dayman

Haha, made me laugh. Leave it to this board to sit here and talk about if the "tables are properly sourced." Jesus...

Also it must be easy to just trash everything, even industry in dire need of reform, and then just say "I'm not going to get into any ideas that may be better." You should be the speaker of the house. Well if you hate the bill because you don't think it's fair that's fine but where was your first amendment grounds haha? There are no first amendment grounds. I would like to here your argument there.

Haha, ok so then the mandate is constitutional b/c it's actually optional if it's cost effective to you!? What? Were you not of the opposite opinion earlier? (I could be wrong I don't keep a notebook of everybody's positions). Anyway the idea there is no link between everyone having the means to afford care, and everyone receiving care isn't something I'll debate. The idea that there should still be FURTHER reform directed at the care industry itself, is fine but doesn't depend on this bill being destroyed. And the point is the uninsured freeriders are ALREADY shifting the burden to the healthcare companies/doctors/us which you know, so they need to be coerced into a plan. Nobody on either side, and no economist, predicts the plan will result somehow in more freeriders and more shifted costs. The scenario where all the healthy 25 year old blow off the mandate in enormous numbers wait until they get sick and then go get insurance they can't be refused and thus take down the entire industry is not something any economist or lawyer has argued. The healthcare industry, if having no other thoughts about the plan, views it as a way to expand the quantity of policy holders getting more healthy people in the pool (reducing the cost of insurance) as well as reducing the amount of uncompensated care doctors end up giving out (and thus reducing the cost of care). To me, Clement put on a show. He was a far superior advocate to any of the other lawyers who argued this issue. Also, I don't think he made Kagan look like a fool.

But do you not think there are problems in the insurance market? This has some real reform to that note. It's a fair to say you want more done about costs but repealing this isn't going to further that. If anything isn't this a serious start to reform? Insurance is socialist it just is...everybody should have it I mean is that what you are really against? What is the main sticking point that makes this something that can't even be worked with? Basically what sort of reform would you imagine that would replace this and needs this to die to exist?

1) Yes, this link is from "Esquire" haha 2) It's still something worth thinking about given the "entitlement mentality" is a popular thing to talk about for many aging baby boomers who comprise the tea party. The War Against Youth The recession didn't gut the prospects of American young people. The Baby Boomers took care of that. Twenty-five years ago young Americans had a chance. In 1984, American breadwinners who were sixty-five and over made ten times as much as those under thirty-five. The year Obama took office, older Americans made almost forty-seven times as much as the younger generation. This bleeding up of the national wealth is no accounting glitch, no anomalous negative bounce from the recent unemployment and mortgage crises, but rather the predictable outcome of thirty years of economic and social policy that has been rigged to serve the comfort and largesse of the old at the expense of the young. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, human potential has been consistently growing, generating greater material wealth, more education, wider opportunities — a vast and glorious liberation of human potential. In all that time, everyone, even followers of the most corrupt or most evil of ideologies, believed they were working for a better tomorrow. Not now. The angel of progress has suddenly vanished from the scene. Or rather, the angel of progress has been sent away. Nobody ever talks about generational conflict. Who wants to bring up that the old are eating the young at the dinner table? How are you going to mention that to your boss? If you're a politician, how are you going to tell your donors? Even the Occupy Wall Street crowd, while rejecting the modes and rhetoric and institutional support of Boomer progressives, shied away from articulating the fundamental distinction that fills their spaces with crowds: young against old. http://www.esquire.com/features/young-people-in-the-recession-0412

Anyway it's besides the point. I doubt the medicare expansion is seen as unconstitutional and I still feel there is no way to tell for sure what will happen to the mandate.

And my point is it is fine to feel that way but that quote isn't an example of that.

Well it's not Kagan's fault for characterizing something as it is, as opposed to something you wish it was.

My point is I understand your analogy is dramatic but I agree with it generally and just point out that is the federal government. Through the constitution the states vested the federal government with certain powers. They function exactly by taking money, and doing things with it giving back in many instances under their own terms. That is the system. The more the states take and give in...well...

But what is your point? That this should not go on in the State/Federal dynamic? That there should be no federal government?

You guys realize that congress controls the money right? It isn't Kagan's business she doesn't care one way or the other she was concerned with how it's coercive. If you want to focus on that, that would be fine.

