's lawyer got about 3 minutes into it and appeared to have a super
> strong case. One of the judges piped up, "But, counsel, how does your
> client have standing to object to the search?" Oh shit. The car was a
> rental car and the appellant was just a passenger or some such. It was
> obvious that the lawyer arguing the case had not considered the standing
> issue and we had to watch that poor guy tapdance under a barrage of
> questions about standing for the rest of his time. It was horrible.
uncomfortable, I-want-to-crawl-under-the-table moments, but this was a
case of a lawyer not having his sh*t together right from the first
sentence of his opening remarks. All I can say is listen for yourself. I
was like.."wtf? is Obama *trying* to throw this hearing?"
James, the broccoli question. He couldn't even answer the fucking
broccoli question. They've been talking about that one of Fox News for
two years. How could he not be ready for the broccoli question?
mo_ntresor
Mar 29, 2012, 4:31:50 PM3/29/12
to
mo_ntresor
-----
VegasJerry
Mar 29, 2012, 4:43:02 PM3/29/12
to
'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
this medical insurance different?
Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker
_____________________________________________________________________
Clave
Mar 29, 2012, 4:48:16 PM3/29/12
to
"Truthseeker" <truth...@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:2M-dnSJgBcYmI-nS...@giganews.com...
Pardon me if I find your opinion on the subject less than credible.
Jim
news:2M-dnSJgBcYmI-nS...@giganews.com...
> On 3/29/12 12:52 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
>> strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the
>> commerce
>> clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
>
>> I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
>>
>> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
>
>
> The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
> Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
> unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
> have no effect on past decisions...
>
>> I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
>> strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the
>> commerce
>> clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
>
>> I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
>>
>> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
>
>
> The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
> Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
> unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
Pardon me if I find your opinion on the subject less than credible.
Jim
Schmedley
Mar 29, 2012, 4:46:12 PM3/29/12
to
his favor. At this level, the main action is behind the scenes. If
anyone (Kennedy or Roberts) is prepared to justify the statute based on
the Tax Clause, it is 6-3 at least and they do not even reach the Commerce
Clause argument. I can see a bastard plurality decision with 4 - 3
upholding based on the Commerce argument, the other two sympathizing with
the dissenters, but ultimately recognizing Congress's power one way or the
other.
Personally, I am looking forward to seeing how Scalia can distinguish
Raich from this. Maybe it's the pot smoking hippie exception.
Oh, and the answer to the broccoli question: Of course Congress has the
power to enact that legislation. Your remedy is the ballot box, not the
court.
____________________________________________________________________
ChrisRobin
Mar 29, 2012, 6:22:47 PM3/29/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 4:31 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> he should have bullshitted better!
Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
> he should have bullshitted better!
its very essence, mo.
____________________________________________________________________
arseniccollection
Mar 29, 2012, 6:31:50 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 15:22, ChrisRobin wrote:
> On Mar 29 2012 4:31 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
>> he should have bullshitted better!
>
> Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
> its very essence, mo.
>
I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> On Mar 29 2012 4:31 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>
>> he should have bullshitted better!
>
> Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
> its very essence, mo.
>
Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
opportunities in the private sphere.
His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
glare get to be Solicitor General?
brewmaster
Mar 29, 2012, 6:50:33 PM3/29/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 1:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Mar 29 2012 12:57 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
> > On 3/29/12 12:52 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > > I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
> > > strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the
> commerce
> > > clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
> >
> > > I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
> > >
> > >
>
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
> >
> >
> > The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
> > Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
> > unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
> > have no effect on past decisions.
> >
> > Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
> > hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
> > from 35% to 65%.
> >
> > http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
> >
> > No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
> > be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
> > unconstitutional.
>
> Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances.
Only people who are working, you don't pay it if you don't work.
> On Mar 29 2012 12:57 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
> > On 3/29/12 12:52 PM, Clave wrote:
> >
> > > I saw a rather persuasive article yesterday arguing that if the court
> > > strikes down the individual mandate as not being appropriate re the
> commerce
> > > clause, it calls a lot of prior commerce clause decisions into question.
> >
> > > I couldn't find that article, but this one gets close to the same thing:
> > >
> > >
>
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_men.php?ref=fpblg
> >
> >
> > The article is just blowing smoke. "Everyone" thought it was
> > Constitutional? Hardly. And this is a unique situation, finding it
> > unconstitutional will not be at odds with stare decisis at all. It will
> > have no effect on past decisions.
> >
> > Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
> > hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
> > from 35% to 65%.
> >
> > http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
> >
> > No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
> > be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
> > unconstitutional.
>
> Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances.
> How is
> this medical insurance different?
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> >
> > --
> > Truthseeker
>
> _____________________________________________________________________
Brew "part of the 100%" Master
-------
Clave
Mar 29, 2012, 7:10:01 PM3/29/12
to
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:pi5f49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
<...>
>> How is
>> this medical insurance different?
>
> Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.
Not true. People whose income is less than 133% of the federal poverty
level will be covered by Medicaid, and there's a scale of subsidies for
other income levels.
Jim
news:pi5f49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
<...>
>> How is
>> this medical insurance different?
>
> Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.
level will be covered by Medicaid, and there's a scale of subsidies for
other income levels.
Jim
ChrisRobin
Mar 29, 2012, 7:16:16 PM3/29/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 6:31 PM, arseniccollection wrote:
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
> otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
> glare get to be Solicitor General?
Sorry, I did not watch it. Not enough bandwidth to take this half-assed
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
> otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
> glare get to be Solicitor General?
health care kabuki theater seriously.
_____________________________________________________________________
BillB
Mar 29, 2012, 7:28:11 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 3:31 PM, arseniccollection wrote
>> Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
>> its very essence, mo.
>>
>
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
> otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
> glare get to be Solicitor General?
Don't worry about Chrissy. Let him vent. I've kicked his ass so many
times that he likes get in his little drive-by digs wherever he can
(even if it means kissing the ass of of a mo_ron). The least I can do is
give him that. He probably didn't even listen to the hearing. He
wouldn't have understood much of it if he did.
>> Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
>> its very essence, mo.
>>
>
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
> otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
> glare get to be Solicitor General?
times that he likes get in his little drive-by digs wherever he can
(even if it means kissing the ass of of a mo_ron). The least I can do is
give him that. He probably didn't even listen to the hearing. He
wouldn't have understood much of it if he did.
ChrisRobin
Mar 29, 2012, 9:40:59 PM3/29/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 7:28 PM, BillB wrote:
> Don't worry about Chrissy. Let him vent. I've kicked his ass so many
> times that he likes get in his little drive-by digs wherever he can
> (even if it means kissing the ass of of a mo_ron). The least I can do is
> give him that. He probably didn't even listen to the hearing. He
> wouldn't have understood much of it if he did.
Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing well in advance of your post.
> Don't worry about Chrissy. Let him vent. I've kicked his ass so many
> times that he likes get in his little drive-by digs wherever he can
> (even if it means kissing the ass of of a mo_ron). The least I can do is
> give him that. He probably didn't even listen to the hearing. He
> wouldn't have understood much of it if he did.
Same keen powers of comprehension that you use to dish out your regular
"ass kickings," I see. ROTFLMAO!
------
BillB
Mar 29, 2012, 9:53:08 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 6:40 PM, ChrisRobin wrote
> Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing...
lol..I don't deserve much credit on that one. You aren't exactly a hard
read.
Hasn't Glenn Greenwald told you what to think yet?
> Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing...
lol..I don't deserve much credit on that one. You aren't exactly a hard
read.
Hasn't Glenn Greenwald told you what to think yet?
gtech1
Mar 29, 2012, 11:00:11 PM3/29/12
to
LMAO.
-------
BillB
Mar 29, 2012, 11:07:30 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 8:00 PM, gtech1 wrote:
> LMAO.
mo_ron echo chamber.
> LMAO.
mo_ron echo chamber.
gtech1
Mar 29, 2012, 11:33:23 PM3/29/12
to
LMAO at: "I knew the material better than he did"
------
BillB
Mar 29, 2012, 11:40:12 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/2012 8:33 PM, gtech1 wrote:
> LMAO at: "I knew the material better than he did"
It appeared as though I did? Is that better? I knew the answers...he
> LMAO at: "I knew the material better than he did"
didn't. What would you call it?
bub
Mar 29, 2012, 11:40:07 PM3/29/12
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 18:40:59 -0700, "ChrisRobin"
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing well in advance of your post.
i mean, when it came out that barry needed a brilliant legal mind to
<a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
>Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing well in advance of your post.
argue for barrycare in front of the united states supreme court, well,
we all expected them to have a ex divorce lawyer presenting their
side.
dem guys know that kinda stuff
so no need for you to watch the hearings chris. it will all be
explained to you.
TruthSeeker
Mar 29, 2012, 11:49:11 PM3/29/12
to
On 3/29/12 2:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Mar 29 2012 12:57 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>> Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
>> hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
>> from 35% to 65%.
>>
>> http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
>>
>> No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
>> be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
>> unconstitutional.
> Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?
No. And not everyone is forced to pay. There are numerous exceptions
> On Mar 29 2012 12:57 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>> Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
>> hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
>> from 35% to 65%.
>>
>> http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
>>
>> No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
>> be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
>> unconstitutional.
> Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?
and exemptions, including for the Amish (who do not even have to pay the
employer portion for non-Amish employees).
> Turned
> out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> this medical insurance different?
They are government programs financed by taxes.
--
TruthSeeker
ChrisRobin
Mar 30, 2012, 2:04:04 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 9:53 PM, BillB wrote:
> On 3/29/2012 6:40 PM, ChrisRobin wrote
>
> > Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing...
>
> lol..I don't deserve much credit on that one. You aren't exactly a hard
> read.
No kidding. Fortunately, pointing out your regular outbreaks of
> On 3/29/2012 6:40 PM, ChrisRobin wrote
>
> > Uh, I admitted I did not watch the hearing...
>
> lol..I don't deserve much credit on that one. You aren't exactly a hard
> read.
foot-in-mouth disease doesn't require any special literary talent. And
boy, have you made quite the spectacle of yourself this week, lol!
> Hasn't Glenn Greenwald told you what to think yet?
recommend a few reputable gossip blogs in the meantime?
______________________________________________________________________
dsm
Mar 30, 2012, 2:56:50 AM3/30/12
to
Frisbieinstein
Mar 30, 2012, 5:29:07 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30, 1:52 am, "Clave" <clav...@the.monastery.com> wrote:
> "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote in message
> http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2012/03/a_nation_of_laws_or_of_...
>
> Jim
I have been told by a lawyer that "everything the government does is
unconstitutional. Everyone knows that and no one cares. All that
matters is precedent." I got penalized in a moderated group for
reporting this. Some people can't handle the truth!
Except when you've got a court with a record of not caring about
precedent (Citizens United vs. FEC). Then you've got a crooked slot
machine. Wonderful.
> "Mossingen" <jhanki...@cox.net> wrote in message
>
> Jim
I have been told by a lawyer that "everything the government does is
unconstitutional. Everyone knows that and no one cares. All that
matters is precedent." I got penalized in a moderated group for
reporting this. Some people can't handle the truth!
Except when you've got a court with a record of not caring about
precedent (Citizens United vs. FEC). Then you've got a crooked slot
machine. Wonderful.
Dave the Clueless
Mar 30, 2012, 6:26:21 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> this medical insurance different?
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
>
> Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> this medical insurance different?
>
>
> Jerry 'n Vegas
>
Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
tax.
It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
-----
da pickle
Mar 30, 2012, 7:56:48 AM3/30/12
to
VegasJerry
Mar 30, 2012, 8:48:11 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 8:49 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 3/29/12 2:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Mar 29 2012 12:57 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
> >> Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
> >> hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
> >> from 35% to 65%.
> >>
> >> http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
> >>
> >> No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
> >> be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
> >> unconstitutional.
>
> > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?
>
>
> No.
Yea, actually it was. In fact, one of the Justices even brought it up.
> On 3/29/12 2:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Mar 29 2012 12:57 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
> >> Intrade has a good record of predicting such things, and following the
> >> hearings their odds that the law would be found unconstitutional jumped
> >> from 35% to 65%.
> >>
> >> http://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventId=89280
> >>
> >> No one can be sure at this point how SCOTUS will rule. But I wouldn't
> >> be surprised if it went beyond 5-4 to 6-3 or more finding it
> >> unconstitutional.
>
> > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?
>
>
> No.
Jerry 'n Vegas
And not everyone is forced to pay. There are numerous exceptions
> and exemptions, including for the Amish (who do not even have to pay the
> employer portion for non-Amish employees).
>
>
> > Turned
> > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> > this medical insurance different?
>
>
> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
> They are government programs financed by taxes.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
VegasJerry
Mar 30, 2012, 8:45:12 AM3/30/12
to
>
> > How is
> > this medical insurance different?
>
> Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.
People are in the 'medical' economy. "Can you force people to buy
broccoli?" No. But if a person takes broccoli and eats it; then yes, you
can force them to pay.
Jerry 'n Vegas
_______________________________________________________________________
VegasJerry
Mar 30, 2012, 8:48:49 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 3:26 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> >
> > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> > this medical insurance different?
> >
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
>
> If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.
> On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> >
> > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> > this medical insurance different?
> >
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
>
> If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
Jerry
>
> Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
> private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
> tax.
>
> It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
>
> -------
> Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
>
> -----
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 9:20:37 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 4:31 PM, arseniccollection wrote:
> > Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
> > its very essence, mo.
>
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
> otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
> glare get to be Solicitor General?
i can't put an exact price on it, but i'd be willing to pay a large sum to
> > Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
> > its very essence, mo.
>
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and
> otherwise fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public
> glare get to be Solicitor General?
see you and billb together making obama's case before the supreme court.
L O FUCKING L
thought you had a hard time getting a date before?
mo_ntresor
---
BillB
Mar 30, 2012, 9:26:32 AM3/30/12
to
On 3/30/2012 6:20 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> i can't put an exact price on it
I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.
> i can't put an exact price on it
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 9:32:55 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 7:26 AM, BillB wrote:
> > i can't put an exact price on it
>
> I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.
we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.
> > i can't put an exact price on it
>
> I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
BillB
Mar 30, 2012, 9:42:40 AM3/30/12
to
On 3/30/2012 6:32 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> On Mar 30 2012 7:26 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>>> i can't put an exact price on it
>>
>> I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.
>
> we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.
Uh, no. Cash up front. As I said, there's not a chance in hell you could
> On Mar 30 2012 7:26 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>>> i can't put an exact price on it
>>
>> I could, and there's no chance in hell you could afford me.
>
> we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.
afford me. But you go ahead and dare to dream, k?
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 9:59:37 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 7:42 AM, BillB wrote:
> > we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.
>
> Uh, no. Cash up front. As I said, there's not a chance in hell you could
> afford me. But you go ahead and dare to dream, k?
okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
> > we could sell the pay-per-view sub to comedy central. 50/50, bill.
>
> Uh, no. Cash up front. As I said, there's not a chance in hell you could
> afford me. But you go ahead and dare to dream, k?
days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
it, you owe me double. how's that sound?
mo_ntresor
--------
Dave the Clueless
Mar 30, 2012, 9:59:08 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Mar 30 2012 3:26 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> > > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How
is
> > > this medical insurance different?
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > >
> >
> > If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
>
> Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.
I explained it for you very carefully, retard. You can't claim I didn't
> On Mar 30 2012 3:26 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> > On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> > > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How
is
> > > this medical insurance different?
> > >
> > >
> > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > >
> >
> > If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
>
> Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.
answer you just because you can't wrap your empty little brain around a
set of simple facts.
> Jerry
>
> >
> > Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
> > private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
> > tax.
> >
> > It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
> >
> > -------
> > Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
> >
> > -----
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
BillB
Mar 30, 2012, 10:05:34 AM3/30/12
to
you REALLY this fucking stupid?
Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 10:10:50 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 8:05 AM, BillB wrote:
> > okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
> > days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
> > it, you owe me double. how's that sound?
>
> Yes, because I'm just going to get up there and start arguing. LOL! Are
> you REALLY this fucking stupid?
>
> Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.
i keep trying to get a wager going, big talker, and you keep backing down.
> > okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
> > days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
> > it, you owe me double. how's that sound?
>
> Yes, because I'm just going to get up there and start arguing. LOL! Are
> you REALLY this fucking stupid?
>
> Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.
you can't be this grapeless, can you?
mo_ntresor
------
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 10:18:23 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 8:05 AM, BillB wrote:
> Yes, because I'm just going to get up there and start arguing. LOL! Are
> you REALLY this fucking stupid?
>
> Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.
btw, nobody ever suggested you'd get up and humiliate yourself in front of
> you REALLY this fucking stupid?
>
> Just keep dreaming, k? It's funny.
the us supreme court. you have to have real law credentials for that,
"doctor". all i said was name your imaginary fee. it doesn't even have
to be real, moron.
mo_ntresor
-----
BillB
Mar 30, 2012, 10:24:37 AM3/30/12
to
On 3/30/2012 7:10 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> i keep trying to get a wager going, big talker, and you keep backing down.
> you can't be this grapeless, can you?
Never mind the fact that you are anonymous internet coward, I said you
> i keep trying to get a wager going, big talker, and you keep backing down.
> you can't be this grapeless, can you?
couldn't begin to afford me to argue a case for you. You couldn't.
You shot back with:
"But I could afford you for three days!!" LOL!
You crack me up, mo. I have never encountered anyone so wholly out of
touch with reality. You really should talk to someone about that.
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 10:38:20 AM3/30/12
to
i'll present proof i can pay the entire amount in cash; you owe me double.
what's with all the excuses?
mo_ntresor
--------
BillB
Mar 30, 2012, 10:53:51 AM3/30/12
to
On 3/30/2012 7:38 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> name your price. offer up some past billings to defend it, and we're on.
> i'll present proof i can pay the entire amount in cash; you owe me double.
>
> what's with all the excuses?
lol...stop, please.
> name your price. offer up some past billings to defend it, and we're on.
> i'll present proof i can pay the entire amount in cash; you owe me double.
>
> what's with all the excuses?
Is there ANYONE more ridiculous on RGP than mo_ron charles, the
anonymous internet coward?
Mossingen
Mar 30, 2012, 10:54:53 AM3/30/12
to
"BillB" <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote in message
news:Ix3dr.45260$OX6....@newsfe13.iad...
> James, the broccoli question. He couldn't even answer the fucking
> broccoli question. They've been talking about that one of Fox News for two
> years. How could he not be ready for the broccoli question?
I hear ya. It was an awful piece of advocacy. I just don't think it
matters that much. The decision will be 5-4 along ideological lines and
will come down to how Justice Kennedy is feeling that day.
news:Ix3dr.45260$OX6....@newsfe13.iad...
> James, the broccoli question. He couldn't even answer the fucking
> broccoli question. They've been talking about that one of Fox News for two
> years. How could he not be ready for the broccoli question?
I hear ya. It was an awful piece of advocacy. I just don't think it
matters that much. The decision will be 5-4 along ideological lines and
will come down to how Justice Kennedy is feeling that day.
Mossingen
Mar 30, 2012, 11:00:18 AM3/30/12
to
"arseniccollection" <g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:pp5dr.182679$241.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On 3/29/2012 15:22, ChrisRobin wrote:
>> On Mar 29 2012 4:31 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>>
>>> he should have bullshitted better!
usually filled by the President with a political flunky. It's almost always
someone well qualified for the job.
news:pp5dr.182679$241.1...@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> On 3/29/2012 15:22, ChrisRobin wrote:
>> On Mar 29 2012 4:31 PM, mo_ntresor wrote:
>>
>>> he should have bullshitted better!
>>
>> Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
>> its very essence, mo.
>>
>
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and otherwise
> fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public glare get to be
> Solicitor General?
That's a good question. I think SG is a prestigious position that is not
>> Heh. Credit where credit's due – sometimes you manage to boil it down to
>> its very essence, mo.
>>
>
> I believe within a few months, probably before the summer solstice, Mr.
> Verrilli will resign to spend more time with his family or to pursue
> opportunities in the private sphere.
>
> His performance was cringe-worthy. It's like watching a smart, competent
> colleague make a big presentation and stutters, brain-farts, and otherwise
> fails. How did someone so obviously unsuited to the public glare get to be
> Solicitor General?
usually filled by the President with a political flunky. It's almost always
someone well qualified for the job.
Mossingen
Mar 30, 2012, 11:03:49 AM3/30/12
to
"Schmedley" <schme...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:k9ue49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> Agreed. More than once you will see a judge batter somebody, the rule in
> his favor. At this level, the main action is behind the scenes. If
> anyone (Kennedy or Roberts) is prepared to justify the statute based on
> the Tax Clause, it is 6-3 at least and they do not even reach the Commerce
> Clause argument. I can see a bastard plurality decision with 4 - 3
> upholding based on the Commerce argument, the other two sympathizing with
> the dissenters, but ultimately recognizing Congress's power one way or the
> other.
>
> Personally, I am looking forward to seeing how Scalia can distinguish
> Raich from this. Maybe it's the pot smoking hippie exception.
Yes, indeed. Scalia's opinions are often the more enjoyable to read.
> Oh, and the answer to the broccoli question: Of course Congress has the
> power to enact that legislation. Your remedy is the ballot box, not the
> court.
news:k9ue49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
> Agreed. More than once you will see a judge batter somebody, the rule in
> his favor. At this level, the main action is behind the scenes. If
> anyone (Kennedy or Roberts) is prepared to justify the statute based on
> the Tax Clause, it is 6-3 at least and they do not even reach the Commerce
> Clause argument. I can see a bastard plurality decision with 4 - 3
> upholding based on the Commerce argument, the other two sympathizing with
> the dissenters, but ultimately recognizing Congress's power one way or the
> other.
>
> Personally, I am looking forward to seeing how Scalia can distinguish
> Raich from this. Maybe it's the pot smoking hippie exception.
Yes, indeed. Scalia's opinions are often the more enjoyable to read.
> Oh, and the answer to the broccoli question: Of course Congress has the
> power to enact that legislation. Your remedy is the ballot box, not the
> court.
BillB
Mar 30, 2012, 11:09:02 AM3/30/12
to
show yesterday. She was at the hearing, and she said she thought
everything was a lock, until the very end. She said the very last thing
Justice Kennedy said before they wrapped up was something to the effect
"Hmmm...unless health care really is different than everything else..."
She said it scared her. So maybe I'm wrong, but my take was that
Kennedy's couldn't wrap his head around the individual mandate. IIRC
his exact words were "It fundamentally alters the relationship between
the people and government." That's not a good sign if you're Barack Obama.
bratt
Mar 30, 2012, 11:08:47 AM3/30/12
to
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry - "This content is currently unavailavle" Feb 28, 5:53 pm
Steam - "Opened up right away for me" Feb 28, 6:50 pm
Susan - "no you didn't. don't lie. Jerry says its unavailable. Feb 28,
7:28 pm
Jerry - No "I" didn't say that. But then, this is just another in a long
list of you dodging by posting links, rather than addressins posts. Feb
29, 5:28 pm
-----
Dave the Clueless
Mar 30, 2012, 11:23:56 AM3/30/12
to
-------
Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 11:45:50 AM3/30/12
to
On Mar 29 2012 5:09 AM, BillB wrote:
> With all the great litigators in the US
> government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
> take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
> did...
bill, sotomayor's a hispanic. how would the justices understand what
you're saying if you're hiding under your desk with your teeth chattering?
mo_ntresor
-----
> With all the great litigators in the US
> government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
> take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
> did...
bill, sotomayor's a hispanic. how would the justices understand what
you're saying if you're hiding under your desk with your teeth chattering?
mo_ntresor
-----
BillB
Mar 30, 2012, 12:07:17 PM3/30/12
to
that the extent of your powerful intellect? You have nothing else based
even slightly in reality?
Oh well, you lose again.
mo_ntresor
Mar 30, 2012, 12:18:11 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 9:45 AM, mo_ntresor wrote:
> > With all the great litigators in the US
> > government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
> > take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
> > did...
>
> bill, sotomayor's a hispanic. how would the justices understand what
> you're saying if you're hiding under your desk with your teeth chattering?
and thomas is a black! you'd have to pick your jaw up off the floor and
> > With all the great litigators in the US
> > government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
> > take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
> > did...
>
> bill, sotomayor's a hispanic. how would the justices understand what
> you're saying if you're hiding under your desk with your teeth chattering?
plug your eyeballs back into their sockets before exchanging injera
recipes!
mo_ntresor
------
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Mar 30, 2012, 12:20:10 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30, 8:08 am, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Mar 30 2012 9:53 AM, BillB wrote:
> > Is there ANYONE more ridiculous on RGP than mo_ron charles, the
> > anonymous internet coward?
> The coward is the one offerring the deal?
Anonymous screen names can't offer deals, Susan. Especially a bet on
> On Mar 30 2012 9:53 AM, BillB wrote:
> > Is there ANYONE more ridiculous on RGP than mo_ron charles, the
> > anonymous internet coward?
> The coward is the one offerring the deal?
how much cash the anonymous screen name could come up with. Assume
such a bet were made, then someone came forward, established their
identity, and somehow established credibly that they had access to X
amount of cash. Please explain how that person could possibly prove
that they were the person who had been posting as Mo Ron Charles all
these years.
Anonymous internet cowards are non-persons. As such, they do not
deserve to be treated like persons.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
VegasJerry
Mar 30, 2012, 2:42:36 PM3/30/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 6:59 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Mar 30 2012 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30 2012 3:26 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > > > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?
Turned
> > > > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How
> is
> > > > this medical insurance different?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
> >
> > Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.
>
> I explained it for you very carefully, retard.
STILL dodging and STILL not answering the questions.
> On Mar 30 2012 9:48 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Mar 30 2012 3:26 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> >
> > > On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > > > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance?
Turned
> > > > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How
> is
> > > > this medical insurance different?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Jerry 'n Vegas
> > > >
> > >
> > > If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
> >
> > Dodge (and ignorance of the facts) noted.
>
> I explained it for you very carefully, retard.
Stop digging.
You can't claim I didn't
> answer you just because you can't wrap your empty little brain around a
> set of simple facts.
>
> > Jerry
>
> >
> > >
> > > Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
> > > private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
> > > tax.
> > >
> > > It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
> > >
> > > -------
> > > Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
> > >
> > > -----
> >
> > _______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> -------
> Canada, keeping the brown people to a minimum for 80 years!
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
arseniccollection
Mar 30, 2012, 6:11:16 PM3/30/12
to
the job of the Solicitor General to argue the Government's case in front
of the SC. Verrilli completely failed, both on substantive grounds (the
Broccoli argument has been around for ages, and refutable) and
presentation (the stuttering, the obvious panic attacks).
As I and others have posted, it is very strange that a top-notch,
seasoned pro just falls apart like this.
~M~
Mar 30, 2012, 7:11:26 PM3/30/12
to
"mo_ntresor" wrote in message news:9rqg49x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
>days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
>it, you owe me double. how's that sound?
$2 to Beldin is too steep for him.
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
>okay, here's the wager. come up with your fee to argue the case for three
>days in front of the supreme court. if i can demonstrate that i can pay
>it, you owe me double. how's that sound?
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
fffurken
Mar 30, 2012, 7:14:20 PM3/30/12
to
to me.
What's your address?
Pepe Papon
Mar 31, 2012, 1:36:35 AM3/31/12
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 04:09:43 -0700, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral
>submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
>Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
>pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
>justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
>help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
>in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
>question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
>where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.
I was dismayed to read that the government was relying on the Commerce
clause with no mention of the power to tax. The argument should have
been, as a Yale Law professor pointed out a while back, that the
"mandate" is really a misnomer. There's no mandate; there's a tax
with a waiver for anyone who chooses to buy insurance.
>I had a chance to listen to most of the government's Day 2 oral
>submissions in support of the PPACA. Oh...my...God. That was painful.
>Seriously uncomfortable to listen to. I have heard better advocacy from
>pro se litigants on Judge Judy. With all the great litigators in the US
>government, why did Solicitor General Verrilli make the ego play and
>take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
>did...maybe not the details of the legislation, but the answers the
>take it himself? Terrible move. I knew the material better than he
>justices wanted to hear. The so-called "liberal Justices" were trying to
>help him out by asking him questions with the right answers built right
>in, and he *still* couldn't take a hint! When he answered the right
>question at all, he just rambled on and on and to and fro, to the point
>where what he was saying was almost indecipherable.
I was dismayed to read that the government was relying on the Commerce
clause with no mention of the power to tax. The argument should have
been, as a Yale Law professor pointed out a while back, that the
"mandate" is really a misnomer. There's no mandate; there's a tax
with a waiver for anyone who chooses to buy insurance.
arseniccollection
Mar 31, 2012, 1:47:37 AM3/31/12
to
The thing is, oral arguments probably do not often persuade any Justice,
though the questions are a pretty good guide to the eventual decision.
Apparently, a high proportion of questions directed to your side is not
good news. Also, the tenor of the questions (e.g., Scalia likes to say
"idiotic") correlates with the final vote (duh!).
though the questions are a pretty good guide to the eventual decision.
Apparently, a high proportion of questions directed to your side is not
good news. Also, the tenor of the questions (e.g., Scalia likes to say
"idiotic") correlates with the final vote (duh!).
Pepe Papon
Mar 31, 2012, 1:51:16 AM3/31/12
to
On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.
<Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>
>Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
insurance.
Clave
Mar 31, 2012, 2:00:17 AM3/31/12
to
"arseniccollection" <g...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:WTwdr.49098$DO1....@unlimited.newshosting.com...
Jim
Pepe Papon
Mar 31, 2012, 1:58:29 AM3/31/12
to
arseniccollection
Mar 31, 2012, 2:04:12 AM3/31/12
to
Omaha8_Beach
Mar 31, 2012, 5:07:25 AM3/31/12
to
been mentioned, but an article I read said that one of the things
Kennedy was looking for was some type of limiting principle to the
government's ability to impose individual mandates. It said that near
the end the Solicitor General may have just given him a good limit and
that health care would clearly meet this criteria. I guess will have
to wait until Summer to find out. Here is the article:
http://www.npr.org/2012/03/29/149602460/the-nation-obamacare-is-not-dead-yet
Omaha8
da pickle
Mar 31, 2012, 10:11:06 AM3/31/12
to
TruthSeeker
Mar 31, 2012, 2:34:51 PM3/31/12
to
argument that it's really a tax has already been rejected, even in the
oral arguments. If you want to split hairs, we can choose to rob a bank
or murder someone, but there is a penalty for doing that.
So no matter how you try to dance around the semantics, the mandate is
the government requiring you to buy a product from a private enterprise.
We won't know for sure how the Justices ruled (they ruled yesterday)
until it's announced, but if I had to bet I'd bet that it's going down.
Intrade has it at 64%.
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
Mar 31, 2012, 5:30:31 PM3/31/12
to
TruthSeeker
Mar 31, 2012, 6:54:35 PM3/31/12
to
settles it? The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
the Supremes. But you keep clinging to that thin reed ... it isn't
going to do any good.
--
TruthSeeker
VegasJerry
Apr 1, 2012, 10:05:28 AM4/1/12
to
On Mar 31 2012 11:34 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 3/30/12 11:51 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
> >
> > Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
> > insurance.
>
> You have a "choice" of buying a product or paying a penalty -- the
> argument that it's really a tax has already been rejected, even in the
> oral arguments. If you want to split hairs, we can choose to rob a bank
> or murder someone, but there is a penalty for doing that.
>
> So no matter how you try to dance around the semantics, the mandate is
> the government requiring you to buy a product from a private enterprise.
Gee, now you're going to have to explain, "product," rather than tax.
> On 3/30/12 11:51 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
> > <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
> >
> > Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
> > insurance.
>
> You have a "choice" of buying a product or paying a penalty -- the
> argument that it's really a tax has already been rejected, even in the
> oral arguments. If you want to split hairs, we can choose to rob a bank
> or murder someone, but there is a penalty for doing that.
>
> So no matter how you try to dance around the semantics, the mandate is
> the government requiring you to buy a product from a private enterprise.
>
> We won't know for sure how the Justices ruled (they ruled yesterday)
> until it's announced, but if I had to bet I'd bet that it's going down.
> Intrade has it at 64%.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
VegasJerry
Apr 1, 2012, 10:03:55 AM4/1/12
to
On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 3/31/12 3:30 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle
> > <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/31/2012 12:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
> >>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
> >>>
> >>> Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
> >>> insurance.
> >>
> >> It is not a "tax", Pepe.
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
>
> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
> settles it?
Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
> On 3/31/12 3:30 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle
> > <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/31/2012 12:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
> >>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
> >>>
> >>> Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
> >>> insurance.
> >>
> >> It is not a "tax", Pepe.
> >
> > Of course it is.
>
>
> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
> settles it?
> The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
> tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
> to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
> the Supremes.
Jerry 'n Vegas
But you keep clinging to that thin reed ... it isn't
> going to do any good.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
johnny_t
Apr 1, 2012, 11:28:29 AM4/1/12
to
On 3/30/12 3:26 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
>
> If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
>
>
> If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
>
> Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
> private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
> tax.
>
> It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
The question is how many "degrees" of separation are required. Lets say
> private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
> tax.
>
> It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
your state uses tax money to pay for privately run prisons. Your
government hires mercenaries. Your municipality uses privately run red
light cameras, you pay them directly, and your municipality gets a
check. Or privately run Tolling systems, where you pay them, and then
the state gets a check? Privately run tolling systems, and the money
goes entirely to private companies that build you a bridge?
From the "insured" standpoint here, it is government enforced
participation in a process that happens to be run partially by
non-government entities. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Just because it is mechanically different, from the insured's standpoint
it is not all that much different than "single payor".
VegasJerry
Apr 1, 2012, 2:51:19 PM4/1/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 3:26 AM, Dave the Clueless wrote:
> On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> >
> > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> > this medical insurance different?
> >
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
>
> On Mar 29 2012 5:43 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> >
> > Wasn't that the same statement made when everybody was going to be
> > 'forced' to pay Social Security Insurance and Medicare Insurance? Turned
> > out to be Constitutional and we're all paying for those insurances. How is
> > this medical insurance different?
> >
> >
> > Jerry 'n Vegas
> >
>
> If you can't figure that simple thing out there is no help for you.
>
> Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
> private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
> tax.
>
> It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
>
> Here's a hint: Nobody has to go buy Social Security benefits from a
> private company. And they aren't "insurance". And they are paid for by a
> tax.
>
> It is OK to be ignorant, but not of simple facts like that.
If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
Jerry 'n Vegas
--------
TruthSeeker
Apr 1, 2012, 4:52:03 PM4/1/12
to
On 4/1/12 8:03 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/12 3:30 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle
>>> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/31/2012 12:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>>>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
>>>>> insurance.
>>>>
>>>> It is not a "tax", Pepe.
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>>
>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
>> settles it?
>
> Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
Thanks for demonstrating my point. Your believing something is obvious
> On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/12 3:30 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle
>>> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 3/31/2012 12:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
>>>>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
>>>>>
>>>>> Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
>>>>> insurance.
>>>>
>>>> It is not a "tax", Pepe.
>>>
>>> Of course it is.
>>
>>
>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
>> settles it?
>
> Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
does not make it so. If you want to claim it is so and have anyone
believe you, you need to show why it is so ... show some actual logic or
evidence.
>
>> The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
>> tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
>> to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
>> the Supremes.
>
> Yet it's a tax....
--
TruthSeeker
Pepe Papon
Apr 2, 2012, 4:26:24 AM4/2/12
to
>On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
>> On 3/31/12 3:30 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> > On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle
>> > <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 3/31/2012 12:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>> >>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
>> >>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
>> >>>
>> >>> Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
>> >>> insurance.
>> >>
>> >> It is not a "tax", Pepe.
>> >
>> > Of course it is.
>>
>>
>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
>> settles it?
>> The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
>> tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
>> to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
>> the Supremes.
then it's a tax.
BillB
Apr 2, 2012, 4:39:18 AM4/2/12
to
On Saturday, March 31, 2012 2:07:25 AM UTC-7, Omaha8_Beach wrote:
> I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, so I don't know if this has
> been mentioned, but an article I read said that one of the things
> Kennedy was looking for was some type of limiting principle to the
> government's ability to impose individual mandates. It said that near
> the end the Solicitor General may have just given him a good limit and
> that health care would clearly meet this criteria. I guess will have
> to wait until Summer to find out. Here is the article:
> http://www.npr.org/2012/03/29/149602460/the-nation-obamacare-is-not-dead-yet
I didn't hear the end, but what you're saying about the first part is spot on. Several of the justices kept asking him, "if you are in the health care market just by virtue of being alive, what wouldn't the federal government be able to declare a market and force you to participate in?"
> I'm jumping in the middle of the thread, so I don't know if this has
> been mentioned, but an article I read said that one of the things
> Kennedy was looking for was some type of limiting principle to the
> government's ability to impose individual mandates. It said that near
> the end the Solicitor General may have just given him a good limit and
> that health care would clearly meet this criteria. I guess will have
> to wait until Summer to find out. Here is the article:
> http://www.npr.org/2012/03/29/149602460/the-nation-obamacare-is-not-dead-yet
Three or four times he was asked that question in one form or another, and he had nothing ready for them.
Truthseeker
Apr 2, 2012, 12:00:00 PM4/2/12
to
On 4/2/12 2:26 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>> On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
>>> settles it?
> No more than you are. You said it's not a tax as if that settles it.
And immediately followed with the supporting paragraph below:
>
>> On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
>>> settles it?
> No more than you are. You said it's not a tax as if that settles it.
>>> The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
>>> tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
>>> to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
>>> the Supremes.
> It doesn't matter what the law calls it. If it functions like a tax,
> then it's a tax.
than you do here.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Apr 2, 2012, 12:04:11 PM4/2/12
to
On 4/1/12 12:51 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
> If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
> on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
> we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not. That isn't
> Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
> If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
> on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
> we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
fundamental expansion of government power. I have no doubt that you
will say that it does; I expect a majority of the Justices to say that
it does not.
--
Truthseeker
Dutch
Apr 2, 2012, 1:54:07 PM4/2/12
to
"brewmaster" <a1...@webnntp.invalid> wrote
> Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.
You don't pay if you have no income. People on income assistance (welfare)
in Canada don't pay. Part of their monthly allowance is allocated towards
medical insurance, but *they* don't pay anything.
> Because everybody has to pay, whether they are working or not.
You don't pay if you have no income. People on income assistance (welfare)
in Canada don't pay. Part of their monthly allowance is allocated towards
medical insurance, but *they* don't pay anything.
VegasJerry
Apr 2, 2012, 2:54:32 PM4/2/12
to
On Apr 1 2012 1:52 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 4/1/12 8:03 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/31/12 3:30 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle
> >>> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/31/2012 12:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
> >>>>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
> >>>>> insurance.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is not a "tax", Pepe.
> >>>
> >>> Of course it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
> >> settles it?
> >
> > Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
>
>
> Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.
> On 4/1/12 8:03 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Mar 31 2012 3:54 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/31/12 3:30 PM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>> On Sat, 31 Mar 2012 09:11:06 -0500, da pickle
> >>> <jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 3/31/2012 12:51 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 29 Mar 2012 21:49:11 -0600, TruthSeeker
> >>>>> <Truth...@nospam.us> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Social Security (and Medicare) does not force anyone to buy a product.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Neither does the ACA. You have a choice of paying a tax or buying
> >>>>> insurance.
> >>>>
> >>>> It is not a "tax", Pepe.
> >>>
> >>> Of course it is.
> >>
> >>
> >> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
> >> settles it?
> >
> > Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
>
>
> Thanks for demonstrating my point.
Jerry 'n Vegas
Your believing something is obvious
> does not make it so. If you want to claim it is so and have anyone
> believe you, you need to show why it is so ... show some actual logic or
> evidence.
>
> >
> >> The law does not call it a tax, tax lawyers say it is not a
> >> tax, and even the attempts after-the-fact by some in the Administration
> >> to call it a tax were pretty feeble and didn't seem to cut any ice with
> >> the Supremes.
> >
> > Yet it's a tax....
>
>
> And there you go again.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker
VegasJerry
Apr 2, 2012, 2:56:41 PM4/2/12
to
On Apr 2 2012 9:04 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 4/1/12 12:51 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
> > If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
> > on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
> > we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
>
>
> It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.
Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.
> On 4/1/12 12:51 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
> > If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
> > on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
> > we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
>
>
> It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.
> That isn't
> the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
> citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
> the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
> their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
> point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
> fundamental expansion of government power.
Heh.
Jerry 'n Vegas
I have no doubt that you
> will say that it does; I expect a majority of the Justices to say that
> it does not.
>
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Apr 2, 2012, 3:36:25 PM4/2/12
to
On 4/2/12 12:54 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 1 2012 1:52 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
>>>> settles it?
>>> Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
>> Thanks for demonstrating my point.
> Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.
And you continue to demonstrate it. I don't need to answer your bogus
> On Apr 1 2012 1:52 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>>>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
>>>> settles it?
>>> Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
>> Thanks for demonstrating my point.
> Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.
"Why don't you stop beating your wife" question, because your position
is not only not obvious, and not supported, but false. But like a
buffalo pushing through a barbed-wire fence you just keep bulling on, no
matter how little sense you make.
--
Truthseeker
Truthseeker
Apr 2, 2012, 3:39:43 PM4/2/12
to
On 4/2/12 12:56 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 2 2012 9:04 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/12 12:51 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>>
>>> Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
>>> If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
>>> on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
>>> we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.
>
> Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.
And the buffalo stomps through another fence. I just finished
> On Apr 2 2012 9:04 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
>
>> On 4/1/12 12:51 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>>
>>> Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
>>> If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
>>> on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
>>> we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
>>
>>
>> It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.
>
> Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.
explaining why it is not the point, below.
>> That isn't
>> the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
>> citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
>> the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
>> their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
>> point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
>> fundamental expansion of government power.
>
> You mean like Social Security and Medicare?
anyone to buy a product. Make that buffalo concrete -- a live one is
less obtuse than you.
--
Truthseeker
Clave
Apr 2, 2012, 4:54:47 PM4/2/12
to
"Frisbieinstein" <patmp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c21364cc-d30f-435e...@wb9g2000pbc.googlegroups.com...
<...>
> Except when you've got a court with a record of not caring about
> precedent (Citizens United vs. FEC). Then you've got a crooked slot
> machine. Wonderful.
I was thinking Bush v Gore, but that one works too.
Jim
Pepe Papon
Apr 3, 2012, 2:29:06 AM4/3/12
to
On Mon, 2 Apr 2012 01:39:18 -0700 (PDT), BillB <dr.bi...@gmail.com>
wrote:
On the flip side, he's an amicus brief submitted to the Court by
legislators from the fifty states:
http://tinyurl.com/7683uvl
wrote:
legislators from the fifty states:
http://tinyurl.com/7683uvl
Pepe Papon
Apr 3, 2012, 2:29:52 AM4/3/12
to
TruthSeeker
Apr 3, 2012, 11:54:03 AM4/3/12
to
Obama said one of the strangest things I've heard a President say in a
long time. He said that the Supreme Court should not take the
"unprecedented" step of voiding a law that had been duly passed by a
democratically elected legislature.
Does he define "unprecedented" as "only a hundred times before?"
The whole reason that this case is before the court is to rule on
whether the "democratically elected legislature" had the authority under
the Constitution to do what they did. I'm not going to look them up and
count but the Court has overturned acts of Congress many times in our
history. That's one of the things they do. If you don't like that,
overturn Marbury vs. Madison.
I find it amusing that so many folks on the Left who for decades have
used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
"democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.
--
TruthSeeker
bratt
Apr 3, 2012, 12:56:39 PM4/3/12
to
elected". I don't understand what he meant by that. I asked B-BillB and
he said they can't be fired. If it wasn't a threat, what was it?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BillB wrote: I think more can be read from your post. You are one of the
most bitter women I have ever encountered (and that's coming from a former
divorce lawyer).
..............................................................
BillB implied: I never said I was a divorce attorney
-----
VegasJerry
Apr 3, 2012, 1:18:38 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 2 2012 12:36 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 4/2/12 12:54 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Apr 1 2012 1:52 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >>>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
> >>>> settles it?
>
> >>> Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
>
> >> Thanks for demonstrating my point.
>
> > Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.
>
>
> And you continue to demonstrate it.
And will continue to demonstrate your failure to answer the simple
> On 4/2/12 12:54 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Apr 1 2012 1:52 PM, TruthSeeker wrote:
>
> >>>> Are you in Jerry mode now? Just say "of course it is" as if that
> >>>> settles it?
>
> >>> Sure it does. Why do you require a lengthy explanation of the obvious?
>
> >> Thanks for demonstrating my point.
>
> > Failure to answer the simple question (dodge), noted.
>
>
> And you continue to demonstrate it.
question.
Jerry 'n Vegas
I don't need to answer your bogus
> "Why don't you stop beating your wife" question, because your position
> is not only not obvious, and not supported, but false. But like a
> buffalo pushing through a barbed-wire fence you just keep bulling on, no
> matter how little sense you make.
>
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker
VegasJerry
Apr 3, 2012, 1:20:06 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 2 2012 12:39 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
> On 4/2/12 12:56 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Apr 2 2012 9:04 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/1/12 12:51 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >>
> >>> Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
> >>> If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
> >>> on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
> >>> we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
> >>
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.
> >
> > Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.
>
>
> And the buffalo stomps through another fence.
Whatever that means.
> On 4/2/12 12:56 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> > On Apr 2 2012 9:04 AM, Truthseeker wrote:
> >
> >> On 4/1/12 12:51 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> >>
> >>> Listen up, Dumbo; you're in Medical Commerce whether you like it or not.
> >>> If you drop over sick, the ambulance will take you to ER and they'll work
> >>> on you. Then there's Medicare and Medicaid. The SCOTUS has to decide if
> >>> we're in medical commerce. We shall see.
> >>
> >>
> >> It doesn't matter if we're all in "medical commerce" or not.
> >
> > Yea, actually it does. That's the whole point.
>
>
> And the buffalo stomps through another fence.
The point is, you are in medical commerce.
Jerry 'n Vegas
I just finished
> explaining why it is not the point, below.
>
>
> >> That isn't
> >> the salient point, as there are many kinds of commerce in which all
> >> citizens are involved. Scalia gave one example, food. There is also
> >> the funeral industry ... everyone dies at some point and if they or
> >> their kin don't pay their expenses, the government does. The salient
> >> point is whether the Congress has the authority to make such a
> >> fundamental expansion of government power.
> >
> > You mean like Social Security and Medicare?
>
>
> You've already been informed that neither of those involves forcing
> anyone to buy a product. Make that buffalo concrete -- a live one is
> less obtuse than you.
>
>
> --
> Truthseeker
TruthSeeker
Apr 3, 2012, 2:06:13 PM4/3/12
to
On 4/3/12 11:20 AM, VegasJerry wrote:
> On Apr 2 2012 12:39 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>> And the buffalo stomps through another fence.
>
> Whatever that means.
That's OK, the buffalo doesn't understand it either.
> On Apr 2 2012 12:39 PM, Truthseeker wrote:
>> And the buffalo stomps through another fence.
>
> Whatever that means.
> The point is, you are in medical commerce.
(Watch the buffalo stomp out "yes it is ...")
--
TruthSeeker
double....@hotmail.com
Apr 3, 2012, 2:30:23 PM4/3/12
to
> I find it amusing that so many folks on the Left who for decades
have
> used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
> "democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
> should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.
If they strike it down on a 5-4 vote with all 5 being Republican
have
> used and praised the court to achieve what they could not achieve in a
> "democratically elected legislature" are now howling that the Court
> should not be activist and should defer to the Congress.
appointees, they'll once and for all show the country that the current
conservatives are nothing but Republican party hacks. This will also
light a fire under the Democratic base and all libs, progressives, &
Socialists like me to make sure Obama is re-elected along with a Dem
Senate & House.
mo_ntresor
Apr 3, 2012, 2:45:40 PM4/3/12
to
runs dry sooner rather than later, and we may as well get our's!
mo_ntresor
____________________________________________________________________
~M~
Apr 3, 2012, 2:51:03 PM4/3/12
to
"Pepe Papon" wrote in message
news:866ln7dp5scviqlk2...@4ax.com...
>>> It doesn't matter what the law calls it. If it functions like a tax,
>>> then it's a tax.
>>
>>
>>I suspect that the Supreme Court has a little more respect for the law
>>than you do here.
>And they haven't ruled on it. What's your point?
His point is that to the USSC, it does matter what the law calls it.
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
news:866ln7dp5scviqlk2...@4ax.com...
>>> It doesn't matter what the law calls it. If it functions like a tax,
>>> then it's a tax.
>>
>>
>>I suspect that the Supreme Court has a little more respect for the law
>>than you do here.
>And they haven't ruled on it. What's your point?
--
"The less intelligent you are, the more susceptible you are to propaganda"
- Jerry (he stupid) 'n Vegas, Master of Irony 2/5/2012
bratt
Apr 3, 2012, 2:56:53 PM4/3/12
to
nothing but Democratic party hacks?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BillB wrote: I think more can be read from your post. You are one of the
most bitter women I have ever encountered (and that's coming from a former
divorce lawyer).
..............................................................
BillB implied: I never said I was a divorce attorney
mo_ntresor
Apr 3, 2012, 3:21:41 PM4/3/12
to
On Mar 30 2012 10:20 AM, Wilhelm Kuhlmann wrote:
> > The coward is the one offerring the deal?
>
> Anonymous screen names can't offer deals, Susan. Especially a bet on
> how much cash the anonymous screen name could come up with. Assume
> such a bet were made, then someone came forward, established their
> identity, and somehow established credibly that they had access to X
> amount of cash. Please explain how that person could possibly prove
> that they were the person who had been posting as Mo Ron Charles all
> these years.
>
> Anonymous internet cowards are non-persons. As such, they do not
> deserve to be treated like persons.
do i have to explain the assumptions you're making here?
mo_ntresor
--------
> > The coward is the one offerring the deal?
>
> Anonymous screen names can't offer deals, Susan. Especially a bet on
> how much cash the anonymous screen name could come up with. Assume
> such a bet were made, then someone came forward, established their
> identity, and somehow established credibly that they had access to X
> amount of cash. Please explain how that person could possibly prove
> that they were the person who had been posting as Mo Ron Charles all
> these years.
>
> Anonymous internet cowards are non-persons. As such, they do not
> deserve to be treated like persons.
do i have to explain the assumptions you're making here?
mo_ntresor
--------
double....@hotmail.com
Apr 3, 2012, 3:34:03 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 1:56 pm, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> and if the liberals vote straight party lines, does that mean they are
> nothing but Democratic party hacks?
>
After Bush v Gore, the onus is on the Repubs to show they're not hacks
> and if the liberals vote straight party lines, does that mean they are
> nothing but Democratic party hacks?
>
Wilhelm Kuhlmann
Apr 3, 2012, 3:38:44 PM4/3/12
to
On Apr 3, 12:21 pm, "mo_ntresor" <amontilladofortun...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I am not interested in explanations from non-persons.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
wrote:
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Clave
Apr 3, 2012, 4:27:27 PM4/3/12
to
<double....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cbd2c4bb-fc71-454a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
And Citizens United...
news:cbd2c4bb-fc71-454a...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages