I really think he just gave a totally unprepared, improvised answer, and the end result of 'stupid guy said stupid thing' is being interpreted as a genius appeal to the tea party. He seems to be under the impression that he can just kind of wing this.
-
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 2014 |OT2| We need to be more like Disney World
- Thread starter Aaron Strife
- Start date
- Status
I really think he just gave a totally unprepared, improvised answer, and the end result of 'stupid guy said stupid thing' is being interpreted as a genius appeal to the tea party. He seems to be under the impression that he can just kind of wing this.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Scott Walker supports personhood amendment
Clinton naturally has an advantage among women (one because a majority would probably support the Democrat anyway, two because it's empowering to see a female Democratic candidate and that might sway a few centrist/right-leaning voters who want to be a part of history) and this will only exacerbate it. I thought the GOP was going to try and reach more women, minorities and youth voters? Candidates like Walker would alienate all of them.
Clinton naturally has an advantage among women (one because a majority would probably support the Democrat anyway, two because it's empowering to see a female Democratic candidate and that might sway a few centrist/right-leaning voters who want to be a part of history) and this will only exacerbate it. I thought the GOP was going to try and reach more women, minorities and youth voters? Candidates like Walker would alienate all of them.
adamsappel
Member
Mike kinda comes off like an asshole, doesn't he?
PhoenixDark
Banned
The more important question: what position will Jeb Bush take. I get the impression he's super pro-life based on his actions as governor...but will he take such a far right position?
Can't hide what you are.
TacticalFox88
Banned
IDK...I still don't know who Mitt Romney is.
Jeb Bush at the end of the day will be the nominee. Not Scott Walker, Not Rand Paul, Not Ted Cruz, Not Mike Pence or John Kasich, Not "insert conservative alternative".
The establishment will get their man and that man is Jeb. The only way Jeb isnt the nominee is if he implodes. The confidence that someone other than Jeb will be the nominee is so surprising to me.
In fact, I'm so sure Jeb will be the nominee I am ready to suc........... (lol not going the shulking route)
The establishment will get their man and that man is Jeb. The only way Jeb isnt the nominee is if he implodes. The confidence that someone other than Jeb will be the nominee is so surprising to me.
In fact, I'm so sure Jeb will be the nominee I am ready to suc........... (lol not going the shulking route)
TacticalFox88
Banned
That will happen in the Primaries.
PhoenixDark
Banned
It's a long standing Obama attack. Interesting that no one asks the obvious follow up question: if you're attacking Obama for allegedly being anti-colonialist, does that mean you're pro-colonialist? You support the occupation and exploitation of independent countries? You're fine with the systematic oppression that India and African countries faced, including limiting the people to low education levels, using religion to justify your occupation, etc?
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
He's basically said exactly what you said:
Basically, "it's not my core belief, but my core belief isn't going to win elections".
Either way, he'll still probably have to address his advice to women getting kicked off of welfare to find a husband as an alternative.
Bush's technical adviser also has some doosies from his twitter account about women.
Bush has of course disavowed these statements and the guy resigned after the buzzfeed article came out, but you still have to wonder how you can hire guys like that to surround yourself with in the first place, knowing those tweets exist.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Reagan supported apartheid.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
I was joking--I agree with you. I think Walker has zero chance at the national election. The more spotlight he is put in, the worse he will appear.
Coriolanus
Banned
At which point one should be reminded that most of these figureheads are withered husks that can barely use the internet, let alone track someone's twitter history.
Especially when the guy in charge of that sort of thing was most likely the guy that sed all the retarded shit.
That's massively fucked up. The fact he could say that and not be run out of office is just sad.
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
I'm starting to think you're right. I remembered someone once said that Walker made his career out of others underestimating him, which I think sums it up perfectly, but you can't exactly skirt by into the presidency.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
congress overrode his veto but reagan didnt really enforce the law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comprehensive_Anti-Apartheid_Act
This is the thing. Every election Walker has won so far has been small potatoes against weak opponents who have underestimated him in ideal conditions for him. An utter moron could win an election like that, when he reaches the big time he'll implode almost instantly. It's going to be Rick Perry all over again.
Why would he even veto that? Its not like we do a lot of trade or have an real interests in that part of Africa. I mean, I know why, its just fucked up how he could come out in support of racism and still be remembered by people as a good president.
