Support NeoGAF

[ivysaur12]

Romney's (probably) going to run!!

Remember when the GOP wanted a short primary?

 

[HylianTom]

If more and more folks jump into this nomination contest, it'll be more and more likely that whoever wins will emerge with a near-empty campaign chest and a fractured party base.

What a pity.

 

[Aaron Strife]

https://twitter.com/GroverNorquist/status/553670256455974912

Well, that's that.

But isn't Texas in America? Did they secede when I wasn't looking?

Romney's (probably) going to run!!

Remember when the GOP wanted a short primary?

Oh man that's great. It's not even a "insiders say" type of thing either, the man himself told his donors.

Can Kerry be vice president now?

 

[thepotatoman]

Jesus, good luck actually practicing in the legal profession then.

To be fair there's been numerous judges that have already sided with him and likely at least 4 supreme court justices that will. These things have always been more about ideology than actual law.

 

[Ecotic]

I thought the Supreme Court was suppose to issue cert on gay marriage today?

 

[ivysaur12]

I thought the Supreme Court was suppose to issue cert on gay marriage today?

They're in conference today, and all of their orders that went out today are procedural. They'll post cert orders Monday morning. They might wait a week, which has been their custom, before granting cert.

 

[Jack Remington]

To be fair there's been numerous judges that have already sided with him and likely at least 4 supreme court justices that will. These things have always been more about ideology than actual law.

I was talking about his ongoing argument with BM about congressional intent and his inability to distinguish that argument from the argument over the text of the bill.

 

[pigeon]

If I'm reading that right: it sounds worse than it actually is (statutes should be enforced according to what they actually say), in large part because of the IRS using the rule for federal exchanges to begin with.

Yeah. Like, the key argument in King comes down to the difference between "state" and "State." That's not a great position to be in from a political perspective. Imagine trying to be a talking head on CNN explaining that.

 

[RustyNails]

https://twitter.com/GroverNorquist/status/553670256455974912

Well, that's that.

Wait, he actually fell for your "somalia is a libertarian paradise" trollbait? Lol.

 

[Metaphoreus]

They're in conference today, and all of their orders that went out today are procedural. They'll post cert orders Monday morning. They might wait a week, which has been their custom, before granting cert.

Yeah, if recent practice holds, they'll reset the cases for their next conference, then grant cert a week from Monday.

I was talking about his ongoing argument with BM about congressional intent and his inability to distinguish that argument from the argument over the text of the bill.

You know we can all read your posts, right? You quoted BM arguing that I couldn't possibly believe what I say I believe, and you quoted my response that I find such a position unacceptable in a debate. That's not an argument over text or intent. Do you understand the arguments you're making?

Yeah. Like, the key argument in King comes down to the difference between "state" and "State." That's not a great position to be in from a political perspective. Imagine trying to be a talking head on CNN explaining that.

Well... not really. The distinction between "State" and "state" really has nothing to do with the case. Nobody proposes interpreting "State" as "state," because the definition of "State" is fixed by the statute. What's more, continuing with your CNN example, I think that most viewers would intuitively interpret even "state" as referring only to one of the fifty states as opposed to the federal government. Only a small portion of viewers would call to mind the technical meaning of "state." So I think the federal government would have the harder time making its case to the public if "state" were the operative language (though possibly an easier time in the courts).

That said, I do appreciate your persistent consideration in not misspelling my pseudonym (though I find the gag amusing, and am not upset when anyone partakes in the sport).

 

[benjipwns]

I can't myself find Metaphoreus's argument to be obviously wrong on the merits. I don't think that it should win, and don't find it persuasive (or politically appealing), but it is not straightforwardly dumb.

mods help

 

[hydragonwarrior]

Its not bad marketing. Its an unreceptive audience

I think it's their bad marketing that is causing an unreceptive audience.

 

[Jack Remington]

You know we can all read your posts, right? You quoted BM arguing that I couldn't possibly believe what I say I believe, and you quoted my response that I find such a position unacceptable in a debate. That's not an argument over text or intent. Do you understand the arguments you're making?

Okay, let's clear this up.

Do you believe that Congress in 2009 wrote the ACA intending to limit subsidies to state exchanges?

 

[Y2Kev]

How is Romney not super damaged goods? It's take 3. Come on.

 

[benjipwns]

How is Romney not super damaged goods? It's take 3. Come on.

