Sirpopopop
Member
Bleh, not even worth it.
The right wing media is really going all put on the antiobamacare stuff. Lol. The new congress is going to waste so much time on that.
The right wing media is really going all put on the antiobamacare stuff. Lol. The new congress is going to waste so much time on that.
Scalia breaks his rules all the time. Thomas is a strict textualist. The others idk.To those worried about the king case read this link.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/s...-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/
I'm now thinking it is a unanimous ruling on the government's side. It also obliterates megamind's arguments.
Scalia breaks his rules all the time. Thomas is a strict textualist. The others idk.
The question still becomes, why did they grant cert.
Scalia breaks his rules all the time. Thomas is a strict textualist. The others idk.
The question still becomes, why did they grant cert.
Whatever doubts existed about the Republican grip on the House should now be gone.
By picking up at least a dozen House seats in the elections last Tuesday, the Republicans cemented a nearly unassailable majority that could last for a generation, or as long as today’s political divides between North and South, urban and rural, young and old, and white and nonwhite endure.
Democrats might well reclaim the Senate and hold the presidency in 2016. But any Democratic hopes of enacting progressive policies on issues like climate change and inequality will face the reality of a House dominated by conservative Republicans. The odds that the Republicans will hold the Senate and seize the presidency are better than the odds that Democrats will win the House, giving the Republicans a better chance than Democrats of enacting their agenda.
After all of the remaining races are resolved, the G.O.P. will finish with about 249 seats. The Democrats would need to flip 32 seats to reclaim the chamber, but just 10 Republicans hail from districts with a Democratic Cook partisan voting index, a statistic to measure how far a congressional district leans toward the Republican or Democratic Party, compared with the national average. Because so many Republicans represent conservative districts, the G.O.P. might even retain the House in a “wave” election, like the ones that swept Democrats to power in 2006 and brought Republicans back to power in 2010.
Even if the Democrats could retake the House in an anti-Republican wave, it probably won’t come with a Democratic president to take advantage of it. The party with the presidency rarely makes big gains in Congress. As my colleague Lynn Vavreck put it, the economy elects presidents; presidents elect Congress.
In other words, a Republican president is probably a prerequisite to a Democratic House. And even a Republican president might not assure another wave like 2006 or 2010, which itself would not even assure a Democratic House.
The most optimistic side of me thinks they granted cert to finally "deal" with Obamacare once and to stop all these silly lawsuits against the law. But that is baseless speculation (and hope) on my part.
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/11/upshot/the-enduring-republican-grip-on-the-house.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&abt=0002&abg=1
Democrats can't win the House. Senate flip flops back and forth every 2-4 years. Republicans probably can't win a presidency. Fun times in The World's Greatest Democracy.
no progressive policy till late 2020s and I'll be in my 30-40s, thanks obama.
Can we really be surprised?
by 2017, the house will be controlled by the R's for 18 of the last 22 years since 1995.
This Valerie Jarret stuff is overblown. Its the confluence of republican hysteria surrounding every Obama advisor with democrats trying to pin the tail on a donkey thats holding back the REAL Barack.
Don't worry, Medicare will have destroyed the financial state of the nation by then.no progressive policy till late 2020s and I'll be in my 30-40s, thanks obama.
no progressive policy till late 2020s and I'll be in my 30-40s, thanks obama.
So it was the lowest voter turn-out in 72 years.
http://time.com/3576090/midterm-elections-turnout-world-war-two/
Wow. Now that is what Republicans call "A mandate".
What was the average age of voters? Moses?
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392425/preserve-marriage-and-democracy-editors
lol national review.
using the democracy excuse
The comments, I just can't.
no progressive policy till late 2020s and I'll be in my 30-40s, thanks obama.
http://www.nationalreview.com/article/392425/preserve-marriage-and-democracy-editors
lol national review.
using the democracy excuse
can I get a tldr? I used up my National Review read of the decade on that classic Lena Durham ether, I can't give them anymore of my time.
Ted Cruz just called net neutrality 'Obamacare for the internet' and that's bad news for everyone
What a douche.
Perhaps the angle that net neutrality people should take is that the guy who made the current regulatory classification WAS A BLACK MAN! (The corrupted Michael Powell.)
Traditional marriage promotes the traditional family which makes freedom strong and defeats liberal attempts to undermine state rights.
Also the author literally says that defending traditional marriage doesn't discriminate against gays because both sexes are still free to get married. Straight married of course.
You thought I was younger?My theory about your age was wildly inaccurate.
You actually liked the Lena piece?can I get a tldr? I used up my National Review read of the decade on that classic Lena Durham ether, I can't give them anymore of my time.
