Dante Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 What the bloody !@#$...? Just how broken is the system when someone like that is a Supreme Court justice?
birdog1960 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Could this illustrate the gulf in the mindset between a conservative & a liberal? "Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." maybe we need to hear the rest of the argument and context....from my understanding the medicaid debate was in part to be about whether the federal gov't could demand the states to follow the changes in the bill as a condition of the feds funding the vast majority of it. sounds like she's arguing that giving the states that money is not coercion. sounds reasonable to me. if they don't take the money they don't have to do it. need to hear the rest of the story and confirm or refure that.
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 maybe we need to hear the rest of the argument and context....from my understanding the medicaid debate was in part to be about whether the federal gov't could demand the states to follow the changes in the bill as a condition of the feds funding the vast majority of it. sounds like she's arguing that giving the states that money is not coercion. sounds reasonable to me. if they don't take the money they don't have to do it. need to hear the rest of the story and confirm or refure that. "Big gift"
/dev/null Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Have they decided to give that Georgetown Grad student free birth control yet? I'm waiting with bated breath here. And, anyone got her phone number? Thanks in advance. 867-5309
Chef Jim Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) maybe we need to hear the rest of the argument and context....from my understanding the medicaid debate was in part to be about whether the federal gov't could demand the states to follow the changes in the bill as a condition of the feds funding the vast majority of it. sounds like she's arguing that giving the states that money is not coercion. sounds reasonable to me. if they don't take the money they don't have to do it. need to hear the rest of the story and confirm or refure that. It's not what she said but how she said it. A boatload?!?!?! It's almost as if she **** on your shoes your reply would be "well at least they're nice and shiny." Edited March 28, 2012 by Chef Jim
birdog1960 Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 It's not what she said but how she said it. A boatload?!?!?! kinda like that term...might have been more effective to add "titanic sized".
GG Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 "Big gift" You half expect it would fly over his head.
dayman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) maybe we need to hear the rest of the argument and context....from my understanding the medicaid debate was in part to be about whether the federal gov't could demand the states to follow the changes in the bill as a condition of the feds funding the vast majority of it. sounds like she's arguing that giving the states that money is not coercion. sounds reasonable to me. if they don't take the money they don't have to do it. need to hear the rest of the story and confirm or refure that. 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 Edited March 28, 2012 by dayman
B-Man Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 Could this illustrate the gulf in the mindset between a conservative & a liberal? "Justice Elena Kagan. "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." " No Justice.....No sense" .
Doc Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 To liberals, government money is funny money that just appears out of thin air. It's no wonder they have no qualms taking/spending it.
dayman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 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.
Rob's House Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 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 It's not a whole lot different from you electing to have your bank deduct the money for and pay your mortgage from your pay check only to have them turn around and give you a bunch of conditions you have to now meet before they'll pay the bill. Only in this scenario you can't switch banks or cancel your direct deposit. When you speak up to say "hey but that's my money" you catch a quick fist to the gut. As you double over in pain you hear a deep voice say "that's our money, dayman", then you get hit again, "me and my partner's money".
DC Tom Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 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. Plus...y'know...it's a gift. How is a gift coercive at all?
dayman Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 It's not a whole lot different from you electing to have your bank deduct the money for and pay your mortgage from your pay check only to have them turn around and give you a bunch of conditions you have to now meet before they'll pay the bill. Only in this scenario you can't switch banks or cancel your direct deposit. When you speak up to say "hey but that's my money" you catch a quick fist to the gut. As you double over in pain you hear a deep voice say "that's our money, dayman", then you get hit again, "me and my partner's money". But what is your point? That this should not go on in the State/Federal dynamic? That there should be no federal government?
Alaska Darin Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 "Why is a big gift from the federal government a matter of coercion?" she asked. "It's just a boatload of federal money. It doesn't sound coercive to me, let me tell you." Good thing she's an academic.
Rob's House Posted March 28, 2012 Posted March 28, 2012 (edited) But what is your point? That this should not go on in the State/Federal dynamic? That there should be no federal government? How in God's name do you derive that conclusion? The point is that it's not the Federal Government's money exept that which they tax from the citizens of the states. To say "Here we are, the federal government, handing out free money to you the lucky recipients" is disengenuous at best. The tax and spend provision of the constitution has been so perverted by this type of backwards thinking so as to allow the feds to circumvent the constitutional safeguards designed to prevent them from gaining the leverage they have. Honestly, why is it always an all or nothing thing with you guys? It's always black or white, Communism or Anarchy, All powerful welfare state or Somalia. There is a middle ground. Edited March 29, 2012 by Rob's House
dayman Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 How in God's name do you derive that conclusion? The point is that it's not the Federal Government's money exept that which they tax from the citizens of the states. To say "Here we are, the federal government, handing out free money to you the lucky recipients" is disengenuous at best. The tax and spend provision of the constitution has been so perverted as to allow this type of backwards thinking to allow the feds to circumvent the constitutional safeguards designed to prevent them from gaining the leverage they have. Honestly, why is it always an all or nothing thing with you guys? It's always black or white, Communism or Anarchy, All powerful welfare state or Somalia. There is a middle ground. 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...
Rob's House Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 (edited) 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... Right, I get that. The problem is the feds all to often manipulate the system (and have to the court has allowed this without sound justification) to influence areas they were never intended to influence. It's an end around to grab power by improper means. That whole point was really more of a tangent, though (I have a tendency to stray, I blame the ADD). My main gripe is with the mindset that was put forth by Kagan characterizing the federal government as this benevolent provider as though it is some parental figure distributing the wealth it has created as opposed to the reality that it's just a neighborhood association operating on a national scale who's only resources are those contributed by those it pretends to be the providers for. Edited March 29, 2012 by Rob's House
dayman Posted March 29, 2012 Posted March 29, 2012 Right, I get that. The problem is the feds all to often manipulate the system (and have to the court has allowed this without sound justification) to influence areas they were never intended to influence. It's an end around to grab power by improper means. That whole point was really more of a tangent, though (I have a tendency to stray, I blame the ADD). My main gripe is with the mindset that was put forth by Kagan characterizing the federal government as this benevolent provider as though it is some parental figure distributing the wealth it has created as opposed to the reality that it's just a neighborhood association operating on a national scale who's only resources are those contributed by those it pretends to be the providers for. Well it's not Kagan's fault for characterizing something as it is, as opposed to something you wish it was.
Recommended Posts