In politics there's often a point where you're such a loser you become an elder "statesman"; just look at Nixon and Carter and H.W. Bush and Hoover and Hubert Humphrey. William Jennings Bryan being the all-time American example. Or maybe Henry Clay. Then James G. Blaine.

Hoover had actually rehabilitated his image to the point where he was considered as a potential GOP candidate again as early as 1940 and up to 1948.

 

[benjipwns]

Hubert Humphrey ran in the 1952 and 1960 primaries and lost. Then ran in 1964 as VP and 1968 as the party nominee. (Under...difficult circumstances. And lost.) Then he actually ran again in 1972 (and lost) and was planning on running in 1976 until he discovered he had cancer and just a few years to live.

Bob Dole ran in 1980 and 1988 and lost, then won the nomination in 1996 and lost. By 2000 he was 76, so his wife ran.

Ronald Reagan ran in 1968 and 1976 and lost, then ran again in 1980 and won not just the Presidency but the Cold War.

 

[WayneMorse]

How is Romney not super damaged goods? It's take 3. Come on.

He was a horrific candidate and still managed to be only a few million votes away from President.

 

[RustyNails]

How is Romney not super damaged goods? It's take 3. Come on.

Actually tells you a lot about their lineup for 2016.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Okay, let's clear this up.

Do you believe that Congress in 2009 wrote the ACA intending to limit subsidies to state exchanges?

I don't believe that the ACA authorizes subsidies on the federal exchange. I consider questions of subjective intent--whether of one member of Congress or all of them--irrelevant. As I've said before, we aren't governed by the subjective beliefs or intentions of members of Congress, but by the statutory texts they enact.

To be sure, typically a court in interpreting a statute will describe its task as determining legislative intent. A better term would be "statutory intent," as Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner suggest in Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. The courts' goal in such instances is not to divine the actual subjective intentions of the legislators (or the legislature), but the meaning expressed by the text of the statute. That this meaning is called "legislative intent" (or "Congressional intent") may be confusing to you, but it doesn't mean that they must read the minds of those who voted on a bill to determine its meaning.

 

[Jack Remington]

Did you think Black Mamba was referring to something besides subjective intent, or were you just being an annoyance, Laxative Man?

I am relieved you're not on board with the ridiculous theory that subsidies were put in to entice states to create their own exchanges. Shows Black Mamba was right in that you're not unambiguously a moron.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Did you think Black Mamba was referring to something besides subjective intent, or were you just being an annoyance, Laxative Man?

I am relieved you're not on board with the ridiculous theory that subsidies were put in to entice states to create their own exchanges. Shows Black Mamba was right in that you're not unambiguously a moron.

I don't think you understand the things you read, Jack.

 

[Aaron Strife]

He was a horrific candidate and still managed to be only a few million votes away from President.

Almost every Republican nowadays starts out with at least 45% of the vote. Was John Kerry a good candidate? Because he did even better than Romney did.

 

[ivysaur12]

I don't believe that the ACA authorizes subsidies on the federal exchange. I consider questions of subjective intent--whether of one member of Congress or all of them--irrelevant. As I've said before, we aren't governed by the subjective beliefs or intentions of members of Congress, but by the statutory texts they enact.

To be sure, typically a court in interpreting a statute will describe its task as determining legislative intent. A better term would be "statutory intent," as Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner suggest in Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. The courts' goal in such instances is not to divine the actual subjective intentions of the legislators (or the legislature), but the meaning expressed by the text of the statute. That this meaning is called "legislative intent" (or "Congressional intent") may be confusing to you, but it doesn't mean that they must read the minds of those who voted on a bill to determine its meaning.

Eh… That's Scalia's interpretation of how legislation should be examined by a court, without the use of outside sources like floor speeches when the legislation was being voted on because he would consider that irrelevant in his originalist viewpoint. Legislative history can have a active role in the process of examining a statute's meaning. Whether or not you agree with that viewpoint, it would be unfair to say that it is irrelevant.

 

[Black Mamba]

lololol

 

[ivysaur12]

lololol

oh my.

 

[Diablos]

Oh how wonderful, America's wet fart businessman is running for President again.

 

[Black Mamba]

I don't believe that the ACA authorizes subsidies on the federal exchange. I consider questions of subjective intent--whether of one member of Congress or all of them--irrelevant. As I've said before, we aren't governed by the subjective beliefs or intentions of members of Congress, but by the statutory texts they enact.

To be sure, typically a court in interpreting a statute will describe its task as determining legislative intent. A better term would be "statutory intent," as Justice Scalia and Bryan Garner suggest in Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts. The courts' goal in such instances is not to divine the actual subjective intentions of the legislators (or the legislature), but the meaning expressed by the text of the statute. That this meaning is called "legislative intent" (or "Congressional intent") may be confusing to you, but it doesn't mean that they must read the minds of those who voted on a bill to determine its meaning.

Notice how he didn't actually answer the question? He wasn't asked how the statue should be interpreted but his opinion on what happened!

And if he did answer he'd say he's not sure and won't try to guess anyone's mind. It's a game.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Eh… That's Scalia's interpretation of how legislation should be examined by a court, without the use of outside sources like floor speeches when the legislation was being voted on because he would consider that irrelevant in his originalist viewpoint. Legislative history can have a active role in the process of examining a statute's meaning. Whether or not you agree with that viewpoint, it would be unfair to say that it is irrelevant.

That's true, to an extent. Courts who rely on legislative history only resort to it in the event of an ambiguity in the text of the statute. In this case, if the Court concludes that there is no ambiguity, then no judge would resort to the legislative history. If the Court concludes that there is an ambiguity, then the challengers lose, without the need to resort to legislative history. (And, in any event, the legislative history for the ACA isn't very helpful in resolving this case. At the very least, we can all agree that the subjective intentions of one or more legislators which are not reflected in the legislative history are irrelevant to interpreting a statute, can't we?)

Notice how he didn't actually answer the question? He wasn't asked how the statue should be interpreted but his opinion on what happened!

And if he did answer he'd say he's not sure and won't try to guess anyone's mind. It's a game.

If you're going to whine that I pointed out how a question is irrelevant rather than answering it, then here is my answer: I do not believe Congress had an intention with respect to any aspect of the ACA. Congress is not a person with a mind that can have an intention, but a group of persons with their own minds and their own intentions, their own beliefs regarding what legislation provides. I believe that Congress enacted a statute that is the law, the unenacted intentions of individual Congressmen--or, to the extent that any shared a single unenacted intention, then that one--be damned.

 

[AntoneM]

That's true, to an extent. Courts who rely on legislative history only resort to it in the event of an ambiguity in the text of the statute. In this case, if the Court concludes that there is no ambiguity, then no judge would resort to the legislative history. If the Court concludes that there is an ambiguity, then the challengers lose, without the need to resort to legislative history. (And, in any event, the legislative history for the ACA isn't very helpful in resolving this case. At the very least, we can all agree that the subjective intentions of one or more legislators which are not reflected in the legislative history are irrelevant to interpreting a statute, can't we?)



If you're going to whine that I pointed out how a question is irrelevant rather than answering it, then here is my answer: I do not believe Congress had an intention with respect to any aspect of the ACA. Congress is not a person with a mind that can have an intention, but a group of persons with their own minds and their own intentions, their own beliefs regarding what legislation provides. I believe that Congress enacted a statute that is the law, the unenacted intentions of individual Congressmen--or, to the extent that any shared a single unenacted intention, then that one--be damned.

Strict constructionist eh?
So I would assume that you would agree that only the militia can bear arms and that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So men over 45 and under 17 should not own arms and women who are not members of the National Guard should not own arms. That's what the constitution and law says.

I know this is a tangent, but, it is the law.

 

[benjipwns]

So I would assume that you would agree that only the militia can bear arms

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The prefatory clause doesn't alter the limitation on Congress.

 

[benjipwns]

WASHINGTON — The F.B.I. and Justice Department prosecutors have recommended bringing felony charges against David H. Petraeus, contending that he provided classified information to a lover while he was director of the C.I.A., officials said, leaving Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. to decide whether to seek an indictment that could send the pre-eminent military officer of his generation to prison.

oh my

 

[B-Dubs]

oh my

I heard about this earlier, it'll be an interesting few months.

 

[Mike M]

Oh Christ, the howls from the right wing if such a thing were to occur.,.

 

[ivysaur12]

oh my

This can be our thing.

 

[RustyNails]

oh my

But what did his lover do with the confidential information? Did she publish it or something?

 

[Poodlestrike]

But what did his lover do with the confidential information? Did she publish it or something?

I don't think it matters, honestly (though isn't this the guy who was dating the woman from Rolling Stone?). From an operational security perspective, just knowing is enough of a problem.

 

[Metaphoreus]

Strict constructionist eh?
So I would assume that you would agree that only the militia can bear arms and that the militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

So men over 45 and under 17 should not own arms and women who are not members of the National Guard should not own arms. That's what the constitution and law says.

I know this is a tangent, but, it is the law.

Strict constructionism is not the same as textualism.

Oh Christ, the howls from the right wing if such a thing were to occur.,.

It should occur. It's important that political elites not be treated as above the law. Let the right howl.

 

[benjipwns]

I don't think it matters, honestly (though isn't this the guy who was dating the woman from Rolling Stone?). From an operational security perspective, just knowing is enough of a problem.

She was a writer but also a member of the military, I don't think anything to do with Rolling Stone, she most notably was the writer of a biography about Petraeus.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

oh my

And Cheney/Tourtures (at least the architects)?

lololol

New avatar

 

[Black Mamba]

That's true, to an extent. Courts who rely on legislative history only resort to it in the event of an ambiguity in the text of the statute. In this case, if the Court concludes that there is no ambiguity, then no judge would resort to the legislative history. If the Court concludes that there is an ambiguity, then the challengers lose, without the need to resort to legislative history. (And, in any event, the legislative history for the ACA isn't very helpful in resolving this case. At the very least, we can all agree that the subjective intentions of one or more legislators which are not reflected in the legislative history are irrelevant to interpreting a statute, can't we?)



If you're going to whine that I pointed out how a question is irrelevant rather than answering it, then here is my answer: I do not believe Congress had an intention with respect to any aspect of the ACA. Congress is not a person with a mind that can have an intention, but a group of persons with their own minds and their own intentions, their own beliefs regarding what legislation provides. I believe that Congress enacted a statute that is the law, the unenacted intentions of individual Congressmen--or, to the extent that any shared a single unenacted intention, then that one--be damned.

See. Congress can't have an intent! As I said. It's a word game to him.

So, according to him, a misplaced comma or a spelling error should be ignored when reading a statute. Even if it changes the intention of those who wrote the law. The codified text us all that ever matters. Typos are tough shit.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't think it matters, honestly (though isn't this the guy who was dating the woman from Rolling Stone?). From an operational security perspective, just knowing is enough of a problem.

Yes it was. Even if he leaked it to someone else, how many affairs can one guy have, he still needs to be prosecuted for this. This is like the oldest spy trick in the book, we're just lucky she wasn't a spy and had sense enough not to spread the info around.

 

[benjipwns]

And Cheney/Tourtures (at least the architects)?

We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.

 

[Metaphoreus]

See. Congress can't have an intent! As I said. It's a word game to him.

"Aha! I predicted that he would say one thing, and he said something else! This proves that I'm right!"

 

[Black Mamba]

"Aha! I predicted that he would say one thing, and he said something else! This proves that I'm right!"

yeah, because you were totally going to say what i said you'd say after you saw me say it.

Just making sure people take notice you're playing a word game and nothing else. Can't wait til we get to the part where you ask us what the definition of "is" is.

 

[Makai]

Woah, just heard the McDonnell news. How often do prominent politicians go to jail?

 

[RustyNails]

Woah, just heard the McDonnell news. How often do prominent politicians go to jail?

He'll be out in 2 years and will probably run as Congressman and get re-elected.

 

[AntoneM]

How can we tell if they are bad guys if we can't see what color they are, the tone of their skin...

Starts at about 3 minutes in.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/07/after-paris-attack-fox-anchor-suggests-skin-col/202039

 

[Poodlestrike]

How can we tell if they are bad guys if we can't see what color they are, the tone of their skin...

Starts at about 3 minutes in.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2015/01/07/after-paris-attack-fox-anchor-suggests-skin-col/202039

BREAM: That's my question about these guys. If we know they were speaking unaccented French and they had ski masks on, do we even know what color they were, what the tone of their skin was? I mean, what if they didn't look like typical bad guys? As we define them when we think about terror groups.

Hoooooly shit.

I mean, I knew that the official fox position was like that, but I didn't expect to hear one of their guys come out and just say it.

 

[Aaron Strife]

He'll be out in 2 years and will probably run as Congressman and get re-elected.

I love that when a Democrat cheats on his wife or something he gets shamed out of office and from ever running for anything again, but Republicans can run convicted felons and win with 60% of the vote.

It's really about ethics in gaming journalism

 

[B-Dubs]

I love that when a Democrat cheats on his wife or something he gets shamed out of office and from ever running for anything again, but Republicans can run convicted felons and win with 60% of the vote.

It's really about ethics in gaming journalism

They don't even have to cheat on their wives, sending out dirty pictures is more than enough.