It was reasonable enough for me. Is taking something away that you already get coercive if you don't wish to comply with the expansion of it. In the past the federal government has threatened to take away money or not give it and so on to get states to comply. Highway funding the most obvious example. Title 9. ETc EdIT: Catching a bit of it in the middle and God Verrilli is getting peppered hard by Roberts/Alito/Scalia

Well I was tied up all morning. I'll have some time in the afternoon and definitely later tonight to listen to the entire thing. I guess it could be a fuzzy line depending on what I hear but all in all a judge trying to save as much of a bill that passed the other two branches (the democratically accountable ones) doesn't seem improper. If the heart of the bill is truly ripped out via the court finding it unconstitutional and as a result it doesn't work by it's own scheme then obviously it would be improper for a judge to keep it alive for purely political reasons...then again people don't all agree what would be more politically beneficial for Obama (strike down or upheld)....any way I'll have to watch myself. My gut instincts are that I probably am not going to have a problem with her questions unless she's literally making ridiculous arguments b/c from what I know there is significant reform beyond the mandate/no denial for preexisting injuries...those two are clearly tied together though but the rest of the Bill is at least open to debate. Also, generally speaking once again I want to say people read too much into the oral arguments. Despite the line of questioning...there is another principle that may well swing Kennedy and/or Roberts to uphold the mandate and that's the very basic separation of powers doctrine. If it's a close call (and most would agree that this is) then you must fall back on the presumption that congress passed a constitutional act. They are democratically accountable and Marbury v. Madison does not say that the supreme court is the sole decider of what is constitutional it merely created the doctrine of judicial review...most early visions of the united states put forth by the Framers envisioned a world where the 3 branches in unison would decide questions of constitutionality. The proper role of the court in a situation like this must weigh heavy on the minds of all the justices and IMO the TRULY conservative thing to do here is to upheld by the slimmest of margins crediting congressional deference as the trump card that put it over the edge. Also, the political consequences and timing IMO could be considered. The court is allowed to factor in the consequences to the other branches it's rulings will have.

Not sure what you are talking about and I haven't watched today's arguments yet. Are you talking about generally deciding severability? That would be something courts routinely do when striking down portions of more general schemes is to decide if the entire thing is void or if just that portion is...or are you talking about something more specific that you think she did that was crossing the line? If so do tell I'll look for it when I watch and let ya know what I think.

Hippocratic Oath is older than our constitution....jus sayin'

Don't remember. Gun to my head I would say Ginsburg said it IRRC.

Keep in mind stand your ground mainly applies where both people have a legal right to be in the area. This guys was breaking and entering. There's a difference. Most states allow you to use deadly force when someone breaks into your "castle" although you still need to fear for death or serious bodily injury (though such fear is usually assumed and on the defendant to rebut). Also like Exile said this guy was a past-criminal who was not supposed to have a gun (if I read correctly while skimming). Bottom line this story has little to do with Stand Your Ground in Florida or Treyvon Martin.

Well I think the idea is force those people into the system. And I thought the number they were going with was $1000 not $800 but could be wrong.

It's a difficult job and they certainly may be guilty in "stretching" logic more in one direction than another to reach a determination more in line with their view of the constitution. But not to support party politics. This is a huge deal in terms of commerce clause jurisprudence. It is something they will all take seriously this case will be around long after Obama and the current Repubs.

They really do decide legal questions to the best of their abilities according to how they view the constitution. They don't have some "agenda that is beyond the constitution" that is precisely what they are sworn not to have and they all take that seriously. That is what I believe.

It really just isn't true. Not true. There is probably nothing that would cause you to think otherwise though.

Just got done with the entire thing. Honestly it's almost as if that guy did more harm than good. Their first lawyer did such an outstanding job following the bumbling solicitor that they didn't need more. Then that guy got up their like Bill O'Reilly and was somewhat combative and generally brought a demeanor that hurt their cause, something the first guy was excellent at avoiding. Not that any of this will matter in the end I'm sure but it was interesting to see his approach.

Like it or not there's a legal presumption they know what they're talking about.

There are 4 Dem- and 4 Repub-appointed judges who in the past have voted along those lines. Kennedy was Repub-appointed, but has been a wildcard with his decisions. Yea but that isn't the way it always works being a conservative judge is not the same as being a conservative political person and to use one example many though Scalia would support the mandate based on his strong view of the commerce clause. At this point it doesn't seem like Scalia is leaning that way...but who knows! Anyway all I'm saying is this one isn't "all on Kennedy" as is the common view (even though it's an over simplification in most situations and not just this one).

Ya what was great was day 1 where you have Roberts clearly showing he feels a toothless legal obligation is no obligation at all. Then Kagan clearly feels the opposite. To me anyway, based on the questioning. Any 5 year old has weighed this idea in their head about the countless rules their mom gives them. Is it a rule if there is no punishment? Yet there are two distinguished judges with what at least seems clear (through questioning...but again I'm the one saying it isn't smart to read into that) that disagree about that.