Coriolanus
Banned
Same way bams wont be remembered for NSA overreach and assassinating american citizens.
Every prez does a truckload of fucked up shit. The desire to build a noble history out of your past seems to override the meat and potatoes of the thing.
Ok, that made me laugh.
WayneMorse
Banned
Cory Gardner was able to get away with saying he was against the personhood amendment when he was still cosponsoring it in the House so this doesn't really mean anything.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Different in the sense that he flip-flopped in the right direction to appeal to general election voters. Walker is doing the exact opposite.
Also a statewide election is small potatoes versus a presidential election - most people simply don't pay attention to Senate candidates except when they're unusually terrible like Todd Akin, Richard Mourdock or Bruce Braley.
WayneMorse
Banned
Yes but he can flip back at any second and the American people won't notice. I guarantee if he gets the nomination you won't hear about the personhood amendment anymore.
I think the recent media onslaught will do nothing but improve Walker's standing with primary voters. Even the fact that he won't be able to WI's debt in May won't hurt him.
If you want to see how 2016 will go look no further then the senate races in Iowa and Colorado last year, post politics politics.
worldrunover
Member
I don't get it. When does the ultra Christian conservative EVER win the nomination? Romney? McCain? Bush? Dole? Why can't Walker just sack-up and be somewhat moderate on a few things? Is that too much to ask from a Republican candidate?
That's like the people that think that Jupiter Ascending would've been a huge hit if only it had better trailers.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Arming the Ukrainians would pose the risk of escalating the situation. Right now Russia is playing behind the scenes, relying on "separatists." If we blatantly arm the Ukraine we greatly increase the likelihood of Putin deciding to end the facade and just go full bore. What do we do then? There's literally nothing we could give the Ukraine that would defend them against a large Russian attack, on one front. So does that mean we send ground troops? What's the end game. That's what McCain won't talk about. I think he's a genuine interventionist but the problem is that he's been wrong on nearly every issue like this within the last 15 years.
It makes more sense to continue "discreetly" supporting the Ukraine and while ramping up economic pressure on Russia to cave. Of course the problem with that is that the worse things get, the more desperate Putin could become. I don't believe he can afford to simply call Germany/US and say hey, I give up. His entire image hinges on the idea of him being a strong man who threatens Europe and laughs at the west. He doesn't have many options. But the longer Russia gets fucked economically, the worse his position becomes. I'd say Putin being forced to cave to save his own ass is a more likely end scenario than Putin caving because we gave the Ukraine a few missiles and tanks.
It makes more sense to continue "discreetly" supporting the Ukraine and while ramping up economic pressure on Russia to cave. Of course the problem with that is that the worse things get, the more desperate Putin could become. I don't believe he can afford to simply call Germany/US and say hey, I give up. His entire image hinges on the idea of him being a strong man who threatens Europe and laughs at the west. He doesn't have many options. But the longer Russia gets fucked economically, the worse his position becomes. I'd say Putin being forced to cave to save his own ass is a more likely end scenario than Putin caving because we gave the Ukraine a few missiles and tanks.
Aaron Strife
Banned
Now that we've hit 100 pages I'm going to go ahead and make a 2015 thread. It's been long overdue
Coriolanus
Banned
Wouldnt count on Russia caving before the EU on sanctions. Already some pushback happening. Heck, the ceasefire is most likely a prelude to dropping them.
Poodlestrike
Banned
Can't say I disagree with him, at least not entirely. The EU is going full appeasement, last I'd heard.
The façade is the weakest one in recent history. Does anybody believe it's anything but a Russian invasion at this point? Setting aside the sock puppets and trolls. Putin is going to escalate at his own pace, as per usual.
Giant Panda
Member
Arming Ukraine would make Russia's invasion more costly for them. More money spent on Russia's direct involvement means less money to Putin's corrupt pals, and then they will start to make a stink. The idea is that at some point Russia will decide just not worth it to continue.
Joe Molotov
Member
Because something something exporting freedom.
Avon Barksdale
Member
Winner.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
thats january 2017's title
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Standing is a potential issue in every case. But for the Court's insistence on reaching the merits, Roe v. Wade would have been dismissed for mootness. Does that fact imply that Norma McCorvey's case was somehow illegitimate? In litigation challenging the IRS rule at issue in King, anyone who would not be subjected to a penalty but for the availability of credits on an FFE will be a proper plaintiff, including individuals subject to the individual mandate only because credits are available and employers subject to the employer mandate. One potential problem is that whether someone would be subject to penalties may vary from one tax year to the next (a fact which brings to mind the very capable-of-repetition-yet-evading-review exception to standard mootness doctrine that permitted Roe to be decided on its merits).
Note that the canons cited by Eskridge come nowhere close to a list of "every accepted canon of statutory construction." The Scalia and Garner book I keep referring to (and to which Eskridge et al. also refer in their brief) lists some 57 canons, yet even it does not purport to be exhaustive. In any event, the Eskridge brief mentions the following canons (in addition to the whole-text canon, which I'll discuss further, below):
(1) The presumption against ineffectiveness. This canon advises that a textually permissible interpretation that furthers rather than obstructs the document's purpose should be favored. But I deny that reading "established by the State" to refer to an FFE is a textually permissible interpretation, so this canon cannot rescue it. (This is a recurring problem with all the canon's cited by Eskridge--canons of construction help a court decide which of two or more permissible readings to adopt; they don't permit a court to adopt an impermissible reading--but I won't repeat it below.)
(2) The presumption of validity. Eskridge et al. misuse this canon. While this presumption does, as the Eskridge brief quotes Scalia and Garner, "disfavor[] interpretations that would nullify the provision or the entire instrument," the types of nullification avoided by this canon are specifically those which render an instrument legally ineffective, not those that render it practically ineffective. As Scalia and Garner continue: "for example, an interpretation that would cause a future interest created by a will to violate the rule against perpetuities, that would cause an arbitration clause to be unenforceable, or that would cause a statute to be unconstitutional." This canon does not, as Eskridge purports, "require[] judges to presume that Congress does not write statutes to fail."
(3) Congress does not hide elephants in mouseholes. The D.C. Circuit panel in Halbig addressed this argument well. To expand on that argument, on either reading of 36B, credits are restricted based on the sort of plan (it must be a "qualified health plan"), the market on which the plan is sold (the individual market, not the small group market, for instance), and the method of enrollment ("through an Exchange"). Eskridge attempts to rescue the argument from the Halbig opinion by pointing to another provision relevant to credits which limits availability to Exchanges (without the "established by the State" language), but the argument fails: 1312(e) limits the class of applicable taxpayers entitled to receive HHS assistance in applying for credits; it says nothing about the availability of credits themselves. The credits could very well be offered to all "applicable taxpayers," but assistance in applying for such credits given by HHS only for those who enroll through an Exchange, for instance. In any event, Eskridge's retort doesn't address the other two restrictions buried in the same subclauses of 36B as "established by the State."
(4) Conditions on a grant of federal money must be unambiguous. This is the Pennhurst argument of which BM is so proud. It suffers from two important weaknesses. First, as I've mentioned before, the Court will only address the question if it first concludes that 36B clearly limits credits to state-established exchanges. So, a condition to raising this argument resolves it. Second, the Court thinks about cases like this as akin to contract formation. Conditions attached to an offer of federal money have to be clear, the Court reasons, because it would be unfair to impose requirements on the states that accept the offer if those requirements weren’t obvious at the time the offer was accepted. But here, the complaining states are those that rejected the purported offer. These are not offerees bound to a contract that includes a hidden term; they are offerees not bound to a contract because they rejected it. The Pennhurst analysis is inapplicable.
(5) The presumption in favor of cooperative federalism. I haven't actually given this argument much thought (and this is by no means a standard canon--hence Eskridge's citation to a footnote in a plurality opinion), so I'll skip a fuller response to it for now, and simply refer back to the general response I made in (1), above.
And contrary to what you say, the IRS interpretation violates several canons of construction, including the following off the top of my head:
(1) The omitted-case canon. I've mentioned this canon already. It's the one that holds that a matter not covered is to be treated as not covered. The government's interpretation of the ACA violates this canon not only with respect to 36B, but also with respect to the fifth through tenth appearances of "established by the State" (see below).
(2) The surplusage canon. If possible, every word and every provision is to be given effect, and none should be ignored. Because, on the IRS reading, "Exchange established by the State under section 1311" means the same thing as "Exchange," this canon is violated.
(3) The presumption that a material variation in terms suggests a variation in meaning. As I've noted before, 36B switches from referring to the individual market "within a State" to an Exchange established "by the State." If "by" is read to mean "within," which the government maintains it should be, then this canon is violated.
(4) The interpretive directions canon. This canon instructs courts to carefully follow definition sections. The IRS rule completely ignores the statutory definition of "State."
The phrase "established by the State" appears some 15 times in the text of the ACA (as amended by the HCERA). First, it appears in section 1311(f)(3)(A), which permits a "State . . . to authorize an Exchange established by the State under this section to enter into an agreement with an eligible entity to carry out 1 or more responsibilities of the Exchange." This provision makes sense if "established by the State" means what it says. It doesn't make much sense if it includes a reference to an Exchange established by HHS. Suddenly each state gets authority over what HHS does regarding an FFE in that state?
The second and third appearances are in 36B, and I've already discussed those appearances thoroughly.
The fourth appearance is in section 2001(b)(2) (enacting 42 U.S.C. 1396a(gg)). This is the Medicaid maintenance-of-effort provision, which is relied on by both the challengers and the government. The challengers have the better argument: it makes more sense that Congress would freeze state changes to Medicaid eligibility until the state established an Exchange than to make such changes contingent on federal action in establishing an FFE.
The fifth, sixth, seventh, eighth, ninth, and tenth appearances all relate to new requirements for pre-existing federal programs. These provide the government's best context-based argument against the challengers' reading, because the government can argue that Congress must have meant to include FFEs, or it can argue that it would be unconstitutionally coercive for Congress to threaten a state's CHIP funding (say) if it failed to establish an Exchange under the ACA. That second argument is almost certainly true, but that doesn't mean that the Court should (mis)interpret the provision; it means it should invalidate its plain meaning (perhaps reforming it as the Court did with the Medicaid provision in NFIB). As for the first, the more straightforward (and less question-begging) reading is to recognize each instance as an example of an omitted matter--these sections just don't address FFEs.
The final five appearances all indisputably refer to states. See sections 2303(a)(2) (enacting 42 U.S.C. 1396a(ii)(1), which refers to an "income eligibility level established by the State that does not exceed the highest income eligibility level established under the State plan under this subchapter"); 2401 (enacting 42 U.S.C. 1396n(k)(3), providing that "n order for a State plan amendment to be approved under this subsection, the State shall--(A) develop and implement such amendment in collaboration with a Development and Implementation Council established by the State that includes a majority of members with disabilities, elderly individuals, and their representatives and consults and collaborates with such individuals"); 2706(d) (referring separately to "performance guidelines established by the Secretary" under one subsection and an "annual minimal savings level established by the State" under another); 2951 (referring to "quantifiable, measurable benchmarks established by the State" that is an "eligible entity" (a term that typically means a "State")); 6201(a)(4)(B)(iii) (requiring that a "participating State . . . have [certain] procedures in place . . . in accordance with procedures established by the State").
One of the other arguments raised by the government and its amici concerns the definition of "qualified individuals" in section 1312. For two reasons, I think the government's argument on this point is wrong. First, 1312 appears in the same subchapter as 1311, and before the subchapter that begins with 1321. So, it makes sense to read 1312's definition of "qualified individuals" as applicable to an Exchange established by the State under 1311, but not necessarily applicable to an Exchange established by HHS under 1321. What's more, as the D.C. Circuit panel in Halbig pointed out, the text of the ACA does not say that only qualified individuals may purchase qualified health plans on an Exchange. (And if you have a problem with their refusal to change a statute by adding "only" here and there, then you may be a tax protester.) Two subsections of 1312 support this interpretation. The first is 1312(f)(1)(B), which provides that "[a]n individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual if, at the time of enrollment, the individual is incarcerated." The second is 1312(f)(3), which states that "f an individual is not . . . a citizen or national of the United States or an alien lawfully present in the United States, the individual shall not be treated as a qualified individual and may not be covered under a qualified health plan in the individual market that is offered through an Exchange." If it were enough to exclude a person from purchasing insurance through an Exchange that the person were not a "qualified individual," then there would be no need for the bolded language in 1312(f)(3)--it would say no more than 1312(f)(1)(B).
Anything else?
EDIT:
Hear, hear.
Might I suggest "PoliGAF 2015 |OT| FUCK KING, METAPHOREUS! FUCK IT AND FUCK YOU!"?
benjipwns
Banned
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked