Rob's House

It's funny to me that the same people who get off on being vicariously ashamed of how "we" treat our elderly are the same ones who want to syphon off the dividends they live on to fund government largess.

My daughter's four, so I try to explain it in terms she can understand. I tell her that liberals want to steal her toys and give them to people who spent their toy money on crack.

I'd like to see Tarantino return to form (Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, True Romance). His more recent stuff is still good, but not great. It kind of feels like he's bought into his own hype and is maybe a little too taken with himself. Inglorious Bastards had some incredible scenes and was a good movie, but somehow it just seemed a bit too masturbatory at the end. And while Kill Bill 2 was a very good movie, Kill Bill 1 was a waste of time. I'm not sure what I think of the whole Grindhouse thing (I fell asleep midway through).

He didn't; that's why I posted it in this thread. My wife told me he was gay years ago, I thought everyone knew. (of course she's a former "fag-hag" and has well honed gaydar) Apparently he was dating some guy from one of the modeling reality shows.

This seemed a fitting thread for this: Anderson Cooper is out of the closet... er, well, now it's official. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/anderson-cooper-gay-comes-154527163--finance.html

Can we just agree that I'm right and you're wrong?

I'll be honest. I've only read excerpts because, quite frankly, as bored as I am at work I'm not bored enought to read a 190+ page opinion, but can you summarize an articulable limit to the taxing power as laid out by Roberts?

Congress can narrow the scope of the court's appellate jurisdiction per article III and Marbury. The better argument is that the case wasn't to challenge the validity of the tax but rather to challenge the laws validity under the commerce clause and the ultimate result of ruling that it's a tax was incidental to the original case, not a decision on the validity of the tax itself, which would leave the door open to challenge the tax after someone has paid it. The fact that ACA and Injuntion Act are both acts of congress is irrelevant because no one is alleging that the injunction act in any way invalidates ACA. As far as whether the court should decide whether Congress has exceeded its constitutional power to tax, if the answer is no then we've essentially eradicated the concept of judicial review. That's not necessarily a bad thing. As you well know, the constitution never expressly allocated that role to the court, but rather the door was unlocked in Marbury and kicked open in McCulloch. In short, the court annointed itself the final arbiter of constitutionality. But if the court can't decide whether that act of congress is constitutional, why can it decide whether any act of congress is constitutional?

Well, unless they're ruling that the anti-injunction act is itself unconstitutional I'm not sure how they get around that. Secondly, and I know there have been decisions that uphold the use of taxes to influence activity (which imo is repugnant to the constitution) but this undeniably takes that concept to uncharted territory where it's now hard to consider what limits, if any, congress has in its coercive use of the tax code. Further, Roberts goes on to point out the absurdity that would result (i.e. forcing people to buy vegetables to further health concerns) and then turns around and gives congress the very power to enact such absurdities. He's got some 'splainin to do.

I can't agree with that rationale. On one hand it's arguing that we must follow the rule of law and on the other that we must ignore a law if it's inconvenient to our purpose.

From Roberts: Going as far back as McCulloch it's been understood that the power to tax is the power to destroy. It's functionally absurd to say one doesn't have the power to compel another to do something, but that entity may impose penalties (er, um, taxes) that effectively negate this limitation. Roberts opinion is fairly contrived. I know that modern day Avoidance canon suggests if an interpretation can be construed so as not to violate the constitution it should be done. I don't agree that's what happened here. The logic is flawed. If the penalty is a tax the case isn't ripe. If it isn't a tax, according to Roberts' logic, it is unconstitutional. One need not adhere to strict textualism to find the holes in this argument. Also, and I'll have to revisit my LegReg notes for examples, but Scalia doesn't always adhere to strict textualism. He often uses functional arguments when they advance his argument. Edit: I also have yet to here a solid counterargument to Scalia's point that the court has never "treated as a tax an exaction which faces up to the critical difference between a tax and a penalty, and explicitly denominates the exaction a ‘penalty.’”

Robert's flipped http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-3460_162-57464549/roberts-switched-views-to-uphold-health-care-law/?tag=contentMain;contentBody The more I learn about this the worse it looks for Roberts. A SC justice reviewing a case of this magnitude knows the arguments back and forth before oral arguments come into the picture. For him to switch sides mid-stream looks like he had some agenda beyond proper constitutional interpretation. Whether it was his legacy, the peception of the court, or if he just pussed out to Obama's challenges, it looks like his decision was less than sincere and certainly deserving of great scrutiny. This is a really good post. I think anyone who demonizes insurance companies for denying claims they're not obligated to pay (which isn't nearly as often as the propaganda would indicate) damn well better be giving to "Save the Children."

white-wetback maybe. As a stand-alone that is still highly offensive.

To solidify Obama's legacy

Let's not forget Professor Rock's eye opening analysis of insurance, or "in case ****" as he calls it. I mean really, when you pay into a risk pool to share your collective risk thus mitigating your own, and **** doesn't happen, shouldn't you get some of that money back? (followed by wild applause) Makes you understand how something like Obamacare can get passed in this country.

Tom Cruise with Katie Holmes was like watching my uncle drink delicious Sam Adams after declaring it was horse piss.

Vulture Capitalism - When investors streamline a failing company saving many, but not all, jobs that would have been eliminated when the company went under.

Aren't you here about 3 1/2 centuries early?

Funny how you selectively view it through that prism. Looking to the other side of that coin, doesn't Obama's church STILL believe the white man is the devil? Is it alright for Jack but not Jim here in the good old US of KKKA? And is the outrage put on hold because Obama is black or do we save the outrage for someone from a different political party?

A lot of these statistics are misleading. Educational rankings are largely skewed by significant contingencies whose parents don't value their children's education. Healthcare is debatable; I'm not familiar with the country that's figured the perfect system for that yet. As far as how we treat our elderly I'd like to know who "WE" are b/c people I know take care of their parents. As far as crime, I agree there are WAY too many non-violent drug offenders sitting in our prisons, however, many countries have brutal punishments that do not necessarily include long periods of incarceration. And as to rankings in general, think of football. The best team doesn't always have the best rankings in all categories. Usually they dominate in a few and are middle of the road or worse in others. Sure the U.S is far from perfect, and there are a lot of things that would be handled differently if I had my way, but all things considered it's hard to find a better country overall in terms of overall standard of living and positive contributions to the world.

No, until it's reversed it is binding law that we have to follow regardless of whether or not it is right. "General Welfare" isn't nearly as stretchy as the court has interpreted it to be. And as far as moon rocks, regardless of how I feel about that, there is a discernible difference between spending on a project that purports to add value to society as a whole (science, prestige, whatever) & one that attempts to benefit a small segment at the expense of the society as a whole. Also, the solution (vote for people who don't want to mine moon rocks) ignores the reality that when you vote you vote on a person to represent you on thousands of issues. You're not well represented on that level by the democratic system, which is partially why we need constitutional limitations on the scope of government that can't be easily voted away.

I agree with most of what you said. And I'm just using Meathead as an example. It's really something thar pervades our whole society. I assume it's a product of emotional association. You hear all the stories of slavery/Jim Crow as a child, have a negative visceral reaction, and anytime you hear anything remotely racist the instinctive association with the memory of that feeling produces a strong reflexive reaction. It also seems a substantial portion of just about any group of people that can subdivide itself from society as a whole is trying to find victim status. Whether it's gays, Jews, women, southern straight white males, etc., there is a significant contingency begging for grievances. When TO made some comment about whites being less inclined to get in the end zone I wasn't remotely offended. The evidence suggests he might be right. And I get that out of courtesy we should probably try to avoid saying potentially offensive things that don't need to be said. I also think when someone does say something that could be construed as mildly offensive we should all chill the !@#$ out.

I'm kind of over Pat Tillman. Sure, you have to admire a man who gave up an opportunity millions dream of so that he could serve a greater cause, but I think we somewhat minimize others who sacrificed their lives just like he did. Is the sacrifice an unknown 20 year old with his whole life in front of him somehow less because didn't leave an NFL contract on the table? And as admirable as Pat Tillman's decision was, does it somehow make his political opinions somehow more valid or enlightened than any other soldier? IMO, the real tragedy of his legacy is that rather than letting it be what it is, a sad but nice story of personal sacrifice, it's become a political football over the guy's politics. It's a pointless debate also; I mean, who the !@#$ is changing their view on the issue on account of what Pat Tillman's dying wishes might well have been?

It's debatable whether it's a tax or not. It's a bit of a stretch to call a penalty a tax in the first place and it's also a stretch to say that even if it were a tax it would really be designed to pay the country's debts or to provide for defense or general welfare. There's a reason virtually no legal scholar foresaw this ruling: it's contrived and stretches the language, logic, & precedent. We treat the court's ruling as binding law, so for all intensive purposes ; ) it's the law, but just b/c the court gave this ruling doesn't mean they got it right.

http://abcnews.go.com/m/blogEntry?id=16679399 Alec Baldwin is still the man.