Support NeoGAF

[AlteredBeast]

With any luck. Federalism is a massive failure.

TOTALLY

 

[The Librarian]

Obama killed the PO before a final bill was close to completion, let's not rewrite history

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/health/policy/13health.html?_r=1
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/miles-mogulescu/ny-times-reporter-confirm_b_500999.html

Sargent offers no evidence to suggest otherwise. Tom Daschle is also on record saying it was scrapped from the beginning, although his staff issued a ridiculous statement "clarifying" his obvious comments, that he made on record and in his own book detailing the details of the legislative process.
http://thinkprogress.org/health/2010/10/05/171689/daschle-interview/

Kilpatrick specifically confirmed the deal, I don't see the wiggle room Sargent creates out of thin air.

Bernstein addressed both your articles, mainly here:

The background: There were certainly two significant deals that the White House made with interest groups. One was with the drug companies, to leave re-importation out of health care reform. The second, with the hospitals, limited how much ACA would cost them. But some liberals believed that the White House was also out to get the public option from the beginning. This first arose when problem comes when one HuffPo blogger decided that a David Kirkpatrick story in the New York Times and a later Kirkpatrick interview on MSNBC proved it. It’s those two items that the links trail lead back to.

However, Kirkpatrick, as I read it, only confirmed that there was a deal (on costs) with the hospitals, not that it included the public option. He wrote in the original story that there was a belief that a public option would not wind up in the bill. But that was more an assessment of where the votes were going to fall than part of any agreement. There was nothing there to confirm a deal on the public option.

Where, in the NYT article by Kirkpatrick does it specifically confirm that kind of deal? The only direct reference to the public option in the article is the following quote:

He added: “The president has said he wants a public option to keep everybody honest. He hasn’t said he wants a co-op as a public option.”

So you trust the article when it says a deal was made to cut the PO out, but not when it says Obama wanted it in? The article seems to contradict itself. Bernstein addresses the part of the article that says the deal was based on the belief that the PO wouldn't be in the final bill: not that it was part of the deal itself, but more of an assessment of where the votes were going to fall.

As for Tom Daschle, your link contradicts itself. He issued a clarifying statement saying pretty clearly that a deal to kill the public option never happened. Which Bernstein addresses here:

Now, it’s possible that the public statements of moderate Democrats were all part of an elaborate rouse orchestrated by the White House to publicly talk up the public option while they privately knew there was a deal to kill it. But that’s very difficult to believe, and no matter what people say, it hasn’t even been close to proven. A much more logical explanation is that there was no deal on the public option, and that it died because there just were not 60 Democrats willing to support it.

Bernstein's ultimate point is that all of this is pretty murky stuff. And he's right. Two of your articles seem to contradict each other, and the third mentions one of the first two. And Berntsein raises a good point: If the public option were nixed in a deal, why did so many Democratic senators continue to act like there was no deal at all? You forget the last ditch effort to get the public option in for a reconciliation vote. Senate Democrats acted like there was a deal on prescription drugs, but they did not do so when it came to this deal to nix the public option. Why? Surely Reid would have been informed of this deal, but he said he'd vote for a PO via reconciliation if there were enough votes.

 

[leroidys]

With any luck. Federalism is a massive failure.

Ehhh, kind of agree. I think federalism works well for smaller, less diverse (culturally, socially, spiritually) countries or more focused countries, such as the BDR.

For one of the largest countries on the planet though that tries to project its will on the rest of the world while maintaining some sort of broken federalism at home that only serves to bog the country down in culture wars and guarantee corporate primacy, its pants on head retarded.

 

[remist]

Seems like Gingrich is firing people so he can stretch the money out to the convention. What does he get from staying in the race? I don't get it.

 

[Tamanon]

Seems like Gingrich is firing people so he can stretch the money out to the convention. What does he get from staying in the race? I don't get it.

Same thing Ron Paul gets. Minor amounts of influence over platform and more potential book sales.

 

[Dude Abides]

If anyone is interested in "respectable" racists from the 90s, Charles R. Murray is on Colbert tonight.

 

[Chichikov]

With any luck. Federalism is a massive failure.

I actually like federalism.
I think that democracy works better in the local level, and I think that your default stance should be to do everything local.
But I just so happen to think that there's a whole lot of things that makes sense to do in the federal level, for practical reasons.

Plus philosophically, I like the laboratories of democracy concept, it's not perfect, but it at least try to address what I think is democracy's biggest weakness - the fact that you don't opt in, but born into the system.

But I do agree that the American version of this idea is kinda the worst of all worlds.

 

[RustyNails]

Seems like Gingrich is firing people so he can stretch the money out to the convention. What does he get from staying in the race? I don't get it.

The man wants to sell books and docs.

 

[Invisible_Insane]

I actually like federalism.
I think that democracy works better in the local level, and I think that your default stance should be to do everything local.
But I just so happen to think that there's a whole lot of things that makes sense to do in the federal level, for practical reasons.

Plus philosophically, I like the laboratories of democracy concept, it's not perfect, but it at least try to address what I think is democracy's biggest weakness - the fact that you don't opt in, but born into the system.

But I do agree that the American version of this idea is kinda the worst of all worlds.

I have to agree with empty vessel here; American federalism seems to largely serve the interests of bigots and reactionaries until the rest of the country musters the resolve to drag the lagging states forward.

I also don't see why local control should be the automatic preference in terms of collective decision making--there are cases where such control might be preferable, but just as many cases where it is not. I think education is a particularly compelling example of the latter. It's kind of like locavorism--a nice sounding idea that in many cases turns out to be quite inefficient.

 

[Chichikov]

I have to agree with empty vessel here; American federalism seems to largely serve the interests of bigots and reactionaries until the rest of the country musters the resolve to drag the lagging states forward.

I also don't see why local control should be the automatic preference in terms of collective decision making--there are cases where such control might be preferable, but just as many cases where it is not. I think education is a particularly compelling example of the latter. It's kind of like locavorism--a nice sounding idea that in many cases turns out to be quite inefficient.

I didn't say local control is automatically preferable, I said it should be the default one.
And what I meant is that unless there is a good reason for it, stuff should be done in the local level - it reduces unnecessary levels of bureaucracy, it's more accessible, and it make it much easier for the citizens to have an active an meaningful role in our civic lives.

Now I happen to agree with that there are many compelling reasons for the federal government to have a big role in education.
But even in education, stuff that doesn't need to be done on the federal level, should be kept local.
For a (dumb) example, I see no reason for the federal government to get involved in school's dress codes.

 

[empty vessel]

For a (dumb) example, I see no reason for the federal government to get involved in school's dress codes.

While acknowledging that you understand you are giving a trivial example, this isn't federalism. Permitting local control over certain spheres of activity is not federalism. Federalism is specifically dual sovereignty. A non-federal government does not mean that local districts cannot be given control over many things. It just means that local governments do not have sovereignty over certain spheres of governance. In other words, a non-federal government can allow as much local control as is deemed beneficial by the people. It doesn't prohibit local control.

While I think local control can be good, I don't know if that holds in the context of a federal system. State governments in the US, perhaps because of federalism, are more corrupt and less responsive to the public good than the federal government. They are more easily captured by private economic power.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Bernstein addressed both your articles, mainly here:


Where, in the NYT article by Kirkpatrick does it specifically confirm that kind of deal? The only direct reference to the public option in the article is the following quote:

So you trust the article when it says a deal was made to cut the PO out, but not when it says Obama wanted it in? The article seems to contradict itself. Bernstein addresses the part of the article that says the deal was based on the belief that the PO wouldn't be in the final bill: not that it was part of the deal itself, but more of an assessment of where the votes were going to fall.

As for Tom Daschle, your link contradicts itself. He issued a clarifying statement saying pretty clearly that a deal to kill the public option never happened. Which Bernstein addresses here:


Bernstein's ultimate point is that all of this is pretty murky stuff. And he's right. Two of your articles seem to contradict each other, and the third mentions one of the first two. And Berntsein raises a good point: If the public option were nixed in a deal, why did so many Democratic senators continue to act like there was no deal at all? You forget the last ditch effort to get the public option in for a reconciliation vote. Senate Democrats acted like there was a deal on prescription drugs, but they did not do so when it came to this deal to nix the public option. Why? Surely Reid would have been informed of this deal, but he said he'd vote for a PO via reconciliation if there were enough votes.

Kilpatrick argued the Obama got the industries to come to the table in part because the PO was never a serious part of reform. Dashcle confirms this in his book. I already addressed his weak "clarification" walk back. He wrote a book and gave an interview stating the PO was taken off the table, I'm sorry but I'm not going to believe him when he turns around and pretends he didn't mean what he said.

There weer never 60 votes for a PO, and I think it's clear Obama knew a PO would scare away the folks he got on board from the offset. The various revivals of the PO were basically last ditch effects that never went anywhere. I'm not arguing Lieberman and others knew the fix was in, but Baucus and Reid certainly knew.

Nor were there votes for a Medicare buy-in, thanks to Lieberman and Rockerfeller. Things were fucked early.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

I actually like federalism.
I think that democracy works better in the local level, and I think that your default stance should be to do everything local.
But I just so happen to think that there's a whole lot of things that makes sense to do in the federal level, for practical reasons.

Plus philosophically, I like the laboratories of democracy concept, it's not perfect, but it at least try to address what I think is democracy's biggest weakness - the fact that you don't opt in, but born into the system.

But I do agree that the American version of this idea is kinda the worst of all worlds.

I'm kind of divided on it as well. But being honest though this nation is so diverse I'm amazed it has lasted this long intact.

 

[jamesinclair]

The economy is going to explode this week.

Lotto is going to hit HALF A BILLION.

Going to be double overtime at every gas station and convenience store in the country. Lines will be out the door.

And think about all the tax monies.

Its the stimulus obama could only dream about.

 

[Oblivion]

So, I just watched Maddow do a nice little segment on Florida's new douchebag voter suppression law. She mentioned that because of it, there will be 80k less people voting in November. That's just right now, and that number could (and will most likely) go up. In the 08 election:

Obama - 4,143,957
McCain - 3,939,380

That's a 204, 577 difference. 80k people will not be voting this year SO FAR.

In other words, we're fucked for Florida.

 

[Diablos]

If the mandate is struck down, how much can we expect individual coverage to rise?

God the Supreme Court really looks like it's primed to kill the Individual Mandate. Fuck the Republican Justices

Some people think 6-3, heh...

I just cannot see it.

Kennedy is our last hope. And he's not sounding like he gives a fuck.

 

[Black Mamba]

If the mandate is struck down, how much can we expect individual coverage to rise?


Some people think 6-3, heh...

I just cannot see it.

Kennedy is our last hope. And he's not sounding like he gives a fuck.

For those who don't know because they don't keep up with the Supreme Court...

If you were to place bets in Vegas based on your impression of oral arguments and what/how the justices say things, you'd lose. badly.

never assume to know what a justice will do based on oral arguments. Seriously. The correlation is very low. They dick around in these things (except for Thomas, who I am unconvinced is alive). And yes, I've read the transcripts.

Don't read into Kennedy. Or Roberts.

 

[Particle Physicist]

So, I just watched Maddow do a nice little segment on Florida's new douchebag voter suppression law. She mentioned that because of it, there will be 80k less people voting in November. That's just right now, and that number could (and will most likely) go up. In the 08 election:

Obama - 4,143,957
McCain - 3,939,380

That's a 204, 577 difference. 80k people will not be voting this year SO FAR.

In other words, we're fucked for Florida.

What's the law?

 

[speculawyer]

This case is about whether or not there are any limits on what the federal government can do. Are we going to live in a society where moral busybodies control every facet of your life, or are we going to maintain some semblance of personal autonomy?

Surely you are talking about Rick Santorum.

 

[Black Republican]

haha i knew they'd pull something like this since Newt winning isnt possible now:

Just in case the national parties got the idea that South Carolina had somehow embarrassed itself by voting for Newt Gingrich, seriously damaging the likely GOP nominee in order to boost a can't-win candidate and imperiling the state's place in the calendar for 2016, local Republicans are taking steps to limit the fallout:

Today, the S.C. House of Representatives introduced a measure (H. 5081) aimed at securing our state's First-in-the-South Presidential Primary. A majorly influential position for both political parties, this early primary brings more than just status recognition - it translates into high-profile national exposure and millions of dollars in economic impact.

House Speaker Bobby Harrell said, "As South Carolinians, we take our duty of selecting the next President of the United States very seriously. Since the election of President Ronald Reagan, South Carolina's First-in-the-South Primary has swayed huge national influence. With more and more state's trying to jump ahead of South Carolina each election, we need to take steps to protect our state's historic primary position."

"Modeled after New Hampshire's Presidential Primary state law, the House has introduced a bill that will cement South Carolina's spot as the First-in-the-South Primary state," Speaker Harrell added. "Along with the national exposure and one-on-one interaction our citizens have with the future President, this early primary translates into millions of dollars in added economic benefit for our state."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/burns-haberman/2012/03/sc-moves-to-protect-primary-118829.html

 

[Rocket Scientist]

Every article I've read these past few days starts off with something to the effect of ''well yeah we thought this supreme court would vote for the mandate no problem, easy peasy, but now... oh boy looking like they gonna strike that sucka down!''. Did I live in an alternate universe or are people just making shit up here? Did people actually believe the mandate was a sure thing? I don't believe that one second and fuck every writer who starts off their article like this.

 

[Black Republican]

Every article I've read these past few days starts off with something to the effect of ''well yeah we thought this supreme court would vote for the mandate no problem, easy peasy, but now... oh boy looking like they gonna strike that sucka down!''. Did I live in an alternate universe or are people just making shit up here? Did people actually believe the mandate was a sure thing? I don't believe that one second and fuck every writer who starts off their article like this.

thats the 24 hour news cycle for ya

 

[The Librarian]

Kilpatrick argued the Obama got the industries to come to the table in part because the PO was never a serious part of reform. Dashcle confirms this in his book. I already addressed his weak "clarification" walk back. He wrote a book and gave an interview stating the PO was taken off the table, I'm sorry but I'm not going to believe him when he turns around and pretends he didn't mean what he said.

There weer never 60 votes for a PO, and I think it's clear Obama knew a PO would scare away the folks he got on board from the offset. The various revivals of the PO were basically last ditch effects that never went anywhere. I'm not arguing Lieberman and others knew the fix was in, but Baucus and Reid certainly knew.

Nor were there votes for a Medicare buy-in, thanks to Lieberman and Rockerfeller. Things were fucked early.

Kirkpatrick (what is with you and authors of articles?) argued nothing of the kind in his article. He only confirms there was a deal on costs. What the article says is that hospitals came to the table under the assumption a public option wasn't a part of the table because...there weren't enough votes in the Senate. Even though it says in the same article Obama wanted it in. Which is it? As for Daschle, why bother walking back if it weren't true? As some sort of elaborate rouse? I'm sorry, but politics is hardly like that; what you see is what you get.

When a deal was made, such as with the perscription drugs, you saw the leaders of the Democrats in the Senate acting as if there were a deal. You didn't see that with the public option. Somehow Baucus knew the fix was in and not Durbin? Or Schumer? Why attempt to help revive it if there was a deal? Seems to me like you're grasping at straws.

 

[eznark]

Every article I've read these past few days starts off with something to the effect of ''well yeah we thought this supreme court would vote for the mandate no problem, easy peasy, but now... oh boy looking like they gonna strike that sucka down!''. Did I live in an alternate universe or are people just making shit up here? Did people actually believe the mandate was a sure thing? I don't believe that one second and fuck every writer who starts off their article like this.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Are you kidding?

 

[eznark]

Are you kidding?

Are you claiming she didn't believe the mandate's constitutionality was a sure thing?

 

[KingGondo]

Are you claiming she didn't believe the mandate's constitutionality was a sure thing?

I'm sure she believes it's constitutional. Whether or not she believed that the SCOTUS would rule it so is a different matter.

 

[Stinkles]

I'm sure she believes it's constitutional. Whether or not she believed that the SCOTUS would rule it so is a different matter.

The law's constitutionality has nothing to do with how five of the judges will rule on any issue. I firmly believe that Roberts in particular, made a back room agreement to stay on plan for the duration of his term, no matter what. No ego, no intellect, kind of like if Clarence Thomas was in charge.

 

[Bulbo Urethral Baggins]

Are you claiming she didn't believe the mandate's constitutionality was a sure thing?

oops. Wrong quote.

Are you serious?

Fancy Nancy

 

[LosDaddie]

Did people actually believe the mandate was a sure thing? I don't believe that one second and fuck every writer who starts off their article like this.

I pretty much asked the same thing yesterday, and was told that, yes, most people believed the mandate would be upheld. I guess it's just you & I living in that alternate universe. :lol

 

[markatisu]

The law's constitutionality has nothing to do with how five of the judges will rule on any issue. I firmly believe that Roberts in particular, made a back room agreement to stay on plan for the duration of his term, no matter what. No ego, no intellect, kind of like if Clarence Thomas was in charge.

If it were anything like Thomas being in charge we would not have 3 days of questions because there would have been no questions

I firmly believe if Kennedy is swayed or upholds it Roberts will follow, on something this groundbreaking he will not leave the legacy of his court as having sided on the losing side despite whatever personal reservations he has

 

[cartoon_soldier]

I pretty much asked the same thing yesterday, and was told that, yes, most people believed the mandate would be upheld. I guess it's just you & I living in that alternate universe. :lol

Problem was people looked at precedent and thought as a result it would be good.

Problem for these people was that the current SCOTUS doesn't really care about that. SCOTUS by the power they have will always be activist judges.

 

[markatisu]

In other news Romney having some issues in the latest polls

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...rity/2012/03/27/gIQA4WOSfS_story.html?hpid=z2

A new Washington Post/ABC poll has some rough numbers for Mitt Romney: “In the new poll, 50 percent of all adults and 52 percent of registered voters express unfavorable opinions of Romney, both higher — although marginally — than Obama has received in Post-ABC polling as far back as late 2006. However, the biggest difference between Romney and Obama is on the other side of the ledger: 53 percent of Americans hold favorable views of the president; for Romney, that number slides to 34 percent.” The good news for Romney: The general election is seven months away. The bad news: It’s seven months away. By the way, the Politico story on the proposed car elevator for Romney’s oceanfront home in San Diego is another one of those bad two- or three-word story for Romney, meaning it only takes two or three words to tell a negative narrative. The others: Swiss bank account, dog on roof, Etch A Sketch -- and now “car elevator” Too be sure, Obama has his as well (Obamacare, “flexibility,” etc.). But that is a lot of negative shorthand for a potential presidential challenger at this point in time.

And

Boehner scolds Romney for criticizing Obama while abroad: This story got lost in yesterday’s news, but it was pretty significant in our eyes. NBC’s Luke Russert reported that House Speaker Boehner took a dig at Romney for criticizing Obama while he was overseas. "Clearly while the president is overseas, he's at a conference and while the president is overseas I think it's appropriate that people not be critical of him or our country," Boehner said in response to a question from NBC News about whether he agreed with Romney's assessment that Russia is the "No.1 geopolitical foe" of the United States. By the way, Romney has an op-ed in Foreign Policy Magazine -- entitled “Bowing to the Kremlin” -- that doubles down on his criticism of Obama.

And

Obama leads in FL, OH, and PA: A series of new Quinnipiac battleground state polls shows Obama leading Romney in Florida (49%-42%), Ohio (47%-41%), and Pennsylvania (45%-42%). The president also is ahead of Santorum in all three states by a slightly larger margin (50%-37% in Florida, 47%-40% in Ohio, and 48%-41% in Pennsylvania). What’s fueling Obama’s lead? Quinnipiac says it’s female voters, who back Obama over Romney or Santorum by six to 19 points in these three states. But also, don’t miss the political party fav/unfav numbers. The GOP is SO under water in all three states that its favorable rating is below 40% in FL and OH, and it’s at 41% in PA… Dems are an average of five points better in all three states. So while the Obama White House had a really bad day at the Supreme Court yesterday, it can lick its wounds with these poll numbers, plus the Washington Post/ABC survey on Romney’s standing.

 

[Wilsongt]

Okay, I lol'd.

http://news.yahoo.com/arlen-specter-made-grossest-romney-analogy-yet-133235743.html

Mitt Romney should be glad to be compared to an Etch A Sketch at this point: On Wednesday Sen. Arlen Specter kicked the bar way up (or rather, down) in the insulting imagery department by comparing the candidate to a "pornographic movie queen." Because he changes positions so often, you see.

 

[markatisu]

Okay, I lol'd.

http://news.yahoo.com/arlen-specter-made-grossest-romney-analogy-yet-133235743.html

That made my day, lol

 

[AlteredBeast]

Okay, I lol'd.

http://news.yahoo.com/arlen-specter-made-grossest-romney-analogy-yet-133235743.html

Arlen Specter said that...

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

Since Somedude seems to be banned or hasn't found the thread yet, I thought I would engage in some lowest common denominator type stuff:

Nominees for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp., Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and Treasury Department have been stopped since Obama’s decision not to wait on putting Cordray in place at the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in January. The move torpedoed a potential deal with Republicans to get dozens of sure-fire candidates through the Senate.

In other cases, agencies like the Federal Reserve haven’t been able to run at full power. As the country muddles through the recovery and the Fed finalizes new regulations, two of the seven spots on its board of governors are vacant.
Sen. Richard Shelby (R-Ala.) blocked the confirmation of MIT economist and Nobel Prize winner Peter Diamond last year, so Obama made a bipartisan gesture by putting forth two candidates at once: Harvard University professor Jeremy Stein, who served on his National Economic Council; and Jerome Powell, a former Treasury Department official for President George W. Bush.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0312/74553.html#ixzz1qQZWt5Xg

The measure fell nine votes short of the 60 needed to move forward. The Senate will consider taking up the measure again in mid-April, when lawmakers return from recess.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/03/27/senate-defers-work-on-post-office-overhaul/

60 is the new standard. We are doomed. When is the breakup of the nation scheduled?

 

[Wilsongt]

Arlen Specter said that...

Well, pot meet kettle, but it's still funny and true.

 

[RustyNails]

And

Obama leads in FL, OH, and PA: A series of new Quinnipiac battleground state polls shows Obama leading Romney in Florida (49%-42%), Ohio (47%-41%), and Pennsylvania (45%-42%). The president also is ahead of Santorum in all three states by a slightly larger margin (50%-37% in Florida, 47%-40% in Ohio, and 48%-41% in Pennsylvania). What’s fueling Obama’s lead? Quinnipiac says it’s female voters, who back Obama over Romney or Santorum by six to 19 points in these three states. But also, don’t miss the political party fav/unfav numbers. The GOP is SO under water in all three states that its favorable rating is below 40% in FL and OH, and it’s at 41% in PA… Dems are an average of five points better in all three states. So while the Obama White House had a really bad day at the Supreme Court yesterday, it can lick its wounds with these poll numbers, plus the Washington Post/ABC survey on Romney’s standing.

I see Pennsyltucky acting up again.

 

[zargle]

If it were anything like Thomas being in charge we would not have 3 days of questions because there would have been no questions

Why doesn't he ask questions? Does anyone know?

 

[markatisu]

Why doesn't he ask questions? Does anyone know?

A)Because he is worthless and should not have ever been on the court a B)He just does not care and his mind is already made up on lots of issues

But more because he is worthless

 

[eznark]

Jeffrey Toobin: At #scotus, still a train wreck, maybe also a plane wreck for @barackobama.

lol. Supposedly the arguments have shifted to whether or not the entire thing is unconstitutional if the mandate is unconstitutional.

 

[KingGondo]

Why doesn't he ask questions? Does anyone know?

He's weird and self-loathing, and already knows how he's going to vote before he hears most cases?

That's my best guess.

 

[markatisu]

So basically the mandate got some help today when they realized by striking it down they might have to read the 2700 pages that encompass the rest to see what should or could be kept

Even though they might not like it, do they really want to take their time to figure out what to do with it aka work lol

 

[Dr. Pangloss]

lol. Supposedly the arguments have shifted to whether or not the entire thing is unconstitutional if the mandate is unconstitutional.

Yeah. It's called severability: is the mandate severable from the rest of the bill. It was on the schedule. I'll also look into my crystal ball and tell you they will argue about the expansion of Medicaid next.

 

[RustyNails]

Why doesn't he ask questions? Does anyone know?

He's a giant toolbag. He doesn't ask about questions because he doesn't give a shit. He will automatically vote for the ruling that's in line with the conservative view.

 

[markatisu]

He's a giant toolbag. He doesn't ask about questions because he doesn't give a shit. He will automatically vote for the ruling that's in line with the conservative view.

Yeah at least Alito and Scalia entertain the opposing side, Thomas might as well just make one of those big cardboard cutouts of himself and put it in the seat

 

[eznark]

Yeah. It's called severability: is the mandate severable from the rest of the bill. It was on the schedule. I'll also look into my crystal ball and tell you they will argue about the expansion of Medicaid next.

Right, but Toobin framed it as a dire and dramatic shift. Honestly, I have no idea who the hell Toobin is outside of he apparently works for CNN. Maybe he is just scaring up interest.

 

[RustyNails]

Yeah at least Alito and Scalia entertain the opposing side, Thomas might as well just make one of those big cardboard cutouts of himself and put it in the seat

Doesn't help the fact that Thomas' wife is also a teatard.

 

[markatisu]

Right, but Toobin framed it as a dire and dramatic shift. Honestly, I have no idea who the hell Toobin is outside of he apparently works for CNN. Maybe he is just scaring up interest.

Toobin is always like that, you should have seen him during Obama vs Clinton and then the GE.

He likes the drama