There is no real justification for the Internet not being covered by Title II, and if it weren't for Verizon all ISPs would have gotten covered under a different section (406 or 704 or whatever it was) that they actually wanted. I imagine this is no different than when they made the Telephone more open. All it results in is more competition between businesses, which is exactly what the right wing is always raving about. You can't say you want a free market with healthy competition and do everything in your power to enable monopolies. It's nonsense. But Democrats are a bunch of spineless idiots and probably will distance themselves from Obama's stance instead of standing by him and doing something that is good for the American people in every way imaginable.
Also; Obamacare for the Internet, ISPs and friends lash out.
I like how the VP from AT&T says "treat Internet access as an information service subject to light-touch regulation. This classification of Internet service has been upheld by the Supreme Court" but fails to mention that the recent attempt to reclassify it was turned down by the Supreme Court because they said it needed to be Title II.
To those worried about the king case read this link.
http://www.scotusblog.com/2014/11/s...-obamacare-subsidies-as-textualisms-big-test/
I'm now thinking it is a unanimous ruling on the government's side. It also obliterates megamind's arguments.
Halbig said:The phrase "such Exchange" has twofold significance. First, the word "such" . . . signifies that the Exchange the Secretary must establish is the "required Exchange" that the state failed to establish. In other words, "such" conveys what a federal Exchange is: the equivalent of the Exchange a state would have established had it elected to do so. . . . If we import [the statutory definition of "Exchange"] into the text of section 1321, the provision directs the Secretary to "establish . . . such American Health Benefit Exchange established under [section 1311 of the ACA] within the State." This suggests . . . that the Secretary[, in establishing an Exchange,] . . . acts under section 1311, even though her authority appears in section 1321. Thus, section 1321 creates equivalence between state and federal Exchanges in two respects: in terms of what they are and the statutory authority under which they are established.
The problem confronting the IRS Rule is that subsidies also turn on a third attribute of Exchanges: who established them. . . . Of the three elements of [section 36B of the IRC]--(1) an Exchange (2) established by the State (3) under section 1311--federal Exchanges satisfy only two: they are Exchanges established under 1311.
Halbig said:The dissent attempts to supply this missing equivalency by pointing to section 1311(d)(1), which provides: "An Exchange shall be a governmental agency or nonprofit entity that is established by a State." . . . According to the dissent, (d)(1) means that an Exchange established under section 1311 is, by definition, established by a state. . . .
The premise that (d)(1) is definitional, however, does not survive examination of (d)(1)'s context and the ACA's structure. The other provisions of section 1311(d) are operational requirements, setting forth what Exchanges must (or, in some cases, may) do. . . . Read in keeping with that theme, (d)(1) would simply require that an Exchange operate as either a governmental agency or nonprofit entity. But the dissent would have us construe (d)(1) differently. In its view, (d)(1) plays a definitional role unique among section 1311(d)'s otherwise operational provisions, creating a legal fiction that any Exchange is, by definition, established by a state, even when, as a matter of fact, it is not. That reading, however, would render (d)(1) the odd man out twice over: both within section 1311(d) and among the ACA's other definitional provisions, which, unlike (d)(1), employ the (unmistakably definitional) formula of "The term 'X' means . . . ." . . .
The dissent's reading would also require us to overlook the fact that section 1311(d) would be a strange place for Congress to have buried such a legal fiction. Section 1311, after all, concerns Exchanges that are established by states in fact; the legal fiction the dissent urges would matter only to Exchanges established by the federal government.
Halbig said:The government first argues that we must uphold the IRS Rule to avoid rendering language in 26 U.S.C. s. 36B(f) superfluous. . . . As relevant here, section 36B(f) also requires "each Exchange"--i.e., both state and federal Exchanges--to report certain information to the government. . . . The government contends that these reporting requirements assume that credits are available on federal Exchanges, and it argues that the requirements would be superfluous, even nonsensical, as applied to federal Exchanges if we were to reject that assumption.
Not so. . . . [H]olding that credits are unavailable on federal Exchanges would not convert the specific reporting requirements concerning credits into an "'empty gesture.'" . . . Those requirements would still allow the reconciling of credits on state Exchanges; as applied to federal Exchanges, they would simply be over-inclusive. Over-inclusiveness, however, remains a problem even if we were to agree that section 36B allows credits on federal Exchanges. Section 36B(f)(3), after all, mandates reporting "with respect to any health plan provided through the Exchange," . . . even though only plans purchased by taxpayers with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line may be subsidized. . . . A weakness common to both views of the availability of credits hardly serves as a basis for choosing between them.
FN5. Appellants also suggest that the information collected from federal Exchanges could be useful for the "Study on Affordable Coverage" mandated by the ACA in that same section.
Halbig said:If this provision is given its plain meaning, then the 36 states with federal Exchanges . . . have no qualified individuals. That outcome is absurd, the government argues, because in its view section 1312 restricts access to Exchanges to qualified individuals alone. . . . The absence of qualified individuals would mean that federal Exchanges have no customers and therefore no purpose. . . .
The government, however, tilts at windmills. It assumes that when section 1312(a) states that "[a] qualified individual may enroll in any qualified health plan available to such individual and for which such individual is eligible," . . . it means that only a qualified individual may enroll in such a plan. The obvious flaw in this interpretation is that the word "only" does not appear in the provision. We have repeated emphasized that it is "not our role" to "engage in a statutory rewrite" by "insert[ing] the word 'only' here and there." . . . On this reading, giving the phrase "established by the State" [sic] its plain meaning creates no difficulty, let alone absurdity. Federal Exchanges might not have qualified individuals, but they would still have customers--namely, individuals who are not "qualified individuals."
Several other provisions in section 1312 imply that non only "qualified individuals" may participate in an Exchange.
Halbig said:FN4. The government makes its own elephants-in-mouseholes argument, asserting that the formula for calculating tax credits (located in section 36B(b)) is an odd place to insert a condition that the states must establish their own Exchanges if they wish to secure tax credits for their citizens. The more natural location, the government suggests, would have been section 36B(a), which authorizes the credit in the first place. . . . But even under the government's reading of section 36B(b), the statutory formula houses an elephant: namely, the rule that subsidies are only available for plans purchased through Exchanges. Given that this other crucial limitation on the availability of subsidies is found only in section 36B's formula, the government's contention that the formula is a mere mousehole is unpersuasive.
Equally unpersuasive is the dissent's suggestion that section 36B cannot mean what it plainly says because Congress did not use an "if/then" formula to signify that credits are available only on state-established Exchanges. The dissent cites no authority for requiring such magic words, and we perceive none. . . . It is simply not the case that Congress expresses conditions only through such language.
Halbig said:FN11. Appellants . . . contend that [the economic theory behind the ACA] must be understood through the lens of political reality. . . . Congress's solution [to the question of how to induce states to establish exchanges] was a package of "carrots" and "sticks" for states. . . . The sticks included . . . . the provision at issue here: making premium tax credits available only for individual coverage purchased through state-established Exchanges. . . .
[A]ppellants fail to marshal persuasive evidence . . . in support of their theory. . . . [T]he most that can be said of appellants' theory is that it is plausible. But we need not endorse appellants' historical account to agree with their construction of section 36B. "Where the statutory language is clear and unambiguous, we need neither accept nor reject a particular 'plausible' explanation for why Congress would have written a statute [as it did]."
You thought I was younger?
You actually liked the Lena piece?
But Its pretty much "defer to the people". Democracy is good, let the people define marriage.
Bizzarly the opposite of their "why the south muat prevail" article where they argued the moral imperative was on the side of oppressing black people because they weren't civilized.
Ah, the democracy>civil rights argument. Classic National Review.
I thought the Lena piece was pure, unadulterated childish ether, personally. I think she's a piece of shit though so it was right up my alley. I can advocate for gender equality while noting she's a classist, semi racist fraud.
The phrase "such Exchange" has twofold significance. First, the word "such" . . . signifies that the Exchange the Secretary must establish is the "required Exchange" that the state failed to establish. In other words, "such" conveys what a federal Exchange is: the equivalent of the Exchange a state would have established had it elected to do so. . . . If we import [the statutory definition of "Exchange"] into the text of section 1321, the provision directs the Secretary to "establish . . . such American Health Benefit Exchange established under [section 1311 of the ACA] within the State." This suggests . . . that the Secretary[, in establishing an Exchange,] . . . acts under section 1311, even though her authority appears in section 1321. Thus, section 1321 creates equivalence between state and federal Exchanges in two respects: in terms of what they are and the statutory authority under which they are established.
"It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement....Now, if someone had asked me on that day, are you having any kind of sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky, that is, asked me a question in the present tense, I would have said no. And it would have been completely true."
It should have been a common carrier. Michael Powell did the industry's bidding by saying no . . . and later got rewarded with a cushy industry job making tons of money. And Obama appointed another industry person to the FCC board, so he really isn't that much better. Him coming out for it now is kinda annoying because he could have come out for it long ago and put someone else at the FCC.
Scott Walker is the running mate of someone like a Marco Rubio. He's not a candidate on his own.
What does Scott Walker has that makes him a viable candidate? Other than being a Koch brothers lackey and maybe flipping Wisconsin red?
He looks more like a running mate pick than a top ticket one.
What does Scott Walker has that makes him a viable candidate? Other than being a Koch brothers lackey and maybe flipping Wisconsin red?
He looks more like a running mate pick than a top ticket one.