• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2012 Community Thread |OT2| This thread title is now under military control

Status
Not open for further replies.
I can see the mandate being struck down as well as the essential thing it allows- guaranteed coverage. I'm not sure how you can strike down one and not the other.

But if one half is perfectly Constitutional and the other half isn't, then it's not really the court's job to figure out where to go from there. They're suppose to just decide if something is constitutional or not, and I don't think the non-mandate portion of the law was ever really in doubt whether it's Constitutional or not.

Throwing out regulations that are perfectly constitutional because of the mandate portion would be costly to the entire system
 

eznark

Banned
But if one half is perfectly Constitutional and the other half isn't, then it's not really the court's job to figure out where to go from there. They're suppose to just decide if something is constitutional or not, and I don't think the non-mandate portion of the law was ever really in doubt whether it's Constitutional or not.

Throwing out regulations that are perfectly constitutional because of the mandate portion would be costly to the entire system

Exactly. They shouldn't be trying to legislate or predict/impact the outcomes of their rulings.
 
Good to see Citizens United affirmed.

You think government entities should be unconstrainable by the people over which they rule? That's an awfully weird position for a libertarian to take.


Scalia is a political activist masquerading as a judge. Although perhaps masquerading is a bit strong, seeing as how he doesn't bother trying to hide it much.

Scalia's basically been Sean Hannity in robes for the last decade or so. It's all politics, no law, for him.

I tend to associate him with Limbaugh.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
Exactly. They shouldn't be trying to legislate or predict/impact the outcomes of their rulings.

I agree that they shouldn't be trying to legislate, but saying that they shouldn't predict the impact of the outcomes of their rulings doesn't seem quite right. Surely context matters?
 

Kosmo

Banned
But if one half is perfectly Constitutional and the other half isn't, then it's not really the court's job to figure out where to go from there. They're suppose to just decide if something is constitutional or not, and I don't think the non-mandate portion of the law was ever really in doubt whether it's Constitutional or not.

Throwing out regulations that are perfectly constitutional because of the mandate portion would be costly to the entire system

Ah, but this is something some of the justices were getting at in the questioning - it should not be their job to comb through the legislation like this, as they shouldn't be put in a position to have to determine the intent of why Congress voted the way they did. Certainly there are some who would not have voted for guaranteed issue without the mandate - therefore the entire piece of legislation should be returned to Congress and they would vote on it without the unconstitutional parts.
 
Ah, but this is something some of the justices were getting at in the questioning - it should not be their job to comb through the legislation like this, as they shouldn't be put in a position to have to determine the intent of why Congress voted the way they did. Certainly there are some who would not have voted for guaranteed issue without the mandate - therefore the entire piece of legislation should be returned to Congress and they would vote on it without the unconstitutional parts.

lol congress

we're on autopilot for 4 more years >_>
Nothing is going to get done, we have a party bent on doing nothing, campaigning on doing nothing, and the government system allows them to stop the entire system if they so want, even as a minority. It's win win for them, and lose lose for the entire country
 
If Roberts is writing the opinion on healthcare, it could mean the law will be upheld and he's trying to limit the scope of the ruling so that it applies only to HCR and doesn't lead to single-payer or anything like that.

Of course, it could also just mean they're shitcanning the law.

Also:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer (R) touted today’s Supreme Court decision invalidating some but not all parts of SB 1070, a controversial immigration law, as a “victory for the rule of law.”

“It is also a victory for the 10th Amendment and all Americans who believe in the inherent right and responsibility of states to defend their citizens,” Brewer said in a press release. “After more than two years of legal challenges, the heart of SB 1070 can now be implemented in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.”

“Of course, today’s ruling does not mark the end of our journey,” Brewer said, warning supporters that future legal challenges to SB 1070 “will continue.”
GovernorJanBrewer.jpg


"Wow, only most of my law was ruled as unconstitutional! I was expecting all of it to be! Allow me to light my celebratory cigar now."
 

DasRaven

Member
So they SC ruling allows for the harassment but takes away the teeth of the AZ immigration law?

"Too soon to take it down..." So when a sufficiently disgusting case of profiling reaches the court, they may then strike it down under the 14th amendment. It is only a matter of time.
 

DasRaven

Member
The Papers Please portion was not upheld, it was just ruled ineligible to be axed right now. It will be reexamined at a later day

You posited this in the new-news thread and were wrong there.

Either the "papers please" aspect of SB1070 is still the law in Arizona or Gov. Brewer is cheering absolutely nothing. Or are you just being extra technical about calling it "upheld" versus "not stuck down?"
 
good news, looks like Debbie as dnc chair maybe over come november:


http://thedc.com/MQ5xmi
dailycaller.com

Report: Debbie Wasserman Schultz ‘getting booted’ as DNC chairwoman after November

JUNE 25, 2012

Florida Democratic Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz may be “getting booted” from her chairmanship of the Democratic National Committee.

Javiar Manjarres of the Shark Tank political blog reported Sunday that “Wasserman Schultz will not be back as DNC Chairwoman after the November elections.”

“According to our source within the Democratic Party, who is also a close associate of Wasserman Schultz, the arrangements have already been made for her to leave DNC regardless if President Obama wins re-election or not,” Manjarres wrote.

“This same source believes that Wasserman Schultz will be forced to resign behind closed doors and then stage an press event in which she tells Americans that her job as the DNC chair was a temporary one and that she is moving on with her congressional career.”
 

Diablos

Member
I knew it wouldn't be until Thursday. KNEW IT. They are teasing us. There's no reason why they couldn't have told us today.

Wow, federal overreach continues. A state can't even make their own campaign finance laws now.
Yeah, it's yet another example of how conservatives love to defend states' rights until it doesn't benefit their agenda. This has to be one of the most purest examples; if they really cared about states' rights they wouldn't have interfered with Montana's intent to keep all of the SuperPAC bullshit out of their state. I challenge ANY conservative gaffer to tell us why this is able to somehow be valid in conflicting with the traditional conservative stance regarding states' rights. It's not. It's purely political, partisan, and guided by the hand of special interests while the ideal of a fair court gets thrown on the backburner.

We're in trouble. Big, big, trouble. If you think the court will "balance itself out" over the next couple decades if a 5-4 conservative majority is to remain, you are fooling yourself.
 
good news, looks like Debbie as dnc chair maybe over come november:


http://thedc.com/MQ5xmi

Thank god, she's a fucking disaster. I dunno if she got the job as a favor to Hillary, or whether party leaders thought she was a good pick. Regardless she is completely worthless on television, and doesn't seem to be doing shit behind the scenes either.

I wish Obama would have used his influence to keep Dean in the job. His 50 state strategy became a blueprint for the Obama primary/general in many ways, and he would good at the job. The elites didn't like him though, and apparently Rahm hates his guts
 

thefro

Member
Yeah, there were some issue(s) with Dean and Rahm supposedly (and the typical thing that happens is the President "takes over" the DNC/RNC).
 

DasRaven

Member

"Hold on, I have to listen to Rush & Hannity's shows today to decide how I'm supposed to feel. I am Norquist's dream President!"

Honest question: had Romney said with specificity what his position is on anything? Literally everything I hear out of him basically amounts to "I believe in hardworking Americans, and I'll do the opposite of Obama"

I don't think he even goes as far as that part. I think his strategy is what he said at NALEO, "You have an alternative."
That's all. No discussion of whether the alternative is attractive, because he'll never tell. But if for any reason, you aren't fully satisfied with President Obama, he's the only viable alternative, deal with it.
Don't like obvious coordination summits with his donors, veep candidates, and SuperPAC leaders? Too bad, I'm the only viable alternative.
Freeze out any media that might challenge my silence on any/all issues? Too bad, I'm the only viable alternative.
Want me to release my tax returns? Too bad, I'm the only viable alternative.
 
Thank god, she's a fucking disaster. I dunno if she got the job as a favor to Hillary, or whether party leaders thought she was a good pick. Regardless she is completely worthless on television, and doesn't seem to be doing shit behind the scenes either.

I wish Obama would have used his influence to keep Dean in the job. His 50 state strategy became a blueprint for the Obama primary/general in many ways, and he would good at the job. The elites didn't like him though, and apparently Rahm hates his guts
Rahm and crew's philosophy is flawed because it's based on getting to 218, then who cares. It's like Kerry putting all of his chips on Ohio, there's no backup plan and if you lose, you lose and that's all that matters.

I don't think anyone is advocating that Dems start going for R+20 seats or whatever, but Obama wouldn't have won North Carolina, Indiana, or Virginia if he'd played it safe like Clinton surrogates wanted him to.

"This decision by the Supreme Court shows that Obama is a dumb head"
 
A study on public debt.

Carmen Reinhart, Vincent Reinhart, and Kenneth Rogoff look at the effect of prolonged high levels of government debt on long-term growth, concluding that “the cumulative effects can be quite dramatic.”

“We identify the major public debt overhang episodes in the advanced economies since the early 1800s, characterized by public debt to GDP levels exceeding 90% for at least five years. Consistent with Reinhart and Rogoff (2010) and other more recent research, we find that public debt overhang episodes are associated with growth over one percent lower than during other periods. Perhaps the most striking new finding here is the duration of the average debt overhang episode. Among the 26 episodes we identify, 20 lasted more than a decade. Five of the six shorter episodes were immediately after World Wars I and II. Across all 26 cases, the average duration in years is about 23 years. The long duration belies the view that the correlation is caused mainly by debt buildups during business cycle recessions. The long duration also implies that cumulative shortfall in output from debt overhang is potentially massive. We find that growth effects are significant even in the many episodes where debtor countries were able to secure continual access to capital markets at relatively low real interest rates. That is, growth-reducing effects of high public debt are apparently not transmitted exclusively through high real interest rates.”

http://www.nber.org/papers/w18015.pdf

This is kind of cute. These researchers don't even understand that they cannot make comparisons from before 1971, when the US government (and other governments) had to borrow money to spend money, to after 1971, when the US government does not borrow money at all (although eurozone governments foolishly still do). The US's "debt" after 1971 is merely a national bank it voluntarily runs. What's more, the size of that bank is entirely up to it.

In short, this is junk science. The researchers don't even know what they are looking at, so they obviously cannot analyze it.
 

Chumly

Member
Scalia is such a hack. I mean supporting state rights for immigration overreach yet doing the opposite for campaign financing laws
 

Diablos

Member
Scalia is such a hack. I mean supporting state rights for immigration overreach yet doing the opposite for campaign financing laws
All of the conservatives on the bench are, save Kennedy to a lesser extent. Scalia is the worst though, I agree.
 

ToxicAdam

Member
This is kind of cute. These researchers don't even understand that they cannot make comparisons from before 1971, when the US government (and other governments) had to borrow money to spend money, to after 1971, when the US government does not borrow money at all (although eurozone governments foolishly still do). The US's "debt" after 1971 is merely a national bank it voluntarily runs. What's more, the size of that bank is entirely up to it.

In short, this is junk science. The researchers don't even know what they are looking at, so they obviously cannot analyze it.

Do you think that if they looked at data post-1971, their findings would be dramatically different?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691142165/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Or are you saying ... "this time is different?"
 
Do you think that if they looked at data post-1971, their findings would be dramatically different?

http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691142165/?tag=neogaf0e-20

Or are you saying ... "this time is different?"

I am saying they don't really understand what they are looking at and that one cannot compare "debt" either across time when monetary systems were different (pre-1971 and post-1971) or between countries with different monetary systems (US and Eurozone). These things are apples and oranges. Countries with fiat monetary systems do not really have debt. They merely have promises to pay money in the future, always voluntarily undertaken, and always serviceable. In a country like the US, its "debt" (promise to pay money in the future) is no different from, e.g., its social security program (promise to pay money in the future). It's just a spending program like any other, an obligation it can always meet (because it creates its own money), and it has full control over its size and scope. The US could stop issuing bonds completely tomorrow if it wanted, without any impact on its ability to spend money.
 

Diablos

Member
I don't think anyone is advocating that Dems start going for R+20 seats or whatever, but Obama wouldn't have won North Carolina, Indiana, or Virginia if he'd played it safe like Clinton surrogates wanted him to.
Dean gets no love; he's just the "Dean Scream" idiot who fell victim to news networks broadcasting the wrong kind of mic feed.

In reality, he did a lot of heavy lifting that allowed Obama to become President in terms of the 50 state strategy. He gets absolutely no credit in the eyes of most Americans. A real shame.
 

AlteredBeast

Fork 'em, Sparky!
Dean gets no love; he's just the "Dean Scream" idiot who fell victim to news networks broadcasting the wrong kind of mic feed.

In reality, he did a lot of heavy lifting that allowed Obama to become President in terms of the 50 state strategy. He gets absolutely no credit in the eyes of most Americans. A real shame.

He seems like a real person, too. Wasserman Schultz is such a parody, it stopped being funny a while ago.
 
"This decision by the Supreme Court shows that Obama is a dumb head"

god, Romney is proving to be such a feeble, cowardly candidate. Absolutely takes no firm positions, no principles, and everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. He's starting to become worse than Palin.
 

Diablos

Member
god, Romney is proving to be such a feeble, cowardly candidate. Absolutely takes no firm positions, no principles, and everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. He's starting to become worse than Palin.
Too bad he's a lot more popular than Palin, at least with the people he needs to stay popular with at this point.

Anyone who's dumb enough to tie their dog to the top of their vehicle from New England to Quebec or wherever the hell he went is a fucking loon. It's that simple.

Mitt Romney is bubble boy, rich and all grown up. No joke.
 
Too bad he's a lot more popular than Palin, at least with the people he needs to stay popular with at this point.
I thought conservatives loved Palin.

He's certainly not concerned about being popular with moderates and liberals. As long as the media is willing to say "But he's so goshdarn moderate!" while he advocates absurdly right-wing policies, anyway.

Hey, who likes polls?

New Hampshire said:
Obama 51%
Romney 43%
NH is one of those troublish blue states that could go red under the right circumstance (others: WI, MI, PA), so I'm glad he's doing well enough there.
 

Diablos

Member
I thought conservatives loved Palin.

He's certainly not concerned about being popular with moderates and liberals. As long as the media is willing to say "But he's so goshdarn moderate!" while he advocates absurdly right-wing policies, anyway.
They do still love Palin, but they know Romney is their guy to beat Obama. At least, enough of them know.

He would never be popular with liberals.

He can still make a great appeal to moderates if he plays his cards right. And the media continues to give his stupid ass a free pass, so he's got that going for him too. It's still summer.
 
They do still love Palin, but they know Romney is their guy to beat Obama. At least, enough of them know.

He would never be popular with liberals.

He can still make a great appeal to moderates if he plays his cards right. And the media continues to give his stupid ass a free pass, so he's got that going for him too. It's still summer.
I think there's a decent amount of liberals who like to think of themselves as above the fray and would vote for a moderateish Republican like Jon Huntsman. That appeal definitely worked for Scott Brown and Romney's own gubernatorial campaign.

You mean another economic meltdown thanks to Europe?
Something like that. NH voters seem to be driven more by the economy, so that would probably do it.

Of course if there were another economic meltdown thanks to Europe, Obama would lose in any scenario that doesn't involve Romney getting caught in bed with a male prostitute.
 

Diablos

Member
I can't see my state (PA) going red regardless of what happens. It's going to be a close election either way, decided by 1 to maybe 3 